Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 317

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

This website have been used in several articles and I wonder the website can be considered as reliable or unreliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I looked at some of their journalists for music and they seem pretty much verifiable and reliable, for example Trey Alston has written for MTV, Spin magazine, Paper magazine and has articles featured on Vibe, Pitchfork among others. David Opie is the deputy TV Editor at DigitalSpy and also writtens for Rotten Tomatos, Jake Boyer has written for Salt Lake Tribune, Interview Magazine and Insider, last but not least Sarah Osei is fairly recent but has already written for Teen Vogue and the Insider. All in all, they seem to hire mostly freelance journalists, but those do have some background and written for some major publications. I guess one could add it to RS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The site Jacobite Magazine is an online magazine that has published just over 150 articles since mid-2017. I have come across it a couple of times, and I tend to remove it when I see it. On occasion, I have received pushback (but usually not engagement on talk), so I figured I'd bring it up for discussion. Examples include: Talk:Accelerationism#Is_a_Jacobite_article_by_Nick_Land_due? Talk:The_Jungle_Grows_Back Talk:The Virtue of Nationalism.

Jacobite is rarely discussed in reliable secondary sources, though it has been described by Vox as "...the marginal right-wing site Jacobite." It has also been referenced a couple of times by The Federalist. It seems like this site is going for a sort of intellectual style, so some notable figures such as Nick Land, Cody Wilson, and Bronze Age Pervert have written for it. If I were ever to cite this source, I would probably argue based on the notability/expert status of its authors, rather than the reliability of the source. It has two permanent editors, and its Patreon has just over 20 supporters, a non-indicator for most wikipedia purposes, but perhaps useful to give a sense of audience size.

So for a random author on the site, is this site ever reliable enough to be cited? Jlevi (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC highlighted one article by Cody Wilson: "On April 16, Wilson published a blog on the Jacobite website. The “Covid-911” post is typical Wilson. Citing Baudrillard, he spouts the conspiracy theory du jour: the current global pandemic is being leveraged to create a digital and philosophical police state." Jlevi (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

WT:RSP saysThe Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) is one of the most controversially classified sources in this list. There has never been a request for comment (RfC) for the SPLC. If you disagree with the classifications of this source, please start an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine the current consensus instead of directly editing your preferred classification into the list. If you are unfamiliar with RfCs, please ask here, and other editors will be glad to assist., so we should be basing our decision on something better than just that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• I cannot find any evidence it is a WP:RS and every indication that it is indeed a "marginal right-wing site" which is likely wp:undue in most cases. But, it may be OK to use as aboutself in some cases for the fringe right wing topics that it represents. (FYI, I wouldn't consider the Federalist a RS either; it is known for inaccurate claims [1][2]) (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see anything to suggest it is a reliable source. I would not use this as a primary source for opinion, for the usual reason: opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one, and in order to establish the significance of any particular opinion, even by a notable individual (no judgment on whether this applies in this case) it needs to be in a credible source, and significance should be established by coverage in secondary sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The magazine's articles are op-eds hence would not be considered reliable.

WP:RSP says, "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States." No there hasn't been an RfC for RSP, but then these are rare for obviously reliable sources such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN. Since the SPLC writes about extremist groups, it's not surpising that it has attracted animosity from supporters of those groups and their views.

Anyway, the issue is not whether the SPLC is a reliable source but whether their reporting of Wilson's article is accurate. Editors are free to read it and come to their own conclusions.

TFD (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

As a consequence of the RfCs on Global Times and Xinhua, some users have been stripping citations from large numbers of China-related articles, which will probably lead to the eventual removal of large amounts of information about China. To give a few examples of items removed just in the past day by one user:

• [3]: Removal of a source describing how delegates for the 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party were selected.
• [4]: Removal of a source describing production of Type 055 destroyers.
• [5]: Removal of source describing criticism of a famous Chinese actress' performance in a particular movie.
• [6]: Removal of source describing visa regulations in China.
• [7]: Removal of source describing the command structure of Chinese police.
• [8]: Removal of source describing the performance of a Chinese athlete in an international competition.
• [9]: Removal of source describing the Chinese premiere of an Indian film.
• [10]: Removal of source describing Chinese audience reaction to a major Chinese film.
• [11]: Removal of source documenting that a Chinese official was under investigation by a Communist Party anti-corruption agency.
• [12]: Removal of source documenting where a 2015 conference between the Communist Party and Kuomintang was held.
• [13]: Removal of source describing which routes are flown by a Chinese budget airline.
• [14]: Removal of source that lists Alibaba's sales revenue on China's unofficial "Single's Day" holiday.
• [15]: Removal of source documenting a Chinese film industry award won by a Chinese actor.

These are all Global Times sources, but I've seen similar things happening with Xinhua, which wasn't even deprecated. When the discussions occurred here about Global Times and Xinhua, I don't think most users realized just how much completely mundane, factual information would end up being unsourced (and could end up being scrubbed from Wikipedia). I think there should be a pause on these mass removals of sources, and a discussion about whether or not this is what Wikipedians really want to happen. In my opinion, much more focused guidance should be given, particularly about Global Times. Broad deprecation is damaging to the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes poor sources need removing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrongthink surely. Surely where there are poor sources the object should surely be wholelistic to try to improve the encyclopedia in the most efficient way. This may at times mean replacing sources, at times tagging sourcess to assist others to improve, at times removing content. And the approach may be context dependent. It takes little effort to delete content; and somewhat more to replace it. If we take a thepeerage.com source a section or two above, remove it completely and very difficult to find the underlying source it cites unless one knew it was there and trawled through history. There are those who come to Wikipedia to build an encylopedia, there are those come to feast on destroying others efforts, though few are probably totally at that extreme.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I consider it worse to include things that may not be true then to remove them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

But they aren't removing "things that may not be true". They are removing the citation and leaving the "things that may not be true" right there in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue should be what do we gain or lose, if we remove dodgy sources and content our overall reputation for accuracy might improve,, If we allow it to stay we keep our reputation for inaccuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We're not risking anything by relying on the Global Times for information about the command structure of Chinese police, the routes flown by a Chinese budget airline or the date of a conference between the CPC and KMT. By stripping GT and other Chinese sources, however, we are at risk of losing a lot of content, and ending up with a narrow view of Chinese issues that comes entirely from the outside. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes we are, you are seeing it here, "but its reliable for this..., thus why not for that". We need to discourage the use of bad sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

