Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316

Archive 310←Archive 314Archive 315Archive 316Archive 317Archive 318→Archive 320

Requiring article talk page notifications for RfCs that would remove references used in those articles

There is an increasing trend to hold an RfC here to deprecate a source, which is then followed up by editors removing existing references to that source from articles. However, there are currently no notifications on articles or their talk pages that a source is being considered for deprecation (unlike templates, where {{tfd}} appears in the articles affected). This is effectively a fait accompli - editors working on article content that aren't watching this page don't hear about the discussion until it's too late to participate in it.

I propose requiring that notifications linking to the RfC are added to the talk pages of affected articles so that article editors can participate in the RfCs before they are closed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey (talk page notifications)

  • Support as proposer. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some sources are used in hundreds or thousands of articles. To put notices on every talk page would be spam. (t · c) buidhe 18:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Buidhe. It's not practical to send up to tens of thousands of talk page messages every time a source is discussed. Many RfCs on this noticeboard do not result in deprecation even when it is presented as one of four options. As an alternative, RfCs on widely-cited sources have been promoted on the centralized discussion template, which is displayed on most noticeboards. Editors can opt into receiving updates by watchlisting Template:Centralized discussion. — Newslinger talk 19:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Newslinger and Buidhe: Perhaps a notice could only be triggered if the source is likely to be deprecated? If it affects so many articles then it's even more important to provide some sort of notice. I can't see how watchlisting Template:Centralized discussion would help, since the discussions aren't in the edit summaries, and most editors wouldn't know to look at it (first time I've seen it in 15 years!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    I can't support this kind of trigger, since it would interfere with consensus-building (and only when the RfC is likely to find a certain result). Here's an analogy: when an article is nominated for deletion, we don't automatically notify all of the editors (potentially hundreds or thousands) who have contributed to that article, even though the deletion discussion might result in the removal of their contributions. Doing so would be disruptive due to the number of notifications and would be considered improper canvassing, since in most cases, an editor who has invested time and effort into an article is more likely to defend the article than an editor who has not done so, regardless of whether there is a good reason to keep/delete the article. Implementing automatic large-scale notifications for sources being examined on this noticeboard would be similarly disruptive, and result in a similar influx of editors who are more likely to defend a cited source because they have invested time and effort into bringing an article to its current state, regardless of whether the source is reliable. However, I can support notifying related WikiProjects about RfCs on this noticeboard, which would be similar to the article alerts that are generated by deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that CENT is not as visible as it should be, but ultimately the objective should be to make CENT more visible, rather than trying to make templates appear across thousands of pages, which is impractical. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Support I appreciate the idea of having more invested eyes on discussions, however I feel this may be a solution looking for a problem. My impression with this board is sourcing specialists commenting on potential sources.
    Adding dozens, or hundreds of invested comments will unlikely change the outcomes and instead will likely add grief to those monitoring the board. Gleeanon 19:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Gleeanon409: I'm raising this because it is a problem - I've seen multiple sources removed from articles I've worked on without being able to participate in the discussion (for the latest, see Talk:Nan Rendong). Wikipedia doesn't work by 'specialists', it works by consensus, and if you don't involve the editors affected then you shouldn't be claiming consensus. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Looking at Talk:Nan Rendong you appear to be talking about CGTN. The CGTN discussion was extremely well attended and the consensus was overwhelming, there really isn't much of a question about whether CGTN has published misinformation so deprecation was a no-brainer. Are you suggesting the discussion was somehow deficient or that consensus would have been different with even greater participation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back: This isn't about a single reference (which is why I didn't mention it at the start of this discussion), it's about the general approach that is taken when deprecating a source. If this page decided to deprecate NASA, how would I know about it until the references start to be removed? Or if you want to focus on CGTN and this specific article, it was unexpectedly removed, I checked it and it looked OK, so I restored it, it was then removed again, and I restored it with a request to discuss it on the talk page, after which it was undone again and I started a discussion on the talk page. I'm still waiting for a link to the discussion about CGTN. Can you provide it, please? Mike Peel (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    You might want to try going to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and then ctrl f-ing until you find it. Why am I having to tell you how to find something so basic? Aren’t you an admin or something? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back: Link 1 is to [1], it was a discussion to no consensus. Link 2 is to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"CGTN"_and_"CGTN_America",_both_Chinese_media_outlets, which is, um, this page but a section that doesn't seem to exist. No link to a consensus discussion, let alone a discussion that I can contribute to? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    The relevant RfC is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RFC:_China_Global_Television_Network. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    Click on the blue arrow box/2020 above link 1 and 2 or just click the link provided by Nikkimaria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back and Nikkimaria: Ah, I see! It was above the links I was looking at, and just saying '2020' wasn't too helpful. You hid the link well. So the next step is that I should add a comment at [2]? Except, of course, that discussion is now closed - so what should I now do to be able keep the reference in the article? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    After consideration it does seem to be a valid concern of cultural imperialism, among other factors, leading to a partial or full depreciation of sources that actually may have valid sourcing issues on Wikipedia but are being dismissed wholesale.
    I also think it’s unrealistic that the editors who are building articles would be watching CENT or other project pages but they might see a notice on the article talk page that’s on their watchlist. At the end of the day we want to make the best decision and those using the sources might have un-obvious knowledge.
    I suggest a trial of a bot notification triggered after a 7-day period or so if it seems some sort of depreciation is likely. The bot could target a mix of articles 1) with the most use of the source, and 2) most actively edited articles. Gleeanon 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, if none of us respected consensuses we weren’t personally involved in then things would fall apart here pretty quickly. This is a bad idea both on a practical and philosophical level. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The more general issue here is setting a best practice for notification when some robot is making editorial decisions at scale. Should this discussion only happen at the established Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group or should there be some broader Wikipedia community discussion? When the BAG was established the bot activity was relatively low and more about maintenance. Increasingly bots are making editorial decisions, which is unlike prior bots managing templates or administration. Just to throw out an idea: if a bot is going to execute editorial decisions, then as a pilot, it should post messages on the talk pages. Perhaps a good scale would be
    • First 10 articles - post on talk page of all
    • 100 - 1000 articles - post on 10% of them
    • More than 1000 - post on 100 talk pages
A diverse editorial conversation should happen before operating at scale. I do not think the conversation should be endless, but the conflicts between humans and automation in the editorial space are growing. We need to have a well developed process which people trust for this. Limiting conversations to mostly technically minded editors is not viable when the effect is an editorial, and not only maintenance, decision. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
No one is talking about bots executing editorial decisions, and this isn't a particularly technical-focused board. It's not clear how this post relates to the discussion at issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
No Bluerasberry this has nothing whatsoever to do with bot editing, there are no bot removals going on here - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with bots, and no bot has ever made an editorial decision wrt to content. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
It is challenging for me to imagine a situation where someone wants to remove 100s or 1,000s of citations and does not consider using bots to execute. I anticipate a future where bots facilitate the removal of deprecated sources. If consensus is in opposition to that then great. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I'm sympathetic to the principle at issue - I would actually say TfDs and similar have the same problem, since even though there is a visible notice it doesn't trigger on watchlists unless you watch the affected template itself - I agree with commenters above regarding the practical issues with this proposal. In most cases it would be more trouble than it's worth, and in the few cases where deprecation does result I'm concerned it would bring more heat than light. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: At least until a credible solution to ensure higher impact depreciations see sufficient audience; taking the "short-cut" effectively excludes most contributors from discussion. It takes very little effort to depreciate a source, it takes a far far far greater effort to repair the damage. If a lot of talk page need to contacted then the same number of article pages will also need edits; One might argue Template:Unreliable-source?Template:Unreliable source? or Template:Self-published source? should be applied to the same number of pages after the decision to alert readers to the problem. So if its going to have a wide impact then widespread warnings should be given. Just because it looks "too hard" doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It appears there is no template for “Unreliable source”. Surely this would be a better solution than something on the talk page. Downsize43 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I'vw fixed the typo in the "unreliable source?" template. That can only be applied post-discussion, ie after the discussion result, which is too later to enter the discussion.00:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the problem is the deprecation of sources per se, it's that some editors then remove the citations, or worse the citation and the content it cites, without apparently making any serous effort to find a suitable alternative citation, or without reading the surrounding text and considering the effect on it that such a removal of content has. I've seen this happen, even when RfCs have said that the source may be used if no alternative is available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Pigsonthewing: Agree. We need to take WP:PRESERVE and WP:CAUGHT UP more seriously than we currently do. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we have a central place to advertise RFCs already, and the RFCs go there; and this proposal would trivially not scale, as noted already. And the proposal turns out to be a procedural objection to the slam-dunk deprecation of CGTN after an attempt to edit-war it back in, which, um. Can you show a better example of claimed harm that quite such a wide-ranging response as this would clearly be proportionate to? - David Gerard (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per buidhe. This would only serve to annoy the vast majority of editors, especially in snow cases. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Not notifying editors who are going to be directly affected by a RFC is highly problematic. In fact, failure to notify nullifies the local group decisions that are made on this board. As has been stated by many editors the perennial list of sources is simply advice for editors. Please note the quote at the top of that page "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Many of the individuals who oppose the notification process are the same individuals who are highly active on this noticeboard. These individuals unfortunately have gained too much unchecked decision making power. The Wikipedia community is going to have to deal with this problematic concentration of power. Notification of the wider community of editors who will be affected by these endless RFCs on this board is one step in the right direction. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a public notice board everyone can look at and edit. Nor are editors affected by these decisions, content is. These are not "your" articles, they are ours. Source only get brought here (and deprecated) when their use becomes an issue with accuracy or fairness.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some deprecated sources are used in tens of thousands of articles, and notification like this would basically amount to WP:CANVASSing in some cases. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support — the trend to deprecate news sources from countries considered to be strategic rivals of the Anglo-American world (e.g. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela) has been accelerating. Often, editors here represent a small and not necessarily representative subset of the larger Wikipedia community, and decisions to deprecate are not based on falsification of the news itself, but instead upon editorial views. I'll be blunt: the removal of international sources is converting an international encyclopedia into a parochial and politically biased source of information, and this trend is destructive to Wikipedia.
    • First, it cannot be a bad thing to involve larger numbers of people in these discussions. The idea that people working on articles where these sources are used are naturally biased contributors is an admission that the decisions being made here might not be supported by the broader community.
    • Second, what has happened to the longstanding practice of using this board to evaluate sources and claims on a case-by-case basis? Those discussions were fascinating and helpful. By contrast the deprecation discussions appear to devolve into us-versus-them, black-and-white groupthink where the Cold War is invoked as a positive model.
    • Third, the deprecation trend, and the manner in which it has become popular, needs a broader and high-level discussion on Wikipedia. The proposal here is a good stop-gap measure, but more input is needed on how and why large numbers of international papers from major countries — including the word's two nuclear superpowers that aren't the United States, and the world's most populous country — are suddenly being removed from this site. -Darouet (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Perhaps @Mike Peel:’s suggestion that if depreciation looked likely then bot talkpage notifications should go out deserves more consideration. Maybe triggered at the 7-day mark so there’s time before the discussion ends? Gleeanon 15:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Buidhe as plainly impractical; it'd make the InternetArchiveBot spam seem mild by comparison. But I do think it's important to have adequate notification for the bigger discussions here at places like WP:CENT and perhaps the WikiProjects of the countries where the news outlet is based (to address Darouet's point above). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Slatersteve, JzG here; also WP:NOTBURO. Major proposed deprecations can go on the centralized discussion template. Neutralitytalk 17:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    Neutrality, absolutely agree: we need to make sure that participation in deprecation RfCs is meaningful. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, patiently unworkable and would frequently spam massive numbers of articles. We regularly have centralized discussions that will affect large numbers of articles and generally do not post notifications on each of them. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I would like to re-emphasize Darouet point. The zeal with which people remove content from articles that are only tangentially related to why the source was deprecated also shows that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Mass blanking of pages is exactly the censorship we often rail against.Albertaont (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support within a reasonable, practical limit. If you know that it's used in 10 (or maybe 20?) articles, then you can copy and paste a one-sentence template notice to those talk pages. If it's 50 or 100 articles, then we can't do that manually, and maybe we either don't do it, or we have a bot do it. Also, hopefully this would make it obvious when editors try to ban sources that aren't being used at all, which is a pointless and WP:CREEPy waste of everyone else's time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    To give an example, at the top of this page is an RFC about The Mail on Sunday. The person who started the RFC writes "it's only been cited 11 times". Surely we could notify eleven talk pages? The other current RFCs involve more (those URLs are in approximately 100 to 3,000 articles), but when the numbers are so low, it seems only appropriate to notify the potentially affected articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
As I stated in the RfC, the Mail on Sunday situation is complicated, there were many hundreds of citations to print references to the Mail on Sunday, and some of the citations from the Daily Mail website were likely based on MoS content, but it's impossible to know by just looking at the url. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • WhatamIdoing, at time of deprecation there were 2,000 citations to royalark.net and over 3,750 to worldstatesmen.org. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    Those are good examples of when not to post thousands of notices. If the RFC is about subject-specific sources, then it might be useful to notify a relevant WikiProject, or maybe to tag a couple of pages, but I don't think we should post thousands, or even hundreds, of notices. When the source is only used in a few articles, I see no reason why those few articles can't be notified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not practical and biased. Notifying hundreds of talk pages would cause more trouble than any potential gain. It would also lead to the question of a biased selection of respondents, as pages that avoided using the potentially unreliable source would not be notified. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as practical and reduces bias. Practical efforts to improve and widen community participation in sourcing policy decisions should be supported. This is a great example. We should not discount a proposal such as this based on one technical (and extremely dubious) argument about it being time-consuming or requiring a bot. Page watchers who both support and are against the use of a source will be notified. Cambial foliage❧ 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    "requiring a bot" should not be seen as a barrier here - it's straightforward to code one that looks for a given URL and posts notices on the talk page. I could easily code a bot to do this, but I wouldn't want to operate it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I symphatise with Guy here. It's not practical as it would lead to living with the chore of puting notifications on thousands of articles in some cases and it would "definetely" lead to canvassing(WP:CAN).Lordpermaximum (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose generally, even if feasibly possible, as we risk veering into spam/disruptive territory when CENT does it fine. If it's, say, less than 20 pages, then I can be considered neutral as to whether this should be done. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some of the deprecated sources were used in thousands of pages. Requiring thousands of notifications to be written is a time-consuming action, without a guarantee that it would broaden the number of editors who choose to participate in the discussion. Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Rebel News

An editor has attempted to add Rebel News to the Jessica Yaniv article. I consider Rebel News to be a highly unreliable web site, that's never usable for facts, and definitely not facts about a living person. It's fairly well known in Canada, and it's likely others would also try to use, so I feel it should be added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. As discussed on the Talk:Jessica Yaniv#Rebel News is not reliable, but is SPAM, they actually use articles like this about the subject of the article, to fundraise for a court case against them. The owner/operator of the Rebel News, Ezra Levant has repeatedly lost libel cases against himself (see article for sources). The site is really a commentary site, not a news web site.

At the moment, nobody seems to be arguing the site is reliable. The editor who added it, seems to be arguing that it's not blacklisted, and is therefore allowed. --Rob (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear Thivierr/Rob, it was this paragraph and source from the Washington Times[3] that you first objected to and you deleted. Your action based on ??? saw the need to seek another secondary source covering the LifeSiteNews topic, meaning RebelNews remained as the only secondary source left. There is also a primary source covering this confirmable topic (i.e. they are back up on Twitter) but you would have objected to that as well. CatCafe (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
LifeSiteNews, Rebel News on a BLP? uh - David Gerard (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The only sources for that information are the Washington Times and this? I certainly say I completely agree with Rob on how that sourcing is unacceptable, especially for a BLP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
No that's not all, as the sentence is about LifeSitesNews' interactions with Yaniv, it probably would have been preferable to use the LifeSitesNews own primary source[4] for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" as per WP:ORIGINAL - & the Primary also includes a screenshot that explains the sentence editor Wisefroggy was trying to add at the time. I sort of would have expected the editors to change the source to the primary and amend the sentence to the "straightforward, descriptive statement" as is allowed. CatCafe (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, considering this discussion is not about the reliability of LifeSiteNews, but Rebel News, I fail to see how the ABOUTSELF defence is relevant. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Great, and thanks for that and pointing me toward WP:ABOUTSELF. Appreciated. CatCafe (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • For the avoidance of doubt, Washington Times is also an entirely inappropriate source for a BLP. ABOUTSELF is also a qualified exception: we should not use it to include anything remotely controversial, it's there to cover cases where a subject provides additional minor details like a town of birth rather than a state. Highly partisan sources of low reputation (e.g. LSN) are an absolute no-no in biographies. We would not use Daily Kos as a source on a right-wing grifter, either. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
For a BLP mainstream sources are required for anything controversial, but this would probably be removed even if the section was "Twitter controversies". Without additional mainstream sources like AP or Reuters to support the content, Rebel News and Washington Times (or Truthout or Huffpo) are often the only source for the contentious content they publish. It impacts the "brand" of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Spudlace (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"We would not use Daily Kos as a source on a right-wing grifter, either." Daily Kos is not a news website, nor does it claim to be. When news items are cited there, they are mostly republished from other sources. Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

José Bustani on The Grayzone

The Grayzone is a deprecated source; however, José Bustani has been recently interviewed there and made several noteworthy claims. Would it be acceptable to use the interview as a source of the claims, clearly attributing them to The Grayzone and Bustani? This looks like something allowed by WP:DEPREC. BeŻet (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Have these claims been repeated by any secondary source? If not, they may well be undue since ABOUTSELF is a pretty limited exception. (t · c) buidhe 15:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
If the comments are specific replies to things said about Bustani and he is replying via The Grayzone interview then I think they qualify as "about self". So if a number of sources have noted that Bustani, for example, hates cheese then a comment from Bustani from The Grayzone interview saying he likes cheese despite the rumors to the contrary would be allowable as ABOUTSELF. Since The Grayzone is not a RS (I assume based on the question) then it can't establish weight for a topic but it can act as Bustani's point of reply to DUE topics raised by other sources. In this regard it would be similar to a personal blog with replies to some public comments about Bustani. Springee (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Springee, not unless other people have decided they are sufficiently credible to merit discussion. We're not a newspaper. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies so far. For instance if we were to say:José Bustani claimed during an interview with The Grayzone that he has been spied on while working at the OPCW - would that require a secondary source which talks about said interview, or do we feel that the primary source in this case is enough? BeŻet (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If no other source has covered him saying that he has been spied on, leave the claim out. If there is such a source, include that source and what that source says, and you can then also link to the interview as a source for a direct quote. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a pretty extraordinary claim from Bustani. If there is no evidence but the fact that he stated it during an interview, it's pretty hard to be WP:DUE. If it is covered in a secondary source, then cite that source rather than Grayzone. (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Buidhe. That sentence would either need secondary sourcing talking about this subject or it would need to be clearly in reply to something said about him. Given the nature of the claim it would have to be something like "RS says Buidhe's private information was found online during the time he worked for the OPCW." It would have to be a really solid RS statement to allow this as an ABOUTSELF reply to something. TLDR/ as presented here I think it should stay out. Springee (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
If the only source for something is Grayzone, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. If it's literally the video of Bustani saying something, that would be an ABOUTSELF primary source, and might be usable with due weight - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it okay?

Is it okay if I ask: where can I find someone or something who or which can quickly check some 450 cites on Cleavage (breasts) to see which cites are unacceptable? It is alright if there is no one or nothing that can help. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I just removed some HTML errors and ran the Organize References bot on the page.
It would help a lot if you took the following steps.
  • For each cite, follow the link (if there is one) and verify that the source supports the claim. Remove all unsourced claims with the edit summary "failed verification".
  • For each cite, use the "Search the noticeboard archives" feature on this page to see if we have discussed it before. If we found it unreliable, remove the claim and the cite with an edit summary containing a link to the RSN discussion
Let's see how many cites that gets rid of, then we can discuss the ones that are left. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
My assessment is that the article is simply too big and should have several larger sections spun-off into their own articles. On each spun-off article the volume is more reasonable for checking each ref, rather than the 400+ currently.
With each spin-off you can aim to get GA status, and solicit WP:GOCE to help. Gleeanon 15:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
A faster way to check at a glance whether any sources are considered generally unreliable or deprecated is to use a script from Headbomb that highlights and underlines such refs. JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Guy Macon, Gleeanon409, and JoelleJay: How good is this one: "McCombe, Richard; Ginsburg, Cora & Haverfield, Kay (1982). The Undercover Story. New York: Fashion Institute of Technology. p. 11. ASIN B006A9QUU4."?
One thing: I myself have put almost all of those cites. I am sure that they do cover the article text, no chance of verification fails. But I am unaware of the credibility of some of the sources, and unsure of some. Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 01:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That book should be OK, as it was published by a legit academic institution. However it is very obscure[5] and therefore carries less WEIGHT. Also, you should ideally use ISBN or OCLC to identify the book rather than ASIN. (t · c) buidhe 06:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Undercover Story is being used to support the claim "Falsies evolved from the bosom pads of the 17th century that were often made of stiff rubber." A quick search on the authors brought me to this NYT obituary[6] which says Ginsburg was "a prominent dealer in antique fabrics and clothing" and "She helped develop the field of costume in the worlds of antiques and museums, sharing her knowledge with a number of museums in the United States and elsewhere." So you have citation from a recognized expert in the area of antique clothing supporting a claim about antique clothing, so on that basis I would say that this is a high quality reliable source for that claim.
I also looked for info on Richard McCombe but there are too many websites about the English barrister and judge. Also, if [7] is correct, McComb wrote the introductory essay. I couldn't find any info on Haverfield. Quiestion: is the passage you are using attributed to all three or just one? If it's under the name of just McCombe, Ginsburg, or Haverfield (some multi author books say who wrote each chapter, some don't) you should just use the one name as the author. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that we are going to find a less obscure source for the claim "Falsies evolved from the bosom pads of the 17th century that were often made of stiff rubber". There aren't very many sources that discuss 17th century bosom pads. Our article section Falsies#Bosom pads has no sources at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Today I also learned how to check the quality of a source. Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 06:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources about Pokemon

I want to create an article about Sirfetch'd, but I'm not sure where to start. Can someone help me out? UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles on Pokemon species generally should not be created unless there is evidence of independent notability separate from Pokemon itself, like real world coverage of the specific pokemon that is independent from Nintendo/GameFreak. The vast majority of Pokemon species do not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I think it is unlikely Sirfetch'd passes. With 47 entries Category:Pokémon species is arguably due for an AfD wave. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't sirfetch'd a long awaited evolution that was rumored in Gen 2? Or the fact that its in Pokemon go, or even its reveal video getting tons of reactions? I'm sure I can find something. I just.....don't know what to look for. UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This is not a place to ask where you can look for sources. But wp:rs might give you some idea about what is and is not acceptable, as would wp:rsp.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes fans have been clamouring for an evolution to everyones favorite leek/onion wielding duck for a long time. But it is unlikely to have been specifically called out even in videogame-specific media. Your best bet is to take a look at the wikiproject:videogaming list of sources here, then do a search to see if they have any articles that specifically focus on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This is probably what I needed to do my Sirfetch'd article on. So if I look up Sirfetch'd and any of those sites appear, I can use them in my article? That really helps! UB Blacephalon (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

MusicNotes and Vocal Registers

There is an issue across Wikipedia song articles of songs sung by males where many of them list the vocal register as being an octave above what it actually is. This is due to an error in MusicNotes transcriptions where they do not differentiate between the octave of a male vocal melody and a female vocal melody. Because of this there are a number of Wikipedia song articles that list male vocalists as singing in the vocal range of sopranos, when in fact the actual pitches that the males sing in each song is an octave below that. These articles incorrectly state the singer of the song as singing in that high range, when it is that MusicNotes incorrectly transcribes the vocal melody as being an octave higher than it is. I outline a number of examples of Wikipedia song articles with this issue in this previously had discussion, as well as further expand on the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Music_Notes_Reliability_As_A_Source

The reliability of MusicNotes as a source has been brought up here before, however the issue in that discussion was of a different nature. They were discussing the general credibility of Music Notes but didn't actually have any issue with the content that it was providing and they all agreed the information offered from Music Notes was correct. The issue in that discussion was whether it was reliable enough to speak to the recorded version of the song but did not have any specific grievances with any of the information itself from Music Notes. What I'm pointing out is a bit of a different matter since it is evidence of demonstrably incorrect information that we are using rather than being correct information that comes from a source we aren't entirely confident in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Musicnotes.com

It is likely quite evident that I am unfamiliar with the mechanisms of Wikipedia editing and thus do not feel that this is an issue I am fully-equipped to undertake. I merely have the knowledge necessary to bring forward this issue in hopes that it is able to be resolved, as I have seen a number of people confused as to why Wikipedia lists so many songs as incorrectly having such a high vocal range. My apologies if anything in my formatting or protocol is incorrect here, I was referred to take this issue here when my previous efforts of correcting this were not effective. Chukulem (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • 99.9999999999999% of sources ascribing vocal ranges to pop singers are bullshit. If you're not a classically trained singer then vocal range is almost always a matter of fans guessing. This is no exception. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    This is partly true, but on the other hand it's unlikely that male pop singers are really singing in the soprano range without using falsetto. This is a commercial company, it's probably accurate enough for the melody of a song (in general—it could be in a different key or octave) but not more than that. (t · c) buidhe 23:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah the vast majority of sources talking about pop vocalists range are extremely generous with what they consider a correctly sung note (I myself am a classically trained singer but that's neither here nor there), but that's not actually the issue here with MusicNotes. They correctly transcribe the vocal melody, the issue is that they notate it in the treble clef an octave above where the male is singing (rather than using the treble clef with an 8 underneath that indicates the pitch is to be performed an octave lower than written, which is the clef generally used for tenors in choral writing or often for guitar). The melody itself is correctly transcribed, just it is notated incorrectly designating the pitch as being an octave higher than it actually is. This leads to Wikipedia articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shut_Up_and_Dance_(Walk_the_Moon_song)#Composition_and_lyrics stating that the male singer reaches an F6 (A perfect 4th above soprano C) which is very obviously incorrect. This issue is evident in all 28 Wikipedia articles I listed in my previously linked discussion, and I grabbed those links after a cursory glance so I am certain this issue is present in many more song articles across Wikipedia. Chukulem (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep, it's definitely an extraordinary claim that a male singer hits F6. This is also the sort of intricate detail that isn't likely to belong in an article (opera makes a big deal over high notes, pop music not so much). (t · c) buidhe 04:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Per Buidhe, even if scrupulously referenced, this is the sort of WP:TRIVIA that likely is not necessary in the articles in question. Being well referenced is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion of some fact. Merely being verifiable and true is not enough, there also needs to be consensus that the fact is relevant to the narrative, and not some trivial detail that is unnecessary. I would say that the specific notes hit during a particular song ventures into the "trivial" category, and should not normally be included even if it were well referenced. --Jayron32 14:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
So would the proposed solution then be to delete the incorrect ranges entirely, to correct those ranges, or to get rid of the vocal range sections across all song articles? Chukulem (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Also is it worth noting that I have reached out to MusicNotes to correct the issue and they have responded saying they'll forward the feedback and propose either acknowledging the issue or making an amendment to their vocal range listing? It is unlikely they would be able to change their system quickly but it would give us reliably correct information to help fix the errors if they actually do change it. Chukulem (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of a UNESCO-published webpage

In University of the People, Weatherextremes has repeatedly inserted the following sentence: "According to UNESCO the University works with other universities and governments to advise, teach and partner with them on how to launch an online education system to meet the current need and demand in light of the Covid-19 pandemic."