How are we seeing it here? Whether a source is reliable is not an absolute all-or-nothing question. Sources can be reliable in some contexts but not in others, and a blanket rule is rarely constructive. The diffs I gave above show that the Global Times is being removed as a source for large numbers of articles in which I would contend there are not serious concerns about its reliability. Context used to be a key factor considered at WP:RSN, but the recent move towards RfCs and official deprecation of a growing list of sources has led to a much more black-and-white framing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well the first link can be seen as an example of party propaganda "look how we are tackling corruption". Second "launched in the Dalian", not built by, it may be pedantic but it failed verification, Third do we really need to know what one media outlet thinks? its trivia. I stopped at three, none of this is needed or useful or really needs better sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The first source was simply used to reference the fact that the Central Committee approved a selection procedure for the 19th National Congress. That's a simple factual matter, and I don't see how its inclusion constitutes propaganda. The second edit summary does not say "failed verification." It says the source is deprecated. Global Times would be a perfectly fine source for claiming that a ship was built by a certain company and launched on a certain date. For the third edit, the issue is how Chinese audiences reacted to a certain film. In this case, the Global Times is accurately summarizing the widespread reception of the film in China (largely unfavorable). Many sources could be used for this particular claim, but it's an example of accurate reporting from the Global Times on an apolitical issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No you think it is, the community disagreed. The fourth link, I cannot see any mention of connecting flights.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The community expressed worries about political propaganda, but I don't think most people had mundane factual matters on their minds, like who won a particular acting award. The mass removal of such straightforward information from articles, which I think will be highly unexpected to many who took part in the RfC, is why I'm raising this issue here.

About the fourth link, the source was apparently being used to reference the change in outbound visa policies, not the detail about connecting flights. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If the community thought that the sources were unusable for politics but could be used for simple factual statements, they could have gone for generally unreliable or even "other considerations"; they went for full depreciation, which is unequivocally stating that no, it cannot be used for "who won a particular award." I agree with the statement below that this reads like you are trying to re-litigate the RFC - the usage of these sources you are arguing for here is one that the community has clearly and unequivocally rejected. There is a little room to discuss the best way to go about removing these sources, but the community consensus is unequivocally that our ultimate goal should be to get our usage of them down to nearly zero - used for nothing at all outside of the tiny slivers of usage allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF and the like. If you disagree with that, you need to start another RFC, because it doesn't sound like you accept the outcome of the previous one. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Of your first four sources two should have been tagged anyway, two (it can be argued) are trivia. So I am gona say if this is an example of what we are losing I do not see an issue, and in fact would argue this may be one reason it was deprecated. It is either being misused or used for stuff we really do not need.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, the default is to exclude poorly-sourced material. Anyone who wants to restore it after replacing the source with a reliable one, can do so.

In practice what happens is the same old circus of a handful of people insisting that people who remove bad sources bear the burden of supporting the content by finding a better source. No, that is not how it works. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Global Times is not a poor source for most of these cases. There were concerns about GT being used for political purposes, but that does not mean that it's unreliable for all sorts of mundane information. What is going to happen is that as more and more Chinese sources are deprecated or otherwise deemed unreliable in broad spheres, there will be very few sources left for many Chinese topics. Xinhua is still considered broadly reliable, which at least means there's some coverage of Chinese issues, but some users have argued that the RfC close is essentially a deprecation (which is a gross misreading of the RfC result, in my opinion), and are also systematically stripping Xinhua from articles.

We really are going to end up in a situation in which we will have an exclusively American or European view of China and Chinese topics, and many topics that are poorly covered in American and European sources (i.e., broad swaths of Chinese issues) will simply be removed from the encyclopedia. I think that what's unfolding here was not intended by the community, and that much more focused guidance on usage of Chinese sources is necessary. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• We shouldn't cover topics at all if there aren't reliable, independent sources that report on them. It is better than repeating propaganda which may (or may not) be at all accurate. If Wikipedia existed in 1970 and we were trying to report on the Soviet Union, we would have to choose between Soviet propaganda and the writings of Western anti-Soviet writers, who didn't turn out to be much more accurate. If a country bans reliable sources from operating on its territory, yes, that does substantially reduce what can be said about them. Maybe they should consider allowing press to operate freely? (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that some of the judgments have been too broad, and some of the deprecated sources are actually highly reliable for wide ranges of uses. When the Global Times reports that Spring Airlines services a route between Shanghai and Ibaraki Airport, or that Chinese actor Wen Zhang won the Best Male Lead award at the Hundred Flowers Award, there's no serious doubt that those reports are factual. I can understand avoiding the Global Times to make factual statements about contentious political topics (e.g., statements about the US-China trade war should carry in-line attributions), but stripping out all sorts of simple factual reporting about movie awards, airlines, film premieres, dates of conferences, etc. is destructive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw some of these removals in my watchlist earlier today and am very troubled, both by the removals and the cavalier and unprofessional attitudes used to justify them. -Darouet (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Good riddance to bad sources, the solution here is for the Chinese government to allow independent media to operate in mainland China. We also have plenty of reliable regional papers in Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and India which provide significant coverage of China, heck theres even the Hong Kong papers which may I remind you are Chinese so I don’t see the argument for including joke level unreliable (in the case of Global Times) sources as a means to balance out American and European sources as we already have a ton of good non-American and non-European sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no influence over the Chinese government's media policies, and one of my concerns here is indeed that deprecation RfCs are being used to make the political point you just expressed, regardless of the impact on the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, we have no influence over their media policies, we only react to them. The point I just expressed is not political, it wasn’t even close. On a side note please retract your WP:aspersions that I am engaged in tendentious editing or provide diffs which support your argument, thats just about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a WP editor by another. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comment directly above mine was overtly political. We can't influence Chinese government policy. That doesn't mean we should remove large amounts of simple, factual material like which cities a given airline serves. Proposing Chinese governmental reform doesn't do anything to address the concerns I've raised here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Its procedural not political, editorial independence is one of the core components of our reliability policy. China currently does not tolerate or allow editorial independence on the mainland (HK is for now an exception to the rule). I guess technically I was wrong, there is another solution: we could completely change our reliability policy. Why that would be more reasonable than the Chinese government allowing their citizens basic human rights is beyond me though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