It's obvious that the source is published on a UNESCO website but I cannot find any other information about its reliability. The information certainly reads as if it's written by the university and not an independent third-party. Except for a statement at the bottom of the page that says that "UNESCO does not endorse any product, service, brand or company," I cannot find any information that says how the information was written, whether it was fact-checked, how errors are corrected, or any other information that would allow us to know if it's reliable. ElKevbo (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

My read of that information looks like information made by the university entity supplied to UNESCO (hence the disclaimer) to publish, and thus should be taken as primary and of limited reliability. UNESCO itself is a UN entity and would be normally reliable but this is not UN "generated" information. --Masem (t) 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
To spotcheck (given the question of this below), other pages show text with "we" language eg Save the Children, Errison, etc. which is not something I would expect to see in text if it were generated by UNESCO themselves - they would use third-person. This drives the point that UNESCO likely asked each company to provide statements for the website to promote. --Masem (t) 00:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
ElKevbo, Weatherextremes is an assiduous promoter of UofP. Any source - primary, affiliated, whatever - that promotes them, will be added, and unless you have several hours per day to spend arguing it will end up crowbarred in. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Masem that this is not from UNESCO. I would also say even if it was that there is a significant a difference reliability wise between the official publications of a UN organization and random pages on their websites or their social media accounts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Masem and Horse Eye. This looks like re-hosted content, and thus cannot be used except for WP:ABOUTSELF content (which the sentence at issue is not). The use of the source/sentence is thus inappropriate. Neutralitytalk 00:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
My take is that the UNESCO source is credible and reputable. I don't see any evidence that it is actually written by UoPeople. I mean I doubt that any organization can dictate anything to UNESCO. The source is reputable and should stay Weatherextremes (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
On what basis are making those judgements? Simply being published on a UNESCO website does not mean that the source is reliable. Who wrote it? Why was it published? Do they have a reputation for fact-checking and corrections? How can we consider any page on that website a reliable source when UNESCO itself says that "UNESCO does not warrant that the information, documents and materials contained in its website is complete and correct and shall not be liable whatsoever for any damages incurred as a result of its use." ElKevbo (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the information is published in the UNESCO websites makes it reliable information. We are talking about an highly reputable organization. Of course UNESCO is right to point out that they do not endorse anyone. The main question is how can you prove that this information was written by UoPeople when it originally appears in the UNESCO website? Weatherextremes (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, merely being published on the UNESCO website does not make it reliable. Meeting our standards for reliability is what makes a source reliable. And the burden of proof is on an editor who inserts new information and claims that the supporting source is reliable. So please stop repeating yourself and dodging the central question: What evidence do you have that this source is reliable (other than the website that hosts it)? ElKevbo (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem using the source, the problem is with the wording it's being used to support: it doesn't match the source. It's not UNESCO saying it, and that's not what the website says. Moreover, the UoP is the last-mentioned in a long list on the website. Furthermore, the source says curious things like "UoPeople is a non-profit, tuition-free, accredited American online university ... Students pay a minimum assessment free [sic] of $100 per course" which makes me question whether it was merely emailed in and never checked. A better idea would be to write "the UoP is among more than one hundred members of UNESCO's Global Education Coalition" and cite it to this list page on the same site: [8]. GPinkerton (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    • How can you be non-profit if you charge for courses and don't offer tuition (i.e., no staff costs)? And can I start my own online non-profit non-tuition university too? Achar Sva (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I beg to differ. The burden of proof lies with the editor who has doubts on the content of a credible source such as UNESCO. ElKevdo should be the one to provide sufficient evidence that the statement is actually written by UoPeople when it appears originally only in the UNESCO website. The source is credible until we see proof otherwise. Please include it in the article. Weatherextremes (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's foolish to insist that we assume sources are reliable until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is always on the editor who claims that a source is reliable. ElKevbo (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, what is actually foolish is to assume that UNESCO is not a reliable source Weatherextremes (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Weatherextremes, what is foolish is to keep promoting a thing and then arguing endlessly against anyone who pushes back. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Also what GPinkerton suggests seems a fair compromise and I could go with that.It actually makes it more neutral in terms of wording.Weatherextremes (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we're not considering the context of this source enough. Yes, this statement was probably written by the university and UNESCO probably asked for the members of the coalition to write their own statements. That being said, the context of this statement is that the University of the People is a member of the Global Education Coalition, an entity which deals with revamping learning in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. This isn't something that's disputed and while I don't believe the current wording is supported by the source (specifically the part about how they're advising others on how to launch an online educational system) I do believe that the general idea that UofP is working with governments by means of the Global Education Coalition to support education during and after the COVID-19 pandemic is supported by the source above. That's explicitly outlined by the Global Education Coalition website which outlines the objectives of the coalition and that the only people who can request assistance from the coalition are national governments. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Chess, and the inevitable riposte is: who cares? Did they self-nominate? Is it exclusive or inclusive? We deal with this by reference to reliable independent secondary sources. In the absence of those it's WP:UNDUE, added by a user whose history shows about a quarter of all their edits being to this article, its talk page, and the complaints that editing has generated. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy I have been a wiki editor for the past decade and I have consistently edited mostly around meteorology and climatology and occasionally on education. I have repeatedly said that I have been impressed by UoPeople and I have been researching this institution for the past 5 years. I do not see how this is an argument you can use on the reliability of the UNESCO source. To answer your question I believe a lot of people care! Especially in light of Covid-19.I am proposing to change the wording in the article according to what Chess has said. It will make it more neutral and given that it is from a reliable source it will improve overall the quality of the article Weatherextremes (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Cinema cats

Hello! I have a source called Cinema Cats (here is the home page [9]). It is a self described blog [10] and there is no evidence that the information that is posted on it is reviewed or checked for reliability. I don’t think this would be considered a reliable source for information about movies or cats, but I just thought I’d stop by and check! Thank you in advance for your comments. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Not obvious to me. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
You are right. It isn't obvious. It is blindingly obvious. See [11] and WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I did read the about page and checked an entry. The blog states to be peer-reviewed regarding some claims. So, depending on the claim, it may be a reliable source. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
A blogger might get someone else to "review" their blog posts, that doesn't make anything on it sufficient to support encyclopedia content. An argument could be made if this blogger was a known expert in their field, but that's not the case here. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you need to be an expert to claim that a pixel is red or that two plus two is four? I do not think so. As I said, it depends on the claim. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. Let me put it to you this way: if you use Cinema cats as a source anywhere on Wikipedia after being told that it not a reliable source, you are likely to be blocked for disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
But no claim has been provided, thus there is no reason to get blocked. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Currently used in eleven articles. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I wasn’t planning to. That’s why I came here. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Then which content do you plan to remove? What is the purpose of this discussion? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I was talking about what will happen if you, 84.120.7.178, ever use Cinema cats as a source anywhere on Wikipedia. This was based on your refusal to accept that it isn't a reliable source. Lima Bean Farmer simply asked a completely reasonable question about a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: So I am not likely to be blocked; I will certainly be blocked according to your threat. I had no interest in Cinema Cats. However, if you are looking for conflict, I will please you. If you remove anything referenced by Cinema Cats, you notify me of such removal, and I think you are wrong, then I will revert your edit and go through dispute resolution despite of what you have said so far. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
IP, anyone removing any material sourced to Cinema Cats would be doing the project a favour - it describes itself as a blog, it's not reliable. Don't personalise this, nobody has threatened you, they've just told you what will happen if you cause disruption by reverting people who are removing unreliable sources. GirthSummit (blether) 12:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
As I said, if you notify me of any removal, then you are asking for my response. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Why even raise it - why would anyone notify you? GirthSummit (blether) 12:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
If anyone does, you may ask them the reason. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, well someone made this hostile and personal for no apparent reason (not you obviously). Anyways, I won’t get into the IP user who thinks they will be notified if someone deletes cinema cats and ask you which articles are they sourced to? I’d be happy to delete them if you have not done so already. To be clear, out of respect for reliable sourcing and not just to feed the suspected troll above. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

SPS by none expert, not an RS>Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"there is no evidence that the information that is posted on it is reviewed or checked for reliability" Even if it was verified, the source emphasizes only on the use of cats in various films. How would we use the information? By noting the presence of a cat scene in a larger narrative? Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I see a list.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Are Las Vegas Weekly and Uproxx acceptable sources to confirm Alexis Texas co-hosted the AVN Awards?

Is Uproxx an acceptable source to use, to confirm that Alexis Texas co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards?

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It’s a rather unexceptional claim so the bar is a bit lower. Has another editor contested its use? Gleeanon 17:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gleeanon409:Yes. Removed. Twice. One and Two. Right cite (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a LOT more contested there than the reliability of the source. Indeed, neither of those removals are about the reliability of sources. It's important to remember that verifiability is only ONE of the criteria for including information in a Wikipedia article. Having a reliable source is a necessary, but not sufficient reason to include text in an article. It must also be text which is relevant and not excessively trivial or WP:UNDUE. Now, I'm not saying one side or the other is right or wrong here, but what I am saying is that the person who is contesting your additions to that article is not doing so based on the reliability of the source material, but they are contesting the information being added on other grounds. You would do well to address their concerns directly, and not ignore them. You may very well be right in this dispute (and saying that doesn't mean you are. I leave open an equal probability you are wrong). What I am saying is that redirecting criticism and addressing objections that were not made, while ignoring objections that were made, are not a good look. --Jayron32 17:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you. But the user is also ignoring these sources. Right cite (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Look. The user is saying that the material you are adding is either irrelevant to the biography or overly promotional in nature. I'm not saying they are right. I'm saying that is a matter you should address on the article talk page, and if you can't come to an agreement with that particular person, seek dispute resolution per WP:DR. By focusing on the reliability of the sources, you're missing the main point they are trying to make. Again, not saying they are in the right. Just saying you aren't addressing the concerns. --Jayron32 17:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
We both agree we want to use reliable sources and the user had removed the entire lede based on that. Twice. So that's why I was seeking out input from previously uninvolved third party editors. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks reliable enough for this purpose. I can find no evidence that Uproxx has fabricated stories or interviews in the past. It seems as reliable as any other entertainment news website. Furthermore, wouldn't the actual awards show serve as its own source for who hosted it? That seems like a clear WP:ABOUTSELF sort of thing; if the awards show itself was publicly available, (broadcast) it qualifies as a public source, and the video of her actually hosting the show should be sufficient for the claim that she actually hosted the show. --Jayron32 17:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Assessment of Scotland's newspapers

Can we make some assessment, for the perennial sources board, of The Scotsman, The Herald, The National, and the other Scotland-only papers? GPinkerton (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I would rate the first two generally reliable (not the greatest sources in existence, but will do the job). IDK about The National. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with buidhe about The Scotsman and The Herald - they're both heavyweight papers, I'd treat them similarly to the Guardian or the Times. I'm on the fence about The National, don't know enough about it. GirthSummit (blether) 12:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree, The Scotsman and the Herald are reliable sources, haven't read The National Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree on the Scotsman and the Herald. I'd be wary about using the National for anything regarding Scottish independence and/or associated issues, but I'd say it's otherwise reliable. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree: this was mostly my feeling: Herald and Scotsman reliable, National politically biased and to be used for quotidian events and quotations of public figures but not for uncorroborated or unattributed statements. Can we write this up? GPinkerton (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It would appear to me that these sources are reliable. From just a basic search of these sources, I have not seen them engage in bottom-of-the-barrel journalism involving deceptive reporting (or what one would call "fake news") and their reporting on Scotland seems to be well researched. I would like to say however one word of caution: as these sources appear to cover the extreme ends of political spectrum, consistency of the evaluation appears to be key here. Fortliberty (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Indymedia

Hi I think we need to have a proper discussion about using Indymedia as a source. I'll try to give a breakdown of the situation as I see it. The Independent Media Center (also known as Indymedia, IMC) was an early use of the internet by left-wing anti-globalisation activists in the late 1990s and early 2000s. There was a boom and bust, as corporate social media took on all the facets of the new phenomenon of open publishing, a newswire, a website accessed for free from anywhere etc etc Hundreds of indymedia websites sprang up for different local collectives and most have folded, although some continue eg indymedia NL and indymedia Ireland and many sites are archived. So when I am talking Indymedia, I am talking about many different, mostly city-based news networks, mainly from the 1990s and 2000s.

Indymedia is therefore is proudly self-published and do not worry I will not attempt to argue otherwise. However, I will argue that in specific circumstances, indymedia is a useful and reliable source. Not least because of the specific point made by WP:SOCIALMEDIA but also for other reasons. Wikipedia has changed a lot since the 2000s regarding referencing and verifiability and that is of course great. We need to be sure we are correct, especially regarding BLP issues. Yes if it appeared in indymedia, it probably is in other sources too if it was notable (and some things are, some things aren't), but many of these other sources are lost or paywalled. The 1990s and 2000s are a bit of a deadzone for social movement history since many websites have expired and gone without archives, before the advent of the wayback machine and other means of archiving stuff. So when writing about many of the marginal (and not so marginal) historical events, then I would argue the indymedia service can be useful with specific caveats.

Indymedia is currently listed on perennial sources as "generally unreliable" with the blurb: "The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source." I would dispute that and prefer to see a warning for "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" and a link to this discussion, or whatever else people decide. There have been previous discussions and I can link to them here (two are linked at perennial soources) already. I am struggling to see any sort of consensus formed there at all. 17, 23, 275. 23 and 275 are mentioned on perennial sources.

As a final point, indymedia articles are used judiciously in academic literature and we shouldn't forget that either. I find it strange to contemplate all use of indymedia on wikipedia being deleted when academics will use it with discretion. Here's a quickly compiled list of articles which reference indymedia from my recently read pile, just to illustrate my point. I'm not talking about pieces ABOUT indymedia, I'm talking about academics using indymedia as a source on social movement history.

  • "Autonomy in the city?" in City Stuart Hodkinson & Paul Chatterton http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccit20
  • "When cops “go native”: policing revolution through sexual infiltration and panopticonism in Critical Studies on Terrorism Michael Loadenthal https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17539153.2013.877670
  • "Neoliberalism out of joint: Activists and inactivists in London’s social centres" in Subjectivity Peter Conlin doi:10.1057/sub.2014.8
  • Truijen, K. (2019) Architecture of Appropriation – On Squatting as Spatial Practice ISBN|9789083015200
  • Mudu & Chattopadhay Migration, Squatting and Radical Autonomy (Routledge) 9781138942127

If it helps to clarify, let's end with a specific example:

  • I have a discussion with Graywalls at Talk:Dutch_squatting_ban#Sourcing where they want to delete an indymedia source about banners being put on buildings as being "disreputable", i want to keep it alongside a mainstream media article since it's the only available photographic evidence of the banners. I think it makes wikipedia a better encyclopedia to have that link. The source is not being used to say anything controversial, it only evidences the specific event, which is notable as attested by the newspaper article from Volkskrant. In short I see no good reason to remove it and no consensus here to do so. I think it's clear by now I think indymedia is a useful and reliable source under a limited context. Thanks for any opinions. Mujinga (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Ping to @Graywalls: as promised. Mujinga (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Everything is primary source at first. Scholars, journalists and academics all use their direct interview, blog sites, anecdotal evidence and all in their research; but this doesn't mean we should use it. Also, adding contents at our own discretion based on POV fringe source goes against the idea of WP:NPOV and due weight. I saw a dog do its business inside a Walmart a while back and this is the sort of thing that would find itself on people's blogs. Even if you were to attribute it "according to John Doe, a dog did its business in Walmart and he went on as if nothing happened", introducing contents from a blog is an undue coverage of absolutely non-notable thing. Graywalls (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Generally unreliable. Indymedia is self-published, and does not exhibit sufficient editorial control to be considered a reliable source. Journalists and academics use all kinds of data sources, including sources that would be considered unreliable on Wikipedia, as primary sources for research. In contrast, original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles, and we are not able to use Indymedia on Wikipedia the same way that journalists and academics can in their work. — Newslinger talk 14:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable per Newslinger: academics also cite Breitbart and InfoWars, does that make those sources reliable? However, being generally unreliable doesn't prevent it from being cited alongside reliable sources when it contains primary source evidence, such as photographs, where editors have determined that this is useful. (t · c) buidhe 00:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    even that's being extremely generous. I couldn't remember which article it was, but there was a Wikipedia article with the incorrect type of a bird or something and went unnoticed for a long time. When you cite dubious source, you exponentially increase the risk of having pictures that do not depict the stated caption. POV sources also often selectively photograph and publish things to push their agenda. The times when questionable sources, such as but not limited to Independent Media Center (Indymedia.org and many other domains), infowars.org, wordpress.org should be very very rare. An example of special circumstance they're useful. A credible media comments on something that was on Indymedia, for example, some criminal incident. Due to copyright reasons, they're not able to post the whole thing in verbatim, but if the news story includes a link, then posting that link alongside would be acceptable, IMO. Graywalls (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable to me this does not seem to be a reliable source. Consistency appears to be key here. If we allow this self published sources to be legitimated as a reliable source, then there is nothing stopping one from legitimating other self published sources as well. That does not seem to me to be a can of worms that we would want to open. Fortliberty (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable It is essentially user generated contents. Using something there isn't a whole lot different from putting things on Wikipedia directly without reference as you could put whatever you want on there, then reference to it as if it was legitimately published. "What will happen with your contribution: Anyone can publish on Indymedia through the links to the forms under 'publish yourself!' to use. All contributions appear almost immediately on the website. The collective tries to read through most of those contributions. The collective can leave the contributions on the basis of the criteria, delete them or move them to another category." (Google translation of https://www.indymedia.nl/node/16) Graywalls (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment thanks for the replies that are coherent, Graywalls you are doing yourself no favours talking about dogshit. I feel my point is being misread slightly since I am not disputing that indymedia is self-published. I am talking about how many social movement actors published manifestos, listings and so on at indymedia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This means that as other sources are lost / disappear / get paywalled, indymedia will become a useful source for wikipedia since it will be all we have as a record of projects and groups, and this is what makes it different to the given example of Breitbart and Infowars. That's why I brought up academics using it, but I should have realised that would have got us sidetracked into a primary sources discussion which was not my intention. I suppose I'm happy for indymedia to stay marked as generally unreliable and I can see an emerging consensus for that, as long as we have the caveat of WP:SELFSOURCE, referred to by "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable". This allays my fears of all indymedia links being wiped from wikipedia. Regarding my specific example, I only see an answer from Buidhe so far, although I note Graywalls has already deleted it referencing this discussion which seems odd, since I see no consensus for its deletion here. Mujinga (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Generally unreliable as self-published, possibly useful for attributed statements. If a group used it to publish their manifesto, then it would be a primary source for that. Or for the opinion of notable contributors.--Hippeus (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment @Mujinga:, the reference to the dog thing was an example that just came to mind, because I saw it happen not long ago. It's one of those things people tend to post on social media about. This was an example of something that's undue to add onto the store's article. This could have been any other example. For instance, first hand account details of something that happened at an establishment that has a Wikipedia page, but was not covered by mainsteram media. Anyone can post about such thing wordpress, Twitter, Indymedia and my point here is that contents from such citizen journalism do not belong in Wikipedia pages. Such contents being present in squatting was the main point of contention. There already was a consensus without this discussion being created. Sources do not get listed as generally unreliable in RSP list without a consensus. It is better to not have information than have a mountain of information from unreliable sources. Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Copyright violation So, just as Scribd, another issue with Independent Media Center is that they sometimes host copyright violations, such as entire books, as in this one which I removed, Special:Diff/982713865. This isn't just a a snap shot of a page or two of a relevant part. A PDF of an entire copyrighted book. Sometimes they're user written posts, sometimes they're copyright violating news paper article copy and paste. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Indymedia as self-published source

Before this goes into the archive, it should be clarified that there is no such consensus. What editors said above is that self-published sources can be used on the condition that they attribute authorship but the nature of Indymedia is that authorship is rarely attributed nevertheless authenticated. Indymedia is marked as unreliable in the above discussion particularly because it does not, as a publication, have an editorial process to confirm the details or authorship of its posts. As an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, we only report that which has been reliably stated in reliable, secondary sources. Primary sources are only used to fill out necessary, uncontroversial details that for some reason were excluded from the topic's general, reliable source coverage. But if we need to rely on a primary source to source, e.g., a manifesto, then editors should question why we're mentioning the manifesto at all, since it wasn't covered by reliable sources, especially if the manifesto cannot be attributed by a reputable source to the individual/group. Academics are welcome to discern for themselves whether a primary source is authentic, but that task is outside of our purview. As a tertiary source, we rely on the judgment of such secondary sources and the editorial process that reviews their work in journals to decide how to cover a topic. We specifically avoid the whole authenticity discussion by relying on the reputation of the publisher to decide what to include in an encyclopedia article. The whole point of this discussion and WP:SELFSOURCE is that Indymedia should be cited only under the rarest conditions, not regularly, and not certainly not carte blanche. czar 17:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable The consensus here is that Indymedia is unreliable.PatrickGuinness (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I would call it Twitter of 2000s before the days of smart phones of social media. So the decision to use should be treated similar to including Twitter links. Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

GCatholic.org

What is the reliability of GCatholic.org? There are a lot of citations to it, supporting articles of bishops and things. The Wikipedia page itself has recently been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCatholic.org. GPinkerton (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

so, here's the text from the recently deleted article on GCatholic:
GCatholic.org is an nonprofit organization the provides comprehensive information about the Catholic Church[2][3][4] via its online database of bishops and dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. The website is not officially sanctioned by the Church. It is run as a private project by Gabriel Chow, journalist for Salt + Light Television, in Toronto. It also provides information about the performance of the Catholic Church itself in different countries and territories and provides biographical information on current and former bishops of each diocese, such as dates of birth, ordination, and (where applicable) death. When created, the site name was Giga-Catholic Information due to the fact that there are around 1 billion Catholics in the world (billion = giga).[5] It is used as a source for information on Catholic bishops and diocese, current and historical, by various news organizations[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and authors.
Personal site, but used as a source by outlets listed: a couple of Catholic news sites, various small mainstream news sites. So I dunno. Is the info actually pretty solid? - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this peer reviewed paper sufficient to say that M269 originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe?

User:Peleio Aquiles changed R-M269 by replacing its origin (Neolithic Expansion) with Pontic-Caspian steppe. This is mentioned nowhere in the article, he didn't source it or leave an edit summary although he later said he did it on his mobile and had planned to source it later. I went to his page and having seen that he'd already had an argument with User:Drmies about sourcing, so told him it was a bad idea to continue not to source. He exploded there, which doesn't matter, but then went to Talk:Haplogroup R-M269#Administrator insists on owning the entry despite not understanding the subject saying he wasn't going to edit the article again, claimed that Neolithic expansion wasn't sourced (it is, in the lead) but at least helpfully giving this article as a source.[14]. My problem is that looking at that source, it only mentions M269 twice - it does however say " all 7 Yamnaya males did belong to the M269 subclade". And of course the Yamnaya were a steppe tribe. But this is just a bit of data in the article and not in the results, which do however start with "Our results support a view of European pre-history punctuated by two major migrations: first, the arrival of the first farmers during the Early Neolithic from the Near East, and second, the arrival of Yamnaya pastoralists during the Late Neolithic from the steppe." But the article is not about R-M269. Oops, dinner's almost ready, this[15] might help. As he also went to Talk:Haplogroup R1b#Administrator insists on keeping outdated theses in an article on R-M269 to complain and an editor responded, I'll invite User:GenQuest to see if he has any insights. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Many papers since then have demonstrated that R-M269 is a mark of descent from the Pontic-Caspian steppe peoples, who only spread throughout Europe in the Bronze Age, bringing the Indo-European languages along. This is not a particularly new find - it has become common knowledge in the field of population genetics for several years now. Haak 2015 was the first paper to publish the now widely known fact that Yamnaya men overwhelmingly belonged to haplogroup R-M269, that R1b could hardly be found in Europe prior to the Bronze Age, and that most European R1b today is a result of these Bronze Age, Indo-European expansions. The Neolithic expansion, instead, is linked to haplogroup G2a. You're aggressively misinformed for someone for so aggressively ignorant of this subject. I'm again on my cell phone, so it would be tiring to look for, copy, and paste all of the DOZENS of articles now linking R-M269 to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. But I did direct you to look in other pertinent Wikipedia entries, namely R1b and Yamnaya, as they contain the information I passed on to you and are richly sourced. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Care to give some examples of these papers?Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
They vary. Looking at the Yamnaya culture article [16] says" R1b-M269 [12], which is carried at high frequency into Northern Europe by the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age steppe migrations". This one[17] uses Haak et al to say "each Bronze Age sample (all male) exhibits the Bronze Age-associated Y chromosome lineage R1b-M269, the appearance of which has been strongly linked with Steppe incursion into Central Europe." That's more promising. But Haplogroup R1b seems to only use Haak as source (hardly richly sourced for the origin issue), and a quick search turns up a paper published about the same time as Haak[18] - and doesn't seem to agree, but I'll let others take a look. I have no more time tonight, there may be more stuff on the Yamnaya article. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Linking of archaeological culture (a categorization of material goods and cultural practices) with the origins of a haplogroup is itself fringe and needs strong sources and an editorial distance, especially based on seven individuals. GPinkerton (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is incumbent upon Peleio Aquiles to calmly show links to documents indicating such a change is due. Please AGF. Additional RS are needed for a disputed change of this nature. I don't want to come across as being obstructionist or elitist here, and I don't believe other editor(s), whether admins or not, are either; but the onus of providing verifiable, indisputable proof is on the editor adding the additional or changed information. A reference to one paper alone does not justify this kind of a change, in my mind. Especially if articles with conflicting information exist. This field is rapidly changing, and confirmation of breakthroughs is lagging behind initial announcements, so caution is indeed called for where RS is concerned. This can be done, even using a cell phone to edit if must be. Unfortunately, because we are tied to 'reporting the reports' of such information (secondary sourcing), Wikipedia is not set up for dispensing the "cutting-edge" knowledge in articles involving many fast-changing fields, especially in the sciences, genome-based genetic research being one of them. Sometimes patience is called for. When enough sources of such new information become available to override previous scientific consensus, then those changes will be made to a wiki-article. If PA has knowledge of such sources existing now, I humbly ask that he point us to them so we can add that information to our knowledge-base and update the article, and then we can all move on. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Chuck Hill's blog

Some contributors demand a blanket blacklisting of any online publication that includes "blog" in its title - even highly respected online publications like SCOTUSBLOG. While I agree we shouldn't use online publications written by non-notable people, or non-notable organizations - over 99 percent of blogs shouldn't be used. But I think we shouldn't be blinded by these so we exclude using the tiny fraction of things called blogs that do merit being considered reliable sources.