^ Now that statement right there, that one *was* a little bit political. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can see why I'm worried that deprecation discussions are being influenced by a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you also see how the way you’ve gone about saying so is a personal attack? I’l revert it for you if you don't do it speedily, you cant just make such serious allegations on a noticeboard and then refuse to back them up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• That doesn't mean we should remove large amounts of simple, factual material like which cities a given airline serves. As far as I can tell, no one is doing so; they are just removing depreciated sources and leaving a fact tag on material that lacked a valid source (which is what fact tags are for) so the statement can be properly-cited in the future. The fear you're expressing here (that the text will later be deleted) is entirely hypothetical... and if you're deeply worried, your time would be better-spent finding valid sources for those unsourced statements rather than trying to throw red tape in the face of people who are making commendable efforts to improve our sources by removing depreciated sources according to the RFCs requiring such removals. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is an attempt to relitigate the RFC deprecating CGTN. If you want to un-deprecate CGTN, you need to start an RFC with any chance of doing so - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an RfC, so I don't know what you're opposing. I'm asking for Wikipedians to consider the effects of some recent RfCs, which are now becoming apparent, and which I believe are quite different from what most commenters at the RfCs would have intended. Additionally, this is about a number of sources. I gave examples from the Global Times, but I could also give examples from Xinhua. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I have, and I agree with it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I'm guessing you mean Global Times rather than CGTN (which wasn't mentioned here, although both are deprecated)? — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Global Times content that isn't political shock jock isn't high quality reporting anyway, and similar content will likely be found in Xinhua and other Chinese language sources. CGTN's written content is also quite shallow and better reporting will be found elsewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Let's impose some order on this process. I propose that we start by adding a {{better source needed}} tag wherever the deprecated source exists (without initially removing the deprecated source); and then, after some reasonable period of time (I would think a few weeks), remove the deprecated source and switch the tag for {{citation needed}}. BD2412 T 19:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't want to set a hard and fast rule, since it is very contextual. Obviously anything related to a WP:BLP without a proper citation must be removed on sight, and anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL without a proper citation should almost certainly be removed on sight (in both cases an editor could, if they choose, alternatively search for a valid source to immediately replace it, if one exists; but simply removing the text is always justifiable for those.) Beyond that there's a range of options - immediately replacing the source with {{citation needed}} tag is fine, as is adding a {{better source needed}} tag. Editors can also remove even unexceptional, non-WP:BLP-sensitive text cited to a depreciated source immediately if they're confident a source cannot be found or if they feel there's something else objectionable about the text. I would say that it's generally down to the judgment of individual editors; removing depreciated sources and addressing text cited to them is important and already difficult as-is, so we should avoid tying it down in red tape. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• As Aquillion has pointed out previously in discussion of the Daily Mail (I can't quickly find the link), RSN can't require editors to treat deprecated sources more leniently than merely bad sources. Your proposal literally protects a deprecated source more than it does a mediocre source, and that straight-up contradicts the provisions of WP:NOR concerning reliable sources, which deprecated sources almost never can be, and definitely shouldn't be presumed to be - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• The entire purpose of depreciation (as opposed to mere unreliability) is that the source adds nothing and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Therefore, it is almost always valid (and, in fact, desirable) to replace a depreciated source with a citation needed tag. There's a little room to discuss the best way to go about it, but I would strenuously oppose anything that would add red tape or formal restrictions to the process. I also disagree with your implicit assertion that this will lead the text to be deleted - lots of text retains a citation needed tag for years, and most people perform at least a basic search before deleting article text. The most likely effect of replacing depreciated sources with CN tags is that editors will replace them with better sources, if they exist. Since a depreciated source harms the reputation of the article by its presence, and could mislead a casual reader into thinking that a statement has a valid source, replacing it with a CN tag is always an improvement. Finally, I object to the way you titled this section - "sources" are not "content", at least in the way we usually use the terms here, so stating that content is being removed makes what is happening sound far more alarming than the uncontroversial changes you actually list. Please retitle the section to state that sources or citations are being removed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  Is it? I thought that we used words like "banned" or "prohibited" when we meant that something could not be used on Wikipedia. Deprecation has quite another meaning to me – much closer to "eventually, this needs to be upgraded" than "wholesale removal will happen in 3, 2, 1..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• As many editors have expressed already, it's fine to tag deprecated sources (like Global Times and CGTN) with {{better source}} or replace them with {{citation needed}}. If it was Xinhua (which is WP:MREL with specifics given in the WP:RSP entry and is not deprecated) then intext attribution and/or {{better source}} and/or {{citation needed}} is appropriate depending on the context. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  Pinging Amigao, since OP's given examples are all their edits and they haven't been notified yet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  The right tag to use here is {{Deprecated inline|certain=yes}}. BFG (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note that this ongoing. Amigao has removed over 250 instances of Global Times just in the past day. Scroll through to get a sense for how much completely mundane factual information that Global Times is actually reliable for is being removed: [16]. For example, the existence of a railway station in Zhejiang, China is now unsourced: [17]. The Global Times is obviously perfectly reliable for this sort of information. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Global Times isnt actually reliable for that though, no deprecated source is. I’m confused here, are you challenging the deprecation of the Global Times? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In real life, yes, Global Times is perfectly reliable for this sort of mundane information, unless you can show they have a track record of inventing fake Chinese high-speed rail stations. I don't think most people participating in the RfC realized that this is the sort of information that would be removed, as the discussion was almost entirely about fears of political propaganda. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe in your life but not mine. Its a little insulting to suggest that your fellow editors who participate in that RfC didn't understand what they were doing, don’t you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, Horse Eye's Back, I think it is bad faith to assume questions about sourcing that arise when users like Amigao go on a crusade against a deprecated source are completely fair, and saying GT isn't reliable because it is a deprecated source seems to be circular, or some sort of is/ought fallacy. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about GT’s reliability, thats as close to a settled fact as anything on Wikipedia is. If you want to know exactly why editors (myself included) consider the Global Times to be unreliable you can peruse the RfC. I cant parse what you’re saying before the second comma. Can you maybe rephrase it or correct any typos? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• • So look for better sources, I did and now its not unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And again, one source (arguably it was primary, now its a trivial mention), so there is a question of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's the main train station serving a county of over half a million people. Of course it's notable. But this is exactly my point - one user alone is stripping sourcing from hundreds of articles a day, which will lead to a lot of content being removed. It's great that you found a source for this one example, but are you going to go out and find replacements for the hundreds of other sources this one editor has stripped just today? Unless the Global Times is actually unreliable for information like the existence of a railway station, then these mass removals are purely damaging to the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If it is notable RS would have noted it, that what notability is. Again, you are the people who want this information, you are the ones whop make the case and find the sources. I think it is clear I do not see how mush of this is valuable or encyclopedic, we are not a (for example) directory.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You've now nominated the article in question for deletion, making exactly my point for me: [18]. An article about the main high-speed railway station for a county of over half a million people, which would be considered a major city in most parts of the world, is now up for deletion. A lot of information about China is going to get deleted if this goes on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You might want to recalibrate your expectations there, 500k wouldn’t even get into the top 100 most populous counties in the US. I know to some extent its apples and oranges but your arguments do seem to be getting a bit hyperbolic and overwrought. The sky is not falling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Number 100 on that list is the county containing Jersey City, which is a major city by anyone's definition. If you'd be okay with deletion of the article describing Jersey City's central transportation hub, then you won't have a problem with the deletion of Changxing railway station. There's a bit of arrogance in brushing off the deletion of an article about a major transportation hub like this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Most stations around the world don't have a unique article, they get covered on the page for the line overall. It doesn't seem like Changxing railway station is much of a hub, regular speed trains use a completely different station (which doesn't have a wikipedia page) and it has no local metro connection. Of the 11 stations on the Nanjing–Hangzhou Branch of the Beijing–Shanghai high-speed railway only five have wikipedia pages. If the lack of pages worries you find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and there will be little opposition at all to creating a page for all 11. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The more Chinese sources get deprecated, the more difficult it will be to establish notability for things that are obviously highly notable in China, such as high-speed rail stations serving major cities. Your argument is circular: there's no problem deprecating Chinese sources, because that will only lead to articles like Changxing railway station getting deleted, which is no problem because it's not notable, which we know because there are no non-deprecated sources that discuss it, which is why there's no problem deprecating Chinese sources. If my goal were to remove content about China from the encyclopedia, I couldn't think of a better way to do it than getting all the major English-language Chinese sources deprecated for mundane facts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting as a solution? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I think this is a rather mistaken view of things. It's true that for station articles that do not exist yet, they are listed in line articles. However, the movement is toward making station articles, not consolidating them in line articles. Individual station articles are generally kept at AfD. The standard that you are suggesting here is not the standard used at AfD or elsewhere, and certainly isn't applied to stations in Western countries. I would also note that government sources are considered perfectly acceptable for such articles. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As can be seen from my vote on the relevant page I don't support the deletion of that page, I do however support the removal of the GT source from the page and I reject Thucydides411’s argument that it would be perfectly acceptable to use GT on this article. As I told them I will tell you “The sky is not falling,” Changxing railway station is not going to be deleted. There isn't going to be some sort of Saturday night massacre of China-related pages, you might notice that many of the people removing CGTN and GT references are some of the most active wikipedia editors article creation and expansion wise in the China space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of room between "perfectly acceptable to keep" and "so bad as to justify robotically stripping it from every article it's in". The sky isn't falling, but the mass-removal approach to this seems unnecessarily brusque. As Masem says below, if the original RfC didn't plan out a mass removal, it seems like a non-sequitur to perform a mass removal justified solely on the outcome of the RfC (and for what it's worth, this seems like an absurdly unfair criterion for rail station inclusion being applied solely to Chinese stations). jp×g 17:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• The meaning of "deprecated", again, does not mean that these sources must be immediately flushed and removed per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. New additions should not be added, but existing ones need to be evaluated to see if the content they were supported can be backed by a more reliable source, but there is no deadline for their removal, period. A mass removal done without the planning of community consensus (of which neither RFC in question that I see had discussed) is within the WP:FAIT territory and that editors see this as disruptive is a problem. If the community wants to see all such links removed "quickly" then a separate RFC to set a grandfathering plan ("You have 3 months or until Jan 31, 2021 to handle these links in articles or otherwise we will remove them and the content they support en masse") would be needed. Or those that want to see these links remove need to be showing they are taking semi-human involved steps to review each removal to make sure there's no other possible method with minimal disruption (which here could be simply tagging with {{better source needed}} or similar inline templates.) --Masem (t) 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You've made proposals similar to your "grandfathering plan" for deprecated sources repeatedly. They've been rejected every time. Do you understand why they've been rejected every time? What's different about this one? And if you're making an accusation of bot removals, you need to actually make the accusation, and actually back it up - David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Because everywhere else on WP where "mass" actions are done of this scale and where there is not clear consensus for removal or the action, there is usually an RFC to establish this type of grandfathering and/or the editor that initiates the action rolls back their actions until they're told its ok, or if they refuse, they are admin-acted against as being disruptive. Again, key is the language of "deprecated" which is not the same as "banned". If the RFC said "banned" that would be different allowing for this mass action. Otherwise, a careful plan to remove the links is only warranted, which what has been demonstrated is clearly not. --Masem (t) 19:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      • What is the appropriate path here? Keep in mind the users being discussed have been doing "mass action" for about 100 articles a day or more, so in the time of our discussion, another several hundred articles have been stripped of sources. {{better source needed}} seems to be a reasonable request directive for now, as there clearly is a hunt to strip out data from across wikipedia on mundane topics. Apparently, someone thought it was offensive to cite CGTN for the fact that china was developing a 600km/h maglev, when there are videos of it circulating online you can easily find. The user didnt even bother to put the {{citation needed}} tag. Albertaont (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I too have been concerned with Amigao's warpath against Global Times, especially given their persistent refusal to engage with anyone on their talk page about the issue. I'm offering another recent example of an instance where I used GT in my intermittent overhaul of Censorship in China: Special:Diff/977243274. In that particular edit, GT provided a) details of a phenomenon reported on in Western media, but with added specificity (i.e. naming the companies involved—Mango TV/Hunan Broadcasting) and b) novel information about censorship and morality germane to the subsection overall, namely, noting a Chinese study that indicated consumption of pornography was on the rise in China despite government campaigns against it. GT is a very flawed (and often obnoxious) source, but even saying nothing of the language barrier, the inaccessibility of CNKI means that lots of Chinese research cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia. It can also be useful in obtaining biographical information for notable interviews, e.g. Dong Mingzhu, who was interviewed by GT in September. Again, the benefit here is verifiability, insofar as the source is in English and does not require fluency in Mandarin to check. This is why I still support a designation of GT as "generally unreliable" except for specific circumstances, such as when it adds to details events/topics already covered in reliable sources. Even without another RfC, I believe that Amigao's continued mass deletion of GT is not particularly constructive, particularly given their uncommunicativeness. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. CGTN is IMHO a propaganda outlet, and reducing reliance on them as a source can only be a good thing. Removing sources outright is however counterproductive, it is better to mark them clearly as being deprecated, (eg. {{Deprecated inline|certain=yes}}), and work to replace them. This also places the article in Category:Articles with deprecated sources and can be handled from there. When you want to replace an unreliable source, having the unreliable source at hand is a good thing, and marking it as such. An alternative would be to create a template that handles a reference inline, and thus hides the reference from public view, while maintaining it for editors. If you find material that is unverifiable, by all means remove it. BFG (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • People keep advocating tagging instead of removal of deprecated sources - that is sources that should not be used in Wikipedia at all - but it has one big problem: it doesn't work. Nothing ever happens. The tag sits there for months or years. We've literally tried your proposal, and it results in nothing happening. Functionally, this sort of proposal just tries to replace doing something about the deprecated source, that should not be used in Wikipedia at all, with doing nothing about it - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I will actually advocate for removing unverifiable information. If you put in an effort to check a source, and see there is no reputable source to back the claim, please remove the content. Leaving it with a {{citation needed}} or just removing the unreliable reference is not improving Wikipedia. BFG (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