Scotusblog should be an open and shut case. Journalists from respected print publications assigned to report on the SCOTUS, the US Supreme Court, routinely cite SCOTUSBLOG, and defer to the opinions voiced there.

IMO Chuck Hill's blog falls into less than one percent fraction of things called blogs that should not be dismissed because it is called a blog.

Hill is a retired USCG officer who comments on maritime, naval and military matters. This Coast Guard page, full of related links, links to his blog. [19]

This September 2020 article from the US Naval Institute Proceedings cites his blog. [20]

The Center for International Maritime Security has published Hill. Their author's biography of him said [21]:

Does this respect shown his blog by RS mean we should consider it generally reliable? Geo Swan (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  • What is this source being cited for and which user said you are not supposed to cite it? It depends a lot on what it is cited for. There are certainly some reliable blogs, such as Lawfare and Verfassungsblog, although most of them are published in cooperation with a university or other well-respected institution. (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The two articles are about new advanced munitions for a 50mm version of the US military's widely used 25mm M242 Bushmaster autocannon.
I've used articles he wrote about half a dozen times over the last three or four years. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fchuckhillscgblog.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch Geo Swan (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Chuck Hill is pointing to another blog with power point slides from 2014, the Bushmaster III#50 mm version. The first XM913 was unveiled October, 2019. Sure they are the same length? fiveby(zero) 02:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Fiveby, clarification please, your comment here isn't intended to be about whether or not Chuck Hill should be considered an RS, correct? Aren't you making a comment that would best belong on the talk page of the relevant article, possibly Talk:Bushmaster III?
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, sort of related to reliability, was just following links from the blog. The Bushmaster III/50 was first demoed in 2014, Chuck Hill points to the other blog w/ a power point slide and dimensions and from that year. The XM913 was first shown in 2019, i see blog comments saying the XM913 is the Bushmaster III, but more reliable sources say it is based on the Bushmaster III. I have no idea myself, guess you just have to trust Chuck Hill. By the way, the dimensions in the power point slide are given in inches, you added as cm to the two articles. fiveby(zero) 23:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, if there are no further replies I am going to consider Hill's articles on maritime, naval and military topics to be generally reliable, given his experience, and that what he writes seems consistent with other RS. Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

GNews.org - deprecate?

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.

GNews.org is a site run by Guo Wengui. His Wiki article descibes him as a corrupt figure who is pals with Steve Bannon. His site has been used to spread COVID-19 disinformation (see Guo Wengui#GNews. This morning, some IPs have tried to add a BLP smear at Talk:Joe Biden and Talk:Hunter Biden (also at WP:RFPP now that the talk pages have been semiprotected) using gnews.org links. This site was briefly discussed here but no action was taken. I would like to see the source formally deprecated so that these links cannot be added, including to talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure speedy depricate is a thing. Probably just start a normal RFC for it. PackMecEng (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, wasn't sure. I'll edit this to make it an RFC. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Citing just about anything on GNews would constitute a violation of the living persons policy. There is no valid use case for this website, and it should be blacklisted. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that, if GNews's unverified claims are correct, GNews may be hosting child pornography. Out of an abundance of caution, I have added GNews to the spam blacklist. See WT:SBL § gnews.org. — Newslinger talk 08:37, 26 October 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.

Exclusion of reliable sources for expert treatises

China–United States trade war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's been an ongoing dispute about an editor excluding general reader RSs and replacing them with only some non-U.S. sources and economics treatises. A discussion today about this can be read here. The following sources are included now in a replacement section:

Among the reliable sources deleted are those below. And along with those cites, the entire former "Background" section was also deleted. Any opinions on this replacement of generally acceptable sources with only a few selected expert economists would be helpful. All of the cites above and below also had links to the articles. Thanks.

Light show (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Light show has misrepresented the issue here. Light show has been arguing that Trump administration press releases and opinion columns by political commentators are reliable sources for factual claims about the US-China trade relationship. I have been arguing that any claim from the Trump administration or an opinion column needs in-line attribution, and that the background section of China–United States trade war should rely primarily on economics publications that summarize the trade war and news articles (not opinion pieces). I've explained this in detail at the article talk page, so it's disappointing to see Light show come here and misrepresent my argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The sources cited look better than the ones they replaced. In addition, one should avoid citing sources published before the event as it indicates WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 11:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Buidhe. Part of the reason there has been so much disagreement about NPOV and due weight in the background section is the repeated insertion of large passages based on sources that don't discuss the trade war. I'll also note that Fox News and the Washington Times are partisan sources with questionable reliability on this topic per WP:RSP. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Most government sources relating to trade wars are going to be of questionable use due to bias as they are created by parties to the conflict in question. For example, the source "EU steps up WTO action against China’s forced technology transfers" is written by the European Commission and isn't exactly a reliable source on whether China actually is doing forced technology transfers. Likewise with a White House speech, a page from the office of the US trade representative, and some of the other sources mentioned above. Newspapers based in the countries that are party to the conflict are also going to be biased. The SCMP, Fox Business, the New York Times, etc. They're not biased to the extent of a government source but they still have bias.
Another issue is that any opinion piece is valuable for opinion much more so than facts. People who write an opinion piece have a very strong incentive to present the facts in a light most favourable to them. Oftentimes when there's a dispute over facts, opinion pieces will present the facts as definitively true or not true when the reality is that the facts are disputed. The "Normalizing Trade Relations With China Was a Mistake" article from the Atlantic flatly states that "Beijing chose to transfer wealth from ordinary Chinese citizens to its politically powerful export sector". This statement would be almost certainly disputed by the Chinese government and using that piece to support the claim that "China has transferred wealth from ordinary citizens to the export sector as a result of PNTR" would be wrongheaded, as an example. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Tapology

I couldn't find a definitive list of reliable sources for MMA on Wikipedia and I was wondering if https://www.tapology.com is considered one. It seems to have a vast database of fighters and stats seem very up to date they have the last weigh in info of almost fighter.

Not usable as a source on Wikipedia, because [22] says:
"Directly Posting Fighter and Event Info"
"Can I edit the fighter or event info in Tapology's database?"
"MMA fighters, gym owners, and promoters can claim their page and directly manage their information on Tapology. Visit the Info Management page for more information."
So, if indeed the person doing the editing is who they claim they are, it would be like a blog or personal web page, so WP:ABOUTSELF would apply. Alas, we don't know how tapology verifies identity, so we need to apply WP:SPS instead.
That being said, sites like these tend to get the facts straight, simply because when they don't multiple readers report the errors. So you as a Wikipedia editor can start with tapology, then look for reliable sources. The particular tapology page might even list a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings - yes, an unelected candidate, but he measures up o GNG

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.

This noticeboard isn't the right place to ask a question about notability. (t · c) buidhe 18:38, 25 October 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.

Trifkovic, Srdjan

Book of Trifkovic Srdjan, "The Krajina Chronicle: A History of Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies"[23]. According to WP:FTN comment (here[24]) there is an opinion that this book is not RS (if I understood correctly), so I'm interested in what you think about that source. According to editor @Fiveby: "Trifkovic is executive director of the foundation which published his work". Mikola22 (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

To expand a bit, the publisher, Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies is obviously not reliable. Their blog has posts from Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Thomas Fleming, RTTV, Diana Johnstone, Rodney Atkinson, Scott Taylor, Strategic Culture Foundation contributors Anna Filimonova and Stephen Karganovic, James Bissett. The author Srđa Trifković is executive director.. I think it is safe to say the publisher has an agenda. Trifković does cite another work for the text in question, it's the catalog (sh:Tradicionalna kultura Srba) of an exhibition by the Ethnographic Museum, Belgrade, documenting the centuries-old existence and culture of Serbs in Croatia according to the SH article. fiveby(zero) 14:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Fiveby:, his source is found in some other articles as a source of informations. If that source is not RS then all that informations must go from the articles. Mikola22 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The Krajina Chronicle is used in other articles? Anything published by Lord Byron Foundation should not be used for statements of fact anywhere on Wikipedia. That does not mean the article text must be immediately removed (see WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM), but this source definitely should be removed. fiveby(zero) 15:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. Mikola22 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

cinephiliabeyond.org/

Fantastic website with lots of great in-depth info about films but...is it reliable? It has an about and press section, seems pretty legit but I need to know before I use it in an FA. Thanks Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources. — Newslinger talk 08:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

newsarawaktribune.com.my

This appears to be squatting on a site formerly belonging to New Sarawak Tribune which went out of publication circa 2006. I suspect it is a Wordpress blog, based on the site icon. They seem to reprint news wire items but add some local content which may be promoted or paid. Second opinions are sought. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: Looking at the page source confirms that it is a wordpress website. Is there any evidence that New Sarawak Tribune folded that you are aware of, Bri? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
See The Star [25] ☆ Bri (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia. — Newslinger talk 08:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Rajasthan Patrika

I found few sources cited in Hindi to some of the India Related Articles, I want to Know that |This from Rajasthan Patrika is considered as reliable or not? Dtt1Talk 18:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Rajasthan Patrika is one of the more reliable Hindi language newspapers. The article reads a bit promotional but otherwise it has a proper byline so I would say it is usable. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Byline Times