      David Gerard, if this were the Daily Mail I'd probably agree with you. I submit that the original discussion for this source is flawed and being used for mass removals in a way that was not foreseen. It's quite a jump to go from "this source is too bellicose to be trusted editorially" to "we must remove its non-controversial statements about railway stations immediately." I'm not sympathetic to taking a hard line here; show your work please, and as it applies in this case. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• The September RfC found strong consensus to deprecate the Global Times. In fact, the consensus here is about as strong as the consensus to deprecate Breitbart News (RSP entry) in its 2018 RfC, and there are only eight uses of breitbart.com  in article space compared to the 129 uses of globaltimes.cn  and 375 uses of huanqiu.com  , which indicates that there is more cleanup to be done with regard to the Global Times. When a removal is disputed, one solution is to discuss the removal on this noticeboard, as we are doing now. WP:BURDEN states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source", so removals of deprecated sources are consistent with policy unless an exception such as WP:ABOUTSELF applies (and even that exception is subject to an evaluation of due weight). — Newslinger talk 09:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking back at the RfC discussion, I don't see any discussion at all of the effect of deprecation on countless mundane subjects, or of Global Times' reliability for simple, non-political facts. The discussion was overwhelmingly focused on the role of Global Times in voicing hawkish foreign policy views. The consequences on articles like Changxing railway station and countless other non-political China-related articles was not discussed, and does not appear to have occurred to anyone in the discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