What is the reliability of the Byline Times? This article could be of relevance in the Great Barrington Declaration article. GPinkerton (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  • They have an explicit strong bias, but they are also trying to do journalism properly. I don't know of any red flags about their past coverage ... but I'm sure someone will now post some - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Byline Times are signed up to IMPRESS [26] which, in my opinion, does a good enough job of fining papers for misleading stories and getting them to promptly publish corrections that it forces them to either do the RS level fact-checking beforehand or go out of business. El komodos drago (talk to me) 08:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
To add to my above comment, here is an Independent live page using it as a source and here is a Guardian/Observer opinion peice using it as a source. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I cannot comment on the specific reliabilty of the publication, but I can see that the editorial team and senior reporters are all extremely experianced journalists with excellent reputations and a history of working in mainstream legacy media, so I would expect high standards. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I recently evaluated whether to use this source for a BLP I'm working on. In that very particular case, I decided to use this source, so there's one datapoint. From what others say, it sounds like this might be a generally reliable source beyond my very specific use case. Jlevi (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and for your particular question, I think Nafeez Ahmed is a great general journalist on environmental issues, and the article you link would be strong enough for a BLP. Jlevi (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Just saw this, i was the one that questioned Byline Times, near as i can tell it's not signed up for IMPRESS, Byline is. byline.com it's prior iteration was "a platform not a paper" ("we don’t edit our journalists"). The rebranding claims "four part-time editors" and more like a “proper organised news site”[27]. The about page hasrun by a small, dedicated team of journalists providing a platform for freelance reporters and writers. Hardeep Matharu and founder Peter Jukes the editors, both contributors to the site and other publications. No real evidence of oversight or fact checking, and the division of stories into "Fact" and "Reportage" is not explained. Based on the story in question and the opinion pieces in the "Reportage" section, articles there are more the byline.com model of "we don't edit our journalists". fiveby(zero) 15:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess the "Fact"/"Reportage" division doesn't really imply any difference in editorial oversight, there are articles which are clearly author opinions under the "Fact" section. fiveby(zero) 15:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Huh. Yeah, I'm surprised that that site isn't in the IMPRESS registry. It looks the the other sister site, 'Byline Investigates', is in the registry, but no trifecta. Regardless, it's pretty clear at least from what they say that they're not using the byline.com model: "Jukes said Byline Times is 'completely different' from Byline.com, which is crowdfunded with no top-down editorial control"[28]. The associated article has a variety of nice things to say about the source, though I'm not familiar with it myself. Jlevi (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Acording to them fact isarticles predominantly based on historical research, official reports, court documents and open source intelligence while reportage isimmersive and current news, informed by frontline reporting and real-life accounts. From that I gather that the difference is that fact is based off documents while reportage is mainly informed by interviews. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. An article in Full Fact last year attributing false claims to the Byline Times about companies taking short positions in the market when Boris Johnson ran for Conservative Party leadership. The article also said that Byline Times claimed these companies dominated by firms that donated to the Vote Leave campaign, and refused to release the names of the firms for legal reasons. According to the article the Financial Times also found many issues in the same claims.. I also found another article also calling the Byline Times for the same claims.
  2. An article in BizNews.com (apparently right wing media) mentioning that Peter Jukes had to apologize after being threatened to get sued for smearing.. With some searching, it turned out it was an article in the Byline Times (couldn't be found and likely deleted) that accused Douglas Murray of instigating violence against Muslims which Peter Jukes apologized for allegedly after being contacted by the lawyer Mark Lewis.
So, I won't really consider it a reliable source specially when talking about secret IRS document that only the writer was able to see. Regarding the article in question, the writer claims that there was a donation of $68,100 made two years ago from the Koch brothers to American Institute for Economic Research while also claiming that American Institute for Economic Research's capital is $284,492,000 which amkes the ratio of the donation to the value 1/4000. Assuming all this is true; if I donated $100 to an organization valued at $400,000 this doesn't make them part of my network or responsible in any way of what I do. Now as the title claims that a climate denial network is behind the Great Barrington Declaration; this can only be true if the Koch brothers knew in advance that a pandemic will hit the world and all the events that will happen after so they made this donation in 2018 in anticipation that the declaration will happen. This by itself raises big question mark about the reliability of the source, specially in the context of secret documents which nobody knows how they got access to them. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The Full Fact article is basically a question of accurate but incomplete reporting. Byline Times says 'the number of shorts taken out for after the end of the conservative nomination rose sharply after Johnson announced his candidacy' to which Full Fact replies 'of course it did, most shorts are taken out in the short term and there wasn't any great rise in the number of shorts being taken out after Boris announced' to which one might reply 'that is irrelevant, all we care about is shorts taken out for after the end of the conservative leadership race and besides your own data shows a slight spike' at which point Full Fact replies 'we never said you were inaccurate, only that you should have reported the rest of the data' at which point the argument dives deep into a level of economics and logic that is not really relevant here.
I think it is fair to say that the Byline Times did not give enough credence to conflicting data and should at least have mentioned this. On the other hand, this is not a factual error but an omission of an important fact as such at most it would suggest the source should be given in text attribution in some cases. El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
First, I totally agree with you that it is not our position as editors to go into financial/statistical details or make our own judgements. Second I would like to mentione that the results that were reached by Byline Times were not just contested by many people who weren't able to reproduce the results, but financial/statistical experts consulted by Byline Times weren't able to reproduce the results either which led Byline Times to remove sections from the original article on 30th September 2019. They said"the two graphs showing the frequency of short positions are contested by the Financial Times Alphaville and Fullfact. Byline Times has approached two independent statistical and financial experts with our underlying data researched over many months to understand why others cannot reproduce our results. They cannot detect any upturn in short positions over the summer so we have removed that section and added below.". Third, on 12th September 2019 before the removal of the section, Byline Times published an article claiming"Critics of Byline Times’ article have been unable to replicate the data for the entire market, and it is seeking to understand why. It may be because Byline Times counted the number of position holders taking out positions, not the number of short positions. However, it is the donor cohort and their short positions which is of primary public interest.". This claim though is not true as the removed section in the original article said"Between January to May 2019, less than 10 short positions were being taken out by hedge funds per week. However, that all changed dramatically when Boris Johnson announced that he was running for the Conservative Party leadership on May 16. The number of short positions thereafter doubled, tripled and quadrupled and, by the time of his victory was announced, had risen to around 100 per week.". So to summarize:
  1. They did some original research without consulting with experts and published conclusions that contain accusations based on that original research.
  2. When confronted by other people who were not able to reproduce the same results from the same set of data, they made untrue statement about what the original article said.
  3. If it weren't for Full Fact and other critics, the article would not have been modified until now. But what if Byline Times was talking about hidden data that only them have access to as in the case right now?
That's why I think that this incident can be taken as an evidence of poor fact checking specially when talking about secret documents that nobody has access to except them. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
It is notable that Full Fact is so careful in their wording on the issue using phrases such aswe cannot andthis seems. But to address your concerns, if one were to decide that a paper should have to consult two financial experts before publishing story that so much as mentions financial instruments then okay the Byline Times and basically any other new source with less than a hundred journalists isn't covered. When the story was published Byline Times had no reason to think that it would have to consult financial experts, the statement was 1. not crucial to the story as a whole; 2. based off evidence from the Financial Conduct Authority (a reliable source); and 3. with regards to a fairly rudimentary financial instrument. I mean when a story focuses around a bank account you don't expect to have to consult financial experts on what a bank account is.
Saying thatIt may be because Byline Times counted the number of position holders taking out positions doesn't imply that this is what you said you did. And when it appears next to the original article it is clear that this is the Byline Times giving a guess at what went wrong not lying about what the article said. Ultimately the note was inaccurate.
The obvious response to the suggestion that using hidden data would cause a problem is that such data would also be known to the AIER and Koch foundation who could dispute it. I can personally track down no record of either disputing it AIER's own website shows that they are partnered with the Koch Institute. [29].
Fundamentally The Byline Times did everything it was supposed to with the claims on the Brexit Shorts, it got its data from a reliable source, it checked that they agreed with the rest of the article, it reached out to the people involved for comment, it promptly released a statement about people having trouble replicating their results, it then reached out to independent financial experts and when they confirmed the complaint Byline Times promptly retracted the claim. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The Spectator is an extreme-right magazine who's recent articles include one calling upon parents of university students to "do anything, just stop them voting" and asking for the election to be held on a Muslim holy day to stop them from voting. It has been described by ABC News as "far-right" and has had one of its columnists described by the Private Eye as a "fascist". I'm not saying to take an allegation about exactly what a tweet may or may not have said coming from the person who was criticised by the tweet with a pinch of salt (I'll leave that job to the Spectator's WP:RSP entry) I'm just saying that a Spectator columnist trying to "foment violence" against a specific ethnic group would not be entirely out of character.
I can not speak for the reliability of Biznews but the whole thing reads like an opinionated sweary blogpost.
Whatever your view on the matter, however, this was a tweet and not an article in Byline Times. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not denying that the Spectator is right wing and that's the exact reason I quote it because it is a the best source to quote Douglas Murray as there is no conflict of interest. I added the Spectator as a supplementary source, but the main evidence is Peter Jukes's tweet from his official account that was verified by Twitter. His tweet was on 31st May 2019 talking about a Byline Times article that mentioned Douglas Murray. When I searched though for articles by Byline Times that mention Douglas Murray, I found many that accuse him of being anti-muslim but none of them was before the date of the tweet 31st May 2019. This indicates that this Byline Times article was deleted at least more than a month after being published. That's another evidence of poor fact checking reputation when making accusations. This is specially relevant in the current case given that the article in question is making accusations. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Neither Juke nor Murray nor even the BizNews article say that the 'smear' was in a Byline Times article they all refer to a tweet Peter Jukes made on his own Twitter account. As such I can not see it having any bearing whatsoever on the reliability or unreliability of Byline Times. El komodos drago (talk to me) 10:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semenyuk S. M. and his books on the history of "Ukrainian ethnic lands"

Semenyuk Svyatoslav Mikhailovich [30] is a Ukrainian author who has a unique concept - proving that Ukrainian ethnic lands stretch far to the west. He has written several books on this topic, but I have not found any scientific publications of him. From what I see in his works, it seems to me that this is pure WP:FRINGE. See also his interview (in Ukrainian): Таємна історія українців (погляд історика). Among many, many other things, he claims: "Meanwhile, our ancestors founded not only Prague, Moscow, Bratislava, Vilno and Krakow, but also the eastern part of the Hungarian capital, called Pest."

He also works as a director at a certain foundation "Інститут українських історико-етнічних земель при Благодійному фонді «Україна-Русь»". Obviously, this is some kind of fringe organization. Direct speech of the President of the mentioned foundation (my translation):

I am sure that these books cannot be considered a reliable source on Early Medieval history. Miki Filigranski can give his reasons why he uses this author's book when drawing his map.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep looks fringy to me. Not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment, this issue is related to this discussion. Semenyuk is a historian who graduated from the University of Lviv and worked as a professor in schools and universities. There's no issue with WP:FRINGE or WP:WEIGHT because his viewpoint on the White Croats is the same as other prevailing or mainstream views. His other private and semi-professional activities are no concern for the content used in the creation of the map. Isn't the first nor the last historian with some nationalistic, ideological, or methodological tendencies, and because of that we have NPOV and balancing principles for editing. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Mises Institute articles

I would like to discuss the usage of articles from Mises Institute, a lot of which appear in right-libertarian articles, and sometimes in articles related to economics. I would like to propose that this source should only be used as a primary source about the Institute itself, and opinions of its members, but it's an unreliable source of information for anything else.

Background

Mises Institute is a non-profit "think-tank" promoting right-wing libertarian economics. Most of its content are op-eds, but also some "educational" content and definitions.

Mises Institute

Should Mises Instute articles be allowed for anything else apart for quoting opinions of its members/writers? BeŻet (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  • No / Generally unreliable. Think tanks are not generally reliable unless there's a strong reason to think otherwise, since the "default" structure of a think tank does not include any sort of fact-checking or accuracy - most think tanks exist to advance particular agenda by hook or crook, so to speak, not to cover things accurately the way a news or academic source would. Some think tanks do exist that have earned enough of a reputation that they could be considered reliable for stuff other than their own attributed opinion (eg. probably the Brookings Institution), but the Mises Institute is not among them. They reflect the opinions of the people who own and fund it and nothing else - citing them would be like citing an ad campaign. See the numerous past discussions about using think tanks as sources, which have generally reached the same conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • LOL no - opinion that is not notable unless it has been noted in RSes separate to Mises. I would tend to apply this to opinions of its posters too - not worth noting unless they are so notable themselves that even their blogposts would carry weight as sources - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC}
  • Hell no. Their mission is to promote an agenda, and that is orthogonal to our purpose. A dark money funded unaccountable "institute", and a perfect example of why our sourcing policy requires reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Prior practice is that they should be considered unreliable if their articles advocate for something which is generally disapproved of here. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Definitely not. Certainly not reliable for statements in Wikivoice or statements of fact. Even use for statements of attributed opinion should be avoided/very rare: because the institution is on the fringes, promoting offbeat or unsupported notions about economics, law, and history, the due-weight test would seldom be passed. Neutralitytalk 05:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable: It's a fringe advocacy group so its opinions are unlikely to be DUE. For most economics articles, reliable sources may include peer-reviewed articles and standard textbooks, but not think tanks or advocacy groups of whatever stripe. (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how this request should be answered. To answer directly, I would say no, the institute should not be used for anything else apart for quoting opinions of its members/writers (that is to say, for statements of facts). But yet, this does not appear to be what is originally asked/said which is that the publications by the institute is an unreliable place for information. This seems to me to be a very different question altogether and we would need more than a few cases to show that Mises is an unreliable source. I would also like to point out that there are think tanks which the wider community here has found to be acceptable despite their strong political views (or "partisan agenda" as some people would say). To me, it would appear that consistency in deciding whether Mises's views on political matters are acceptable would be key here. Fortliberty (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable if you are careful. They are often just excerpts from reliable books. The rest should be treated like every other blog. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
But in this case the book should be quoted then, not mises.org BeŻet (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No because they are not a reliable source. So absurdly selective in their use of evidence and narrow in its interpretation, that in relation to serious scholarship they are disconnected to the point of autism. Cambial foliage❧ 22:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

**Evidence please and (name) calling something autistic doesn't help either your argument or the argument your arguing for. Flickotown (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't though, did I. Mischaracterising other editor's comments is not a form of (counter-)argument. Cambial foliage❧ 13:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

:::It's not a mischaracterization when that's what you actually did. When you say that something has reached the point of autism, it is literally the same thing as calling something autistic. Maybe you would have been able to do what you should have already done and produce evidence of how they (Mises) is unreliable instead of devoting that energy to playing semantics. Flickotown (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't though, did I. Your views on what I should have done are not interesting to me (or anyone). The consensus on this silly and irrelevant website is overwhelming; I see no reason to waste my time. Cambial foliage❧ 21:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry @User:Cambial Yellowing, but that is severely offensive. It doesn't matter what you think of their views, or whether they're even true, you can't say that. Personally, I don't care/know much about any think tanks, but I suggest you remove that incivil remark immediately. I agree with @User:Flickotown that he did not mischaracterize anything. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

*Comment this isn't an RS issue, it's a WEIGHT issue. If you think it's unreliable then you have to explain why - specifically you have to give examples of things they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable; just saying Mises is biased (presumably because you don't share their politics outlook) isn't nearly good enough. There are other sources which are equally as biased as Mises and they aren't redlisted. (Cf. CATO, CEPR, MEMRI, on the WP:RSP noticeboard) Flickotown (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Genuinely cant believe that MEMRI hasn’t been deprecated yet, the Israel-Arab partisan's continual refusal to see reason when it comes to reliable sources is a pain in the ass. That being said two wrongs dont make a right, no way in hell should we be using Mises. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

:::As I told OP so I will also tell you. If you think Mises is unreliable then you have to explain why. Specifically you have to give examples of things they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable; just griping about Mises and how there is no way in hell anybody should be using Mises (presumably because you don't share their politics outlook) isn't good enough. Flickotown (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ummmmm... I don’t think theres much of a debate (this is pretty much a snowball at this point) but in a situation like this the burden is on those who seek to *demonstrate reliability* to do so not the other way around. Its also not an RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

:::::It's not a snowball situation and it is also an rfc (that's how it's being treated even if it doesn't adhere to the formal requirements). If you think Mises is unreliable then you have to explain why. Don't bother responding to me if you won't. Flickotown (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Lol, two weeks ago when I wrote that it wasn’t a RfC. Do you mean besides for the neo-confederate stuff? Please review WP:FRINGE and WP:NONAZI, Mises has never been mainstream or respected. Its a low quality source with a hard-on for racist dog whistles at best. Interesting and thought provoking sure but they have no business being used as a source on wikipedia, they simply are not a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

:::::::When I asked you to explain why Mises is unreliable, I didn't mean coming up with a mumbo jumbo of policies. I meant giving specific examples of what they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable, nazis, neo-confederates, etc, etc. If Mises is as extreme as you say it is, then that should be easy to prove. Don't bother responding to me if you won't. Flickotown (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Most of the content they post are opinion pieces, and their definition pieces are not written in a neutral way, but from a fringe point of view. This is also clear in the language that is used. It is quite obvious why they are not a reliable source of information. BeŻet (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

:::That's real original. Mises is "fringe". That's coming from a person with a photo of Gramsci, a person whose views was all about the fringe, whose views were regarded as fringe and whose views are still regarded by many as fringe. The absurdity of your character assassinations of Mises is amazing. What you have to do is not hard to get: if you think Mises is extreme then you need to prove it. And if Mises is as extreme as you say it is, then that should be easy to do. Maybe would you have been able to do that already instead of devoting that energy to responding to every objection to your RFC as if your base-covering will somehow make it easier for the closer to rule for you. Flickotown (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC) **Designate as No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply if I have to choose. This is in keeping with how other sources similar to Mises's profile has been treated. Flickotown (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  • No Self-published borderline fringe advocacy site. Reliable for their views, but that's about it. Ravensfire (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Like all of the others, there should be no such generalization Beside, the criteria argued above (and organization with an advocacy type agenda) would rule out nearly all organizations. North8000 (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    North8000, no, there is a specific issue with think-tanks which is not seen in other sources. Think-tanks are built from the ground up to look like scholarly institutions, and their purpose is to create a veneer of legitimacy around an agenda, often paid for by people who will directly benefit if that agenda is advanced. We should exclude all think-tanks, regardless of ideology. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    I don't agree. Unfortunately Wikipedia core policy & guidelines do not require expertise or objectivity or actual reliability to be a wp:rs. But let's say that we do want those things. If we generalize about sources that would disqualify most modern-time media, starting with the New York Times, most books on political topics and figures, all advocacy organizations etc.. A more useful attribute is expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it A think tank, especially since they generally do research, could be a very reliable source on matters of fact. But in areas of opinion, their writings are opinions and should be handled as such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    North8000, er, yes they do. The R in RS is "reliable". Guy (help! - typo?) 23:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    I wish that you were right. North8000 (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    But they are not a reliable source of information, because they embody a very specific, fringe point of view when it comes to economics. This is not maths, chemistry or biology. BeŻet (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Has anyone checked the information in the main article? This is a mouthpiece of the far-right. :
    • "A 2000 "Intelligence Report" by the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized the Institute as Neo-Confederate, "devoted to a radical libertarian view of government and economics." "
    • "In 2003, Chip Berlet of the Southern Poverty Law Center described the Mises Institute as "a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics", also noting Rothbard's opposition to child labor laws and the anti-immigrant views of other Institute scholars."
    • "In 2017, the president of the Mises Institute, Jeff Deist, gave a speech at the Mises University conference, where in his concluding remarks he stated that the ideas of "blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people". Nicholas Sarwark and Arvin Vohra, then the chair and vice-chair of the United States Libertarian Party, condemned Deist's speech, with Vohra stating that "the Mises Institute has been turned into a sales funnel for the White Nationalist branch of the Alt Right". Vohra further accused the Mises Institute as a whole of being "authoritarian, racist, nazi"." Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Just a point of order, to "become unreliable" Mises would have had to by definition first needed to be reliable and I see no evidence which supports that argument. I think you mean “sources aren’t magically unreliable...” which is a completely different argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Sources are also not magically reliable when you put "institute" in a group's name. What reliable information can you find there? BeŻet (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No / Generally unreliable per Aquillion. It's a fringe ideological advocacy organization, whose positions are often on the extreme fringe of even libertarian opinion (let alone any widespread/consensus perspective). Its use should generally be restricted to WP:ABOUTSELF contexts regarding itself, its contributors, and the ideologies they espouse (and such statements should be attributed). Any other type of statement must use a better source than it. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

*Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources means we should treat Mises Institute as reliable as a primary sorce for its own views. I came to this rcf by the grapevine this as a result of encountering one of the editor's who voted here on a separate wiki article. @Horse Eye's Back: i am taken aback by your comments here. You said a lot of cool-headed things in the discussion page on the Maplewashing page and you also did the same for the "Mass removal of content on China-related articles" section to, so I am kind of struggling to see your opinion that this institute is not a reliable source for information. I had not heard of Mises before and am no an expert on economics, but from what I have read off theirwebsite, i strongly dispute against your argument that the institute should be banned from use on wikipedia. Using just one exmple here, i cannot se anything remotely beyond the pail about saying slave economies thwarted entrepreneurial innovation (https://mises.org/wire/why-slave-economies-thwart-entrepreneurial-innovation) Festerhauer (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thats because this is a discussion on the use of Mises as a source in contexts *besides* as a primary source for its own views, e.g. whether or not they are in general a WP:RS. I’ve followed them for at least two decades and have even been invited to (and attended) social events sponsored by them, its a political rather than academic organization and doesn't have any of the hallmarks we expect of a reliable source nor do I think that Mises has ever claimed to be the sort of organization which would be a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Also note that the piece you linked includes the disclaimer "Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
But even deprecated sources can still be used to talk about them (WP:ABOUTSELF), so nobody's questioning that. The point of this whole discussion is concluding whether Mises is reliable for anything else apart from sourcing someone's views and opinions. BeŻet (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable based on whats already been expressed by myself and others, I dont think this actually is an RfC despite having RfC in the name but if it is I support deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable I'm pretty economically libertarian, but this source is unreliable. They are fringe and seem to go against the mainstream consensus far more than most reputable sources. They seem to repeat specific libertarian talking points that have been repeatedly debunked. Personally, I think the Cato Institute is much better. However, I'd be cautious when citing partisan think tanks in general. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Almost a snow no.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I've struck through the edits of two socks, ese Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton/Archive Doug Weller talk 14:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The Von Pip Musical Express

The Von Pip Musical Express is a long-running music blog that features news and reviews, as well as interviews with many notable bands. Several of the interviews are already used in many of our articles. The site and its founder has been featured in several mainstream sources, such as The Guardian and the BBC. According to the site itself, it "has been voted in the BT Digital Music awards top ten music blogs and nominated in the Record of the Day Journalism and PR music awards, being named as runner up in 2009. Andy was also a member of 'The BBC’s Sound Of 2010 taste-makers panel' and has had press accreditation for numerous gigs and festivals including Liverpool Sound City , The Great Escape And Glastonbury." I'm unfamiliar with the site and more used to working with more mainstream sources. I'm particularly interested in opinions on its use for:

  • News
  • Reviews
  • Interviews

It seems to me that using the site for news and other facts might be a problem owing to the lack of editorial oversight, and the founder might not be quite notable enough as a critic to feature his reviews, whereas we may have more leeway with the interviews. Thanks for any and all advice given. Steve T • C 12:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Unreliable -- @Steve: I concur that this one should not be used. Blogs are concerning as sources and generally unreliable. The exception to this is if The Guardian or the BBC uses them...we can cite and quote their articles as there is reputable editorial oversight. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not RS – VP's long biography statement[32] does not mention his published works, other than the blog. A quick googlebooks search[33] only shows a mention in a Jesus and Mary Chain biography, the parenthetical "(There is an excellent and moving account of this evening on Andy Von Pip's website www.thevpme.com)". But, there is no indication that the "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" requirement of WP:RS/SPS is met. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hindenburg Research ( hindenburgresearch.com )

Hindenburg Research / https://hindenburgresearch.com/

Used here:

Also see:[34]

Reliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a primary source for the claims, they should only be used alongside reliable secondary sources that either corroborate or dispute the allegations. Hemiauchenia (talk)
Is this even a primary source for claims about Nikola Corporation? It appears to be an unreliable secondary source. Consider this claim from the article:
"On September 10, 2020, short seller Hindenburg Research released a report accusing Nikola of being "an intricate fraud" perpetrated largely by Milton. Further verification by Financial Times confirmed the report's claim regarding a showcased Nikola One rolling down a slope with no onboard propulsion and instead by using the force of gravity."
I think that we should nuke anything sourced to Hindenburg Research and instead simply report what the Financial Times says. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Asking if an article is a reliable source for the text added to Dan Gibson

This source[35], which has been in the article for some time and I'm not challenging as an RS in principle, has been used for this change[36] of the sourced text. Does the text correctly represent the source? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me that both versions of that section of the article are overly reductive. This paper seems to be engaging critically with Gibson's work, rather than a direct critique of Gibson's work. That is, the paper takes a "cautious assumption that Gibson’s data were valid" from the outset. Using the initial assumptions from Gibson and King, the paper finds initially that "the data would support both Gibson and King, if we accept their initial assumptions" based on Gibson's data alone. After performing some additional analyses that I don't totally understand, but which seem rather fuzzy/arbitrary to me (not that it matters if we deem this an RS, by OR), they conclude: "The results of our two follow-up analyses, limited to the accuracy of mosques presumably facing towards Mecca, found that accuracy was relatively good, in support of Gibson’s thesis and contrary to King’s antithesis." In the end, I think it is most reasonable to summarize this as general agreement with Gibson, while making typical academic statements about limitations of methods. Given that this paper relies very heavily on Gibson's data, and given that the authors personally emailed Gibson to help them interpret his data, this would probably not be considered independent. But also also, that's sort of how academia works, anyway, so I certainly wouldn't identify that ipso facto as a major limitation.
Please bear in mind that I know very, very little about this context, so it's 100% possible I'm misreading this. Jlevi (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Quartz

Is Quartz a generally reliable source? Can it be used as an indicator of notability? My experience is that I haven't seen anything unreliable from them, or silly coverage, but just wanted to get some thoughts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Was discussed a few months back at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_301#Quartz. Not a lot of comments, but seems like it is generally reliable and cautious for science and Bitcoin. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Quartz is one of the more reliable digital only publications, as with most things their feature pieces will be more reliable than day to day events reporting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Generally reliable. Quartz has managed to deliver news for eight years without significant controversy. The publication targets businesspeople, and its articles get straight to the point. I see it as a precursor to the three-year-old Axios (RSP entry), which is also considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 00:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

lokalhistoriewiki.no

777 uses of a wiki dedicated to Norwegian local history. Any help dealing with this mess greatly appreciated. FDW777 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Genocide Watch: Unreliable source?

On the Talk page of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, some members raised concerns about the reliability of the NGO Genocide Watch. In response, sources were provided to highlight the reliability of this NGO. There were as well comments made about it being "minor" and hence not reliable, which to my reading is irrelevant as size of an entity should not have a bearing whether its claims are reliable or not. However, even the size question has been answered. Here is key part of the comment I made which for me adequately answers the concerns. Happy to hear more from the community (tagging @Armatura:, @Գարիկ Ավագյան:, @Rosguill: please tag others as you see fit)