So just to be clear you’re telling people who participated in the RfC that they didn't understand what they were doing? I voted 4 and it was always my understanding that GT would be removed from articles like Changxing railway station. Because thats literally how deprecation works, if I didnt think it should be deprecated I would have voted 3 or better like I did for Xinhua. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that there was no discussion of the implications for countless articles about mundane, non-political subjects, just like Changxing railway station. Whether or not some editors (other than yourself) had that in the back of their minds is impossible to tell, but it definitely was not raised or discussed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would it be? Its inherent in the deprecation of a widely used source, as far as I can tell you are the only one who didn't understand what deprecation meant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:DEPS, deprecation is not banning or blocking a source, it simply means it should not be used further and further attempts to use the source at a reference are cautioned against. I'm reading some taking "deprecation" as "we must remove the source immediately from Wikipedia", which is nowhere in policy of how we treat deprecated sources. We do want to remove deprecated sources in time, but that should be managed without disruption, which is implicit by making a source deprecated. --Masem (t) 17:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing deprecated sources isn't a “must” (unless its a statement about a living person not covered by about self in which case it *is* actually a "must") its a “can” and as such removal is voluntary. Its voluntary removal by multiple editors thats being complained about here, not a bot or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't use Breitbart News for uncontroversial content, either, unless there is a valid exemption under WP:ABOUTSELF. There was no consensus in the RfC to carve out an exception for the Global Times's coverage of railway stations, so it is also considered generally unreliable for this topic. — Newslinger talk 02:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Folks, can we please take it down a notch? The discussion above is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not familiar with the Global Times, and I will defer to those who say it's the Daily Mail of China or whatever have you, but when we wind up with abominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changxing railway station I think it's okay to admit that we made a mistake somewhere along the line. This has the potential to exacerbate our existing problems with systemic bias. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  GT is actually significantly less reliable than the Daily Mail (although both are too unreliable for use on WP), at least the DM has editorial independence and operated in a system that respects basic human rights. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  I am not sure that comments like "abominations like" are taking it down a notch. That AFD sums up what many are saying, that article was a one line stub with one source until the one source was removed, and now (thanks to efforts to keep it) has been massively improved (note, this is not saying its passes GNG). Tagging it would have just meant it would have remained a one line directory entry.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  But what this is is disruptive. The actions being taken to remove the sources without any attempt to find replacements is against the intent of deprecated sources and is a WP:FAIT action that needs to be stopped immediately, until the community can decide what the proper approach is for dealing with these links. The bot-like actions and lack of communication by Amigao (based on the minimal discussion on their talk page) is very disconcerting and that's the issue. (At least with something like David Gerald and the DM link purge David was extremely responsive and appears far less bot-like in their review of the links). --Masem (t) 15:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  There is no requirement to find a replacement though, however if its a BLP there is actually a requirement to remove the source and all sourced text. In my opinion removing a deprecated sources is almost always an improvement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree its disruptive, no more so then arguing for their retention without finding better sources. But you are right, we are not required to remove them. But I would suggest that those who want this material sourced do what was done at Changxing railway station and find them (but this time without pushing). Hell if the amount of effort put into this "not an RFC" was put into replacing sources this might not even be an issue (again I refer back to the rash of work over at Changxing railway station).Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's disruptive as first, multiple editors have complained about the actions here and directly to the editor in question, and that the actions have triggered some "irreversible" processes (per WP:FAIT) that are difficult to reverse or correct en masse. While tagging for "find a better source" may be an issue, that's not the same as that's not an irreversible process, so nowhere close to being the type of disruption that removal of sources considers. I'd still strongly urge that all such mass actions stop and a community agreement to some process to untangle the deprecation be figured out before any further mass action be taken. --Masem (t) 15:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  And others have said they have no issue (or even agree) with their actions. On the other hand they have said this thread is problematic and an attempt as at a back door relaunch of the RFC that deprecated the source (which they see as disruptive). But if you want an RFC, launch one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Again, deprecation doesn't mean banned. Those criticizing this aren't challenging the close of the RFC in my read, they're challenging the rush to remove the links against what "deprecated sources" means on WP and general policy against creating disruption. --Masem (t) 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  All the edits I’ve seen so far have been 100% reversible either mechanically or through a direct revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  AFDs are, however. That's exactly where FAIT originated from. --Masem (t) 16:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  AFDs are actually reversible although you need some admin help. This is a discussion about removing deprecated sources though not AFD, the only AFD discussion referenced here is well on its way to a snowball keep which suggests that our current system works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  The issue though is that if these source deletions cause a lot of AFDs in a short time that would require the same group of editors to have to run around to find fixes for, that's a fait accompli action that we do not want an editor to create for others and is strongly strongly discouraged. The original situation was an editor that nominated numerous articles for AFD a day for numerous days in a row, which is what ended in an ArbCom case and the creation of WP:FAIT to warn against this type of behavior. Now, yes, many of these source deletions aren't creating AFD-worthy situations, but there is enough concern about AFDs being raised that FAIT 100% applies here - that one editor is potentially forcing a group of other editors to have to act quickly to save/keep their articles or their content. That's the whole point about avoiding disruption. --Masem (t) 16:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  I see 13 articles here (at least) only one has been AFD'd. Sorry not seeing how this is leading to a mass of AFD's.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  If the hypothetical you describe ever occurs then WP:FAIT would apply, it has no bearing on the issue we are currently discussing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, source depreciation is not a blanket ban, and there are reasonable uses for using them, for example in articles specifically about the propaganda mouthpiece, or in articles about propaganda related to the mouthpiece. Indiscriminate and overzealous tagging such as this is counter-productive, in my opinion. This article is specifically about Chinese propaganda, of course it would need to cite what Chinese propaganda outlets say. --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  This particular use of the Global Times (tagged in Special:Diff/983674054) is in a gray area, since it cites a study conducted by the Global Times about the content of the People's Daily. Although both are state-run media organizations, they are separate entities with different leadership and editorial objectives. I would not consider this citation a valid application of WP:ABOUTSELF. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  This case is less about WP:ABOUTSELF, and more about WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which is the second sentence of the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. Contextually, the topic of this Wikipedia article makes the usage of the CCP mouthpiece reasonable. Yes, I also strongly consider Global Times to be a generally terrible source that spreads misinformation and should be avoided as much as possible, however, let's use some common sense here: For what purpose would this reference intentionally spread misinformation about the sentence being cited? It currently feels like there's a giant Wikipedia-wide kneejerk reaction against CCP-sources like the Global Times, Xinhua, People's Daily, etc. without properly considering the context they are being used in. I agree that for 99% of cases these sources should not be used, but if we are to approach this issue sensibly and not reactively, editorial discretion is necessary for the remaining 1%. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  I strongly suggest that if you're trying this hard to come up with excuses to use a deprecated source - that is, a source so bad that a broad general consensus has found that it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia at all in general - then you're doing Wikipedia sourcing wrong - David Gerard (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've been courteous, so I'd appreciate an appropriate level of reciprocity please. I've been around for almost the same amount of time as you, I'm no newcomer, and your tone can be interpreted as condescending. How context affects the usability of a partisan reference also depends on how the Wikipedia article presents the position being cited. Consider the following three example sentences:

  Barack Obama is an enemy of humankind.^[REFERENCE]

  A 2009 editorial from Der Führer's Lügenblatt made the claim that Barack Obama is the enemy of humankind.^[REFERENCE]

  According to a 31 December 2009 editorial from Der Führer's Lügenblatt, Barack Obama is the enemy of humankind.^[REFERENCE]

  Here, you see three different hypothetical scenarios where a partisan CCP source might be used, however they are written with different nuances and provide contrasting implications. The first example attempts to pass off a statement as fact using a Der Führer's Lügenblatt citation, and thus is unacceptable; the second example makes it extremely clear to the reader that X is sharing a position on Y, and thus (from my perspective) is an acceptable use of a Der Führer's Lügenblatt reference; the third example pretends to be impartial, but is ambiguous as to whether it is attempting to state a position as fact, and can potentially be written with the aim to deceive the reader, and thus is unacceptable. Now, back to the article Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, the prose already clearly explains to the reader that the People's Daily, China Daily, Global Times and Xinhua News Agency are all state-owned media organisations owned by the government of China, and it clearly presents all statements from the PD, CD, GT and XNA as claims made by those outlets, rather than facts. Based on this, I would like to argue that the use of the Global Times source is editorially ethical and responsible from a contextual perspective. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Just a point of order, PD, CD, and GT are all party owned media organizations not state owned. I admit that the totalitarian single party state nature of the PRC makes this one slightly challenging but Xinhua is the only organization on your list technically owned by the Government of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  That is true, though the article prose can be adjusted where necessary to reflect such technicalities. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Xinhua News Agency (RSP entry) was determined to be a situational source that can be used with in-text attribution. It is not comparable to the Global Times, which publishes a much larger proportion of propaganda that sometimes does not even reflect the Chinese government's position. — Newslinger talk 03:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Replace the hypothetical reference in my example from Xinhua then. It doesn't change the point that I'm bringing across. Focus on the point I'm expressing, and not the media outlet I use as an example. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  The initial comment listed 13 links to edits that removed citations of the Global Times. I don't see any issue with these removals, since the Global Times was determined to be a low-quality propaganda outlet in the September RfC. Citations of the Global Times are being removed because the publication is unreliable, not because it is pro-CCP. The Global Times is only the second Chinese source to be deprecated, and this measure was long overdue. If you are arguing against the removal of Xinhua citations, I would agree that Xinhua is sometimes an appropriate source to use, but Xinhua is not deprecated and editors in this discussion have yet to provide any evidence that citations of Xinhua are being systematically removed. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  The focus on Xinhua is straying from the original point that I was trying to make. I am not talking about Xinhua. If you're making a statement relating to my use of Xinhua within the examples, then please pretend that I never ever mentioned Xinhua in my 07:45, 16 October 2020 post, because otherwise it's literally focusing on one thing I've said while ignoring everything else. To remind you of what my original point was:

  One: Exceptions to community rulings should be enforced on a case-by-case basis, based on the situation and literary context. The world does not exist in black and white, edge cases will always exist, and it is unconstructive to work in absolutes.

  Two: Whether or not the specific usage of a citation causes harm to the Wikipedia project should be determined on what the cited claim is, and how it is worded within the Wikipedia article prose.

  Three: I do not dispute that the Global Times is an obscenely malicious source, 90% of the time. However, a broken clock is correct two times a day, and if an editor can prove to the Wikipedia community that a specific instance of citation usage is not problematic, it is counterproductive to continue to prohibiting the usage within that specific instance, just because "the rules say so".

  If there's something wrong with these points that I've raised, feel free to point them out. But, please, do not bring up the Xinhua RSP entry again. It is 100% unrelated to the points I am attempting to make. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Many unreliable sources publish some correct information, yet the sources are still unusable for that information because it is not possible to determine when an unreliable source is telling the truth. Because of this, the verifiability policy uses whether a source is reliable as a threshold for inclusion, and not whether the source is correct. Borrowing your example, if Breitbart News claimed that "Barack Obama is an enemy of humankind", we would not be able to cite Breitbart News for this information because it is an unreliable source. Even with attribution, we would not be able to include this information with only a citation to Breitbart because the views of unreliable sources are considered undue weight. However, if reliable sources cover Breitbart's claim, we would be able to cite those sources for the claim, with attribution to Breitbart. Likewise, a claim made in the Global Times that does not qualify for WP:ABOUTSELF can be included into an article if reliable sources cover it. In this case, citing the Global Times as a supplemental primary source would be optional, while citing the reliable sources would be mandatory. — Newslinger talk 09:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  In the article in question, the only thing being cited are a bunch of analytical numbers, for something very benign and uncontroversial. Would you be able to able to take a look at Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people#Phraseology and point out exactly how the use of the Global Times cite (QUOTE: "The Global Times published an analysis in June 2015 which concluded that... there were 237 articles published by the People's Daily between May 15, 1946 and May 1, 2015 which made accusations of hurt feelings against 29 different countries; among these, 9 targeted India, 16 targeted France, 62 targeted the United States, and 96 targeted Japan.") is harmful to the Wikipedia project, outside of "the rules say so"? This is purely based on my opinion on how subjective all of this is, and not based in any Wikipedia policy, but surely prohibiting something this benign falls within the realm of a rule preventing the enhancement of Wikipedia content. The content harmed nobody, but excluding the content brings gain to nobody either. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  You could make the argument that the claim qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF, since some sources consider the Global Times a subsidiary of the People's Daily. It would have been better if the People's Daily published the analysis itself, but the Global Times report might qualify if editors do not find the claim controversial. Applications of WP:IAR are still subject to consensus, which can be established with a discussion at Talk:Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Effects of deprecation:

  The source is designated as generally unreliable. Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. - emphasis on "generally unreliable"; this page suggests that depreciated sources may be used under unusual edge cases.

  The source may only be used when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources. - surely it would be acceptable for me to seek community consensus on a talk page (for example, what we are doing now) to gauge whether this depreciated source can be used under this particular edge case based on a demonstrable need? There are more eyes here on WP:RSN (according to pageviews, nobody visits the talk pages for relatively obscure articles like this one), so this discussion thread seems like a more appropriate place to seek this kind of consensus. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Discussing this here is perfectly fine, although this discussion section sprawls across many different topics, and you may receive higher-quality feedback with a new discussion that focuses specifically on this use of the Global Times. To be completely clear, I don't have any objection to this use, and the intention of my initial reply was to make the case that the removal of the citation was also defensible under policy. I probably wouldn't use the Global Times for this claim, but it's not a particularly strong preference and other editors might disagree. — Newslinger talk 10:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: As far as I can see, the problem is that people like Amigao are mass removing unreliable sources, like GT, from Wikipedia articles, without attempting to provide replacement sources. Have I got this right? Techie3 (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the mass removal of sources without any replacement. Part of the problem is that while deprecation discussions about Global Times focused almost entirely on the possibility of it being used for political propaganda, the actual effect of deprecating it appears to be the removal of sourcing for all sorts of simple factual issues. There was no discussion of Global Times' reliability for mundane facts (like whether or not a train station exists), but there was lots of discussion of the hawkish foreign policy views expressed in Global Times editorials. But the main effect of the broad deprecation has been on the former type of content (mundane facts), rather than the latter (propaganda/opinions). This was completely unforeseen in the RfC on Global Times, and is something that the community should consider. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please stop saying "This was completely unforeseen in the RfC on Global Times?” I’ve told you thats not true at least three times (as have other editors) so you’re telling a fib and you know it. Please WP:AGF and don’t incorrectly summarize the opinions of other editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It was completely unforseen in the RfC on the Global Times. It was not discussed, and if it was on your mind, that wasn't reflected in the discussion. Yet an RfC in which political propaganda was discussed is now being used to remove mundane information like who won the award for best supporting actor at a Chinese film festival. If that was the intention of commenters at the RfC, someone should have mentioned it and there should have been a discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed does not mean unforeseen, like I said its literally inherent in the conception of deprecation. You seem to be the only person who doesnt understand that we dont want to use deprecated sources, even for mundane information. Go and try to use the Daily Mail, The Grayzone, or RT for “mundane information” and see how far it gets you. Just because you don’t understand deprecation doesnt mean you get to repeat lies and cast aspersions on the other editors who participated in that discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

To add, maybe they are mundane facts, from an organ controlled by the state telling us what the state has done (and often how fantastic what is has done is). Its not a third party source for any information about China, not even mundane facts.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I fully supported the RfCs to depreciate CGTN and the Global Times, given that their editorial takes on geopolitical issues are consistently full of polemic disinformation that can be used to cause disruption on Wikipedia if used as a source. My point, however, is that we should not be looking at the enforcement of new rules strictly in terms of black and white, because the real world does not work in absolute binaries; there will always be edge cases that exist, and a hardline enforcement goes against the spirit of the law that community consensus has built upon.

I am not arguing that the consensus gained during the RfC was somehow invalid; rather, I am arguing that the consensus established was that these problematic sources would fall within the well-established frameworks we already have for dealing with depreciated sources—that is—usage of these sources is heavily discouraged, however not outright banned for all circumstances. A depreciated source is not a blacklisted source.

Still unconvinced? If you read the section at Hurting the feelings of the Chinese people#Phraseology that uses the Global Times citation, can you please clearly explain precisely how the GT reference is problematic or harmful to the project? I can understand telling lies about COVID-19 or Taiwan, but why would the GT tell lies about how many countries were mentioned within People's Daily articles? I am arguing that our existing rules on depreciated sources do not dictate a strict, hardline enforcement on preventing these sources from being used; even if these rules were somehow supposed to be rigidly enforced without mercy (they aren't, by the way), surely such enforcement would clearly be preventing us from improving Wikipedia, and thus is a net detriment to the project? --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Much of this has little or nothing to do with what the Chinese state has done. The existence of a train station in Changxing is a mundane fact that no reasonable person would argue the Chinese government has any strong stake in misrepresenting. The broad-brush attitude being taken towards China and Chinese sources here goes against the basic ethos of WP:RS, which is to evaluate reliability of sources in context. Going from "Global Times publishes nationalistic editorials" to "Global Times is unreliable for every type of fact" to "Chinese sources are unreliable for any fact" (something that some editors are arguing) is, I think, unreasonable and not in line with WP:RS. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese sources are unreliable for any fact” Who is arguing this? I haven't seen anyone make that argument here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been arguing this:I would support depreciation for *every* mainland news source besides Xinhua. ([19]) When I pointed out that this would mean disqualifying Caixin, which has done some excellent journalism, you elaborated on your reasoning for deprecating all Chinese news sources other than Xinhua:Like all other non-government media organizations Caixin is banned from doing independent investigative journalism and primarily publishes rewrites of stories from state media, sometimes they do add their own reporting to these stories but thats not what people in a free country would consider investigative journalism. The problem here is Chinese law, not the companies themselves. If the law changes then we can reconsider. ([20]) -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In that same discussion, Donkey Hot-day had a detailed reply to your argument about Caixin, taking issue with your blanket approach to Chinese sources: [21]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying that Xinhua isn't a Chinese source? Or are you saying that Hong Kong isn't a part of China? I cant both reject the use of all Chinese sources and endorse Xinhua, HKFP, SCMP, etc those are mutually exclusive. Nor is that statement about China or Chinese sources in general, its specifically about the mainland. I understand that you were mistaken but please correct your offensively bad characterization of my argument. Clearly I’m not arguing what you say I am arguing, are any editors? Or did you just make it up like usual?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't accuse people of making stuff up; I think it's fairly clear what they meant by that post. You don't think "I would support depreciation for *every* mainland news source besides Xinhua." can be interpreted to mean that you'd support deprecation for *every* mainland news source, minus literally one exception? jp×g 17:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it can, it can not however be interpreted as supporting the deprecation of every *Chinese* news source, minus literally one exception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• There are countries where every source is controlled by the state (and in those countries thedistinction between the party and the state is insignificant). . Should we therefore eliminate all articles unless people from outside that country write on them? This was not the meanign of deprecated in that discusion, which covered only political propaganda. And If it is being misinterpreted to this extent, we need a new RfC on it. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  Removing citations to the Global Times (RSP entry) is different from removing citations to Xinhua News Agency (RSP entry), just as removing citations to Breitbart News (RSP entry) would be different from removing citations to a hypothetical US government-run news agency. Not all Chinese sources exhibit the same level of reliability, even when they are state-run. As one of the least reliable Chinese sources, the Global Times should be treated similarly to other sources of the same quality. — Newslinger talk 08:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a problem is the way how Chinese media operates. Many times an official media published an article and then every other media are simply being asked to copy and repeat the exact same report in their paper. Which make it difficult to tell who really wrote the original report without careful inspection. C933103 (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: While I don't have any opinion about the reliability of the Global Times on general statements, the point of confusion for me on the issue is diffs like this, in which @Horse Eye's Back: removed a Global Times citation from the sentenceAn article in the Communist Party of China–affiliated tabloid paper Global Times quoted Wu Hongying, director of the [...], replacing it with {{cn}} and reverting me as well as another editor who tried to put it back in. As far as I can tell, this section was absolutely not citing it as an authoritative source