  • Even if for a moment we accept that "too minor" organizations cannot be cited in this article, GW is not a minor organization. It is not only a member of the Alliance Against Genocide which includes more than 60 International NGOs but also their Chair. As to its credibility, here are sources in the Guardian (1, 2 and 3) and CNN (1 and 2) quoting Genocide Watch with one going back to 2002. NOTE: the cited topics are NOT related to the NK conflict. --Sataralynd (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Having read through the list of organizations affiliated with the Alliance Against Genocide, I'm not sure that's a strong indication of reliability. The participation of groups like Knights of Columbus, Armenian National Committee of America, and Christian Solidarity International give the impression that the coalition is a political coalition rather than a scholarly endeavor. signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill:With all respect, but again a personal opinion but so far not even a single reference on a reliable third party source that would criticise Genocide Watch as "political" or "unreliable". And if singling out the above-mentioned affiliated organizations had the aim for claiming a pro-Christian bias, then seeing affiliated organizations for protecting Muslims from genocide like "Arakan Rohingya Union (US, UK, Myanmar)", "Burmese Rohingya Organization UK Free Rohingya Coalition (UK, US, Canada, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Malaysia, South Africa, Japan", "International Campaign for the Rohingya (US)" , should take any such thoughts away for a neutral reader.
I don't think they have a Christian bias, but these specific groups give me pause. Christian Solidarity International has a reputation for myopia and exaggeration when it comes to human rights, an Armenian political committee is hardly an impartial party to coverage of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the Knights of Columbus is literally named for someone who presided over a genocide. The inclusion of Rohingya and Darfur groups in the coalition suggests to me that this is a political coalition comprising various organizations that claim to represent groups harmed by genocides, and NGOs that recognize those specific genocides as having happened. Their causes may be noble, but this doesn't automatically establish a reputation for reliability. As for the extent to which this is my opinion, this pair of comments are intended as a rebuttal to the implied argument that being a member of the Alliance Against Genocide is a sign of reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 05:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Samuel Totten in his article in Genocide at the Millennium (Routledge, 2017) includes Genocide Watch in a list of twelve major NGOs that address genocide. So I would see them as reliable and their opinions significant. Bear in mind that no source is perfect but it there are specific claims or opinions they publish that someone wants to question, they need to do this by comparing their specific statements with what similar groups say. TFD (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You only need to read the article to see how unreliable and biased this source is. It starts off the article about Karabakh with how Armenians were ethnically cleansed by the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in early 20th century and even mentions September Days but says zero words about March Days and fails to mention at least one of the many ethnic cleansings done towards Azeri populations of that time (e.g. ethnic cleansings of Andranik). It goes on to give place for the Stepanakert shelling, yet says absolutely nothing about anything done towards Azeris (massacres, forced deportations and etc.). It goes on to give a level 9 and 10 genocide warning.. based on what? It mentions Azerbaijan shelling civilians, which it correctly points out is against Geneva conventions.. but says literally nothing about bombing of Azeri cities, like Ganja, where 26 people died in one night? Not even going to mention the fact that Azerbaijan currently has 25 more civilian deaths and almost 200 more injured civilians than Armenia? It even proposes embargo on Azerbaijan but nothing for Armenia. This source is obviously biased towards the Armenian side. And no, just because Guardian cited it one time, doesn't make everything they have published reliable and Non-POV. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 06:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Beshogur: ; @Solavirum: ; @Geysirhead: You might be interested.
@CuriousGolden:As I said before, this discussion is not about the content. In other words, The discussion ideally shouldn't mention Azerbaijan or Armenia. The sources provided above in CNN and Guardian don't mention NK. This thread was opened because you raised concerns about the reliability of GW, and you have to provide third party sources and not just your opinion, that put that reliability under question. Just because GW is condemning the action of one side, it doesn't automatically make it unreliable. Reliability is not earned by blaming both sides. That's not how it works. Please answer to the first comment on this thread, and I would advise strongly to tag people from only one side of a particular issue. As @Solavirum: rightly points out WP:NOTADEMOCRACY--Sataralynd (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not here to discuss the overall reliability of GW as a whole. My concern was about the specific article put out by GW, which is clearly biased. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I hope CuriousGolden and everybody here agrees that "the specific article put out by GW is clearly biased" is an opinion, point of view / allegation / claim but not a fact, . Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not user opinions. If one just doesn't like some piece of information, it does not mean that it should be erased from WP. And for facts, one has to provide published third party sources. Best regards Armatura (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Genocide Watch is as reliable as it can get and I’m quite surprised that it has even been brought to this board. For one, it’s cited by a plethora of scholarly works. This increases its reliability substantially. Also, this seems to be contested by one user here who has made no attempt to provide any professional or academic critique of the GW. Instead, we just hear WP:JDLI remarks and a total rejection of basic WP:RS criteria that helps us determine whether or not this source is reliable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Amnesty International...."Genocide Watch’s intentions for predicting, preventing, stopping, and punishing genocide and other forms of mass murder are admirable. But the tool they use to advance this work – the Ten Stages of Genocide – is thin on transparency.".--Moxy 🍁 14:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: could you provide a link for this? I couldn't find anything online from Amnesty--Sataralynd (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Eight stages of genocide, Scholar lists some citations. fiveby(zero) 14:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It is certainly an influential site, and can be cited for its attributed opinion where WP:DUE. However, I've personally found incorrect or outdated facts on the website and would be hesitant to rely on it if I couldn't confirm the information. Stanton is often cited in media for his opinions on some or another man-made tragic event, and its probably better to use such quotes than cite the website directly because it shows that a secondary source considers them relevant. (t · c) buidhe 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    I think that given the measured criticism from Amnesty International and the source's nature as an advocacy group, we should be careful about using it as a source for an ongoing conflict. If we use it, should be used in a paragraph alongside other advocacy groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. I'm skeptical of directly stating claims about their 8 stages or 10 stages methodology, as the framework is not familiar to most readers and is better paraphrased as a description that doesn't mention the stages (e.g. instead of saying that they're at Stage 10 – Denial, we'd say that according to Genocide Watch, Azerbaijan actively denies past genocidal acts). Glancing at AI and HRW's coverage, AI is currently criticizing both Armenia and Azerbaijan for the use of cluster munitions and targeting civilians ([37], [38]) and HRW is primarily criticizing Azerbaijan for the same ([39]). Neither of them has mentioned genocide yet in its coverage. Given that Genocide Watch appears to be the only organization raising the specter of genocide at this moment, it's probably not due to include the accusation that Azerbaijan is in the process of committing a genocide, but may be due to paraphrase GW's contribution as being a condemnation of Azerbaijan's actions exclusively as part of a longer paragraph surveying these organizations' perspectives, with more weight given if secondary sources cite their opinions. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Do you have the link where AI is criticizing GW? I couldn't find anything online--Sataralynd (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rosguill: As a matter of fact, AI does not confirm use of cluster munition by Armenia in the provided links. It is not only Genocide Watch that uses the word Genocide, but also Armenian Government . Genocide Watch being an advocacy group, it is natural that it would be the first organization to find the courage to call things by their names, while others are being slow with their definitions. As of the staging classification of Genocide Watch, adding their whole classification system to " 2020 NK conflict" article would perhaps make it too long, users are able to find it on website if they follow the citation link. Whats stage 9 and stage 10 mean I explained in situ. Putting statements from other advocacy groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. along the statetement of GW, under the section Humanitarian Organisations, would make sense and be reader-friendly, but this is a discussion for talk page already Armatura (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    It makes perfect sense for a watchdog to be on the vanguard of raising concern about potential genocide. That doesn't mean that we should be rushing to use them the moment they release a report. It is Genocide Watch's job to warn about things before they happen; it is our job as Wikipedia to report things only after they can be verified. signed, Rosguill talk 20:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Rosguill: Thank you for agreeing about the standard role of a watchdog organisation. However, they do not use the word "potential". And, their statement about Artsakh does not state "before it happens" but that it genocide is "already happening", there is a big difference. Hence I see no point in delaying the addition to WP, as delays in condemnation of genocide serve the purposes of genocide. Anyway, we drifted away a bit from the subject - the credibility of Genocide Watch, and I am glad to see that the consensus so far sees no issues with it. Armatura (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    The problem people in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict talk page had was about the specific article about Karabakh that GW published and its inclusion still seems to be contested by several editors here. Speculation about such a serious thing as genocide without any valid proof has no place in a Wiki article. You mentioned that it doesn't speculate for the future, but is saying that it is happening, which is even more absurd. So far there are 25 more Azeri civilian deaths and 197 more Azeri civilians injured than Armenians. To claim that this is a genocide right now is clearly absurd and speculations about very serious things such as genocides in the future with no valid proof have no place in an article. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@CuriousGolden: Injured civilians is always a tragedy, and I understand the emotions on both sides, but Wikipedia is not a place for emotions and not every tragedy is a genocide. Genocide has a clear definition and timeline (see the 10 stages on GW website), but this discussion is not about it. I can only see "this is absurd" and "that is absurd" kind of remarks in the comment above, clearly a POV in the category of WP:IJDLI, with no reference whatsoever to a reliable neutral source that would criticise GW as "absurd" or "unreliable" or "unilaterally biased" or "pro-Armenian" or "pro-Christian or "anti-Azerbaijani" or "anti-Muslim". Scrutinizing reliability of source on WP is fine, as long as it is based on reliable sources, not POVs and emotions and name-callings. Regards, Armatura (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Armatura: Exactly as you pointed out in your first 2 sentences, not all death of civilians is genocide as the GW portrays it to be. I provided reasons why I think it's absurd, instead of moving away from the points I've made, reply to them. The source gives no reason to why it gives it stage 9 and stage 10 assessment other than "yeah Azerbaijan has denied a massacre 100 years ago" and "Azerbaijan threw bombs at Stepanakert". As I stated in my points in the latest comment, which you ignored, Azerbaijan currently has 25 more civilian deaths than Armenia, so if GW is claiming that death of 40 civilians (on Armenian side) death is genocide, then yes, it is absurd.
@CuriousGolden: I don't work for GW. You are welcome to write directly GW and ask all your questions to them and cite their answer here. If you don't like GW and if you are an academic, write a scientific article (or find one who will write), publish your thoughts there and cite it against GW citation, no problem. If you find an organisation that would call Azerbaijani civilian losses in this conflict a genocide you are welcome to bring it to discussion as we are doing one for GW. If you want to keep something that you don't like away from Wikipedia just because you don't like it then, sorry, but it is not WP policy as I am sure you are well aware. If you have problem with WP rules, you are welcome to write WP admins to change the WP rules the way you like it. If I have not answered any of multiple questions of yours, it is because I am not obliged to answer all questions, especially if I (subjectively) sense anything provocative or abusive in them, as per WP rules. Best regards, Armatura (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Sataralynd, I was going off Moxy. Having done some research myself, it seems like that exact quote comes from an analysis piece in Africa Check [40], that both appears to be a reliable source in its own right and cites various academics. I'm a bit miffed that it wasn't from the source that I thought it was, but my impression of the source's usability remains the same: usable for attributed opinion alongside other human rights orgs, and better off paraphrased. signed, Rosguill talk 05:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: the piece you are citing in Africa Check [41] seems reasonable, but the first second comment of that article (from a certain James) provides a reasonable challenge to the claims that are made in AC. I hope you recognize that there a few users who are pushing strongly about NOT including GW, which to me signals that we actually, from a NPOV, should push to include it, but as you suggest with proper attribution and the as-usual caveats--Sataralynd (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No one disputes that Azerbaijan denies the Armenian genocide, but it's of questionable relevance on an article about a conflict more than a century later. (t · c) buidhe 19:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Genocide Watch has genocide emergency report specifically referring to this 2020 conflict in Artsakh https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh; we are not referring to century-old Armenian Genocide here (although in Armenia people view one as the continuation of the other, due to Turkey's involvement).Armatura (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@GenQuest: It is a personal research / opinion, though, and others may not share it, would you agree?. My personal (subjective) perception is that advocacy groups are the first to call things by their names, while the others (less passionate about the cause) are waking up and feeling the direction of wind. As long as Wikipedia allows citing Amnesty International, Humans Rights Watch and other humanitarian / advocacy groups, then there is no reason why Genocide Watch cannot be cited, will you agree? And nobody hides from the public that they are advocacy groups, hence it is up to the reader to have personal feelings towards a statement from advocacy group. Regards Armatura (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary: WP:NOTADEMOCRACY but nevertheless most of you think GW is as reliable as it could get. Again I reiterate, the intention of this forum is to determine whether GW is reliable or not, and nothing to do with the Nagorno Karabakh topic. However, a valued feedback is to paraphrase what they always claim without mentioning the stages. @Armatura: do you want to do the edit? If anyone else has anything to add on the topic of GW's reliability or not, please do so

Thanks all participants for comments and @Sataralynd: for summarising. Further discussion of how GW statement applies to NK war in the relevant talk page. Armatura (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
How can their website possibly be considered to be a reliable source - it is just a blog that anyone can post material onto. Anyone can be a "member", no ID check or academic credentials needed. Check out the multiple Gregory Stanton accounts. There is the original and presumably only real "Gregory Stanton" whose account was created on Dec 23 2019 and has 55 blog posts to his name [42], plus a "Gregory H. Stanton", joined Oct 24, 2020 and with just one blog post to date [43], and a "Nathanial Hill & Gregory Stanton", joined Oct 23 2020, and with just one blog post to their names [44], and another "Gregory Stanton", joined Oct 29 2020 and with just one blog post to his name [45]. 88.108.77.10 (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Album of the Year

There's some disagreement about the reliability of this source over at WikiProject Albums, so I thought it would be useful to get a consensus on it over here. It is being used across quite a few album articles as a source of review aggregation. —Torchiest talkedits 00:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely a WP:SPS, and thus not usable. From the FAQ on that site:
Frequently Asked Questions
Why aren't my ratings showing up on an album page and why don't they have an effect on the overall score?
The most likely reasons are:
You rated an album that isn't available yet. (i.e. it hasn't leaked, it isn't streaming, etc.)
You have multiple accounts
Creating multiple accounts for the sole purpose of gaming the overall user score is not allowed. Once these ::accounts are discovered, the ratings will be removed and the account will be banned from participating on the ::site.
--Guy Macon (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

^ That section of the FAQ refers to the "user score" found on every album page—the registered users rating an album. This has nothing to do with the "Critic score", which is calculated using professional ratings. I'm not gonna vote either way, but I thought I'd point this out. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I believe this source is reliable in the way it is used, since only the critic score is cited on articles. --K. Peake 07:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
No. A count of what critics say is, in general, something we allow in film articles, but the count has to be in a reliable source, not a self-published source. There are two major reasons for this:
First, how was it decided which critics to count?
Second, how do you know that the count wasn't just made up out of whole cloth?
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Unreliable they even consider unreliable self-publications such as The Young Folks and Fantano. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Fanatano is the world's most prominent contemporary music critic, as evidenced by multiple profiles in notable publications. Fantano arguably satisfies the "subject matter expert" criterion. Whether Fantano should be considered a notable enough music critic to be included in an average score alongside professional music publications like Pitchfork is a due weight question, not a reliability one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: It is not due to question, several discussions ocurred on wikipedia regarding using him on music articles. The outcome was always "don't use his reviews". Please inform yourself first, before making such bold statments. You can see it here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@MarioSoulTruthFan: I read those discussions which it is worth noting were over three years ago now. Most of the reponses seemed like snobbery and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, dismissing him as just "some guy on youtube". Fantano is totally unique as far as his status as an independent music critic is concerned, and his stature has only increased in the years since the discussion. I do think Fantano handled the wikipedia issue poorly, which did engender resentment from Wikipedia regulars. As a self published source, he should not be used for claims made about living persons that are not from interviews, but his opinion on albums is fine, but should be used sparingly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: I have nothing against Anthony Fantano or his reviews in general, but the main problem with his reviews that he post them in YouTube, which is a self-published source and those websites are frowned upon (WP:SPS). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Unreliable. The site was previously discussed at WT:ALBUMS in August 2019 and February 2020 (after it had been added to the Album ratings template), but no consensus was established for its usage and the editors' concerns were not addressed. AOTY fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability. One of the first pages I looked at included a user review from the website sputnikmusic among the professional reviews. There's no way of ascertaining the site's level of editorial oversight; nothing in the way of a list of staff, anyway; and users can generate the content they wish, meaning only super-high (or -low) professional review ratings might appear. It's a hobbyist's site, not a professional reviews aggregator. Album of the Year appears to have received nothing in the way of significant recognition from third-party sources, as say, Metacritic does; barely any recognition at all, in fact. I've just proposed our article on the site for deletion, for the same reason. Thanks to Torchiest for bringing this here, btw. JG66 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_316&oldid=1038100124"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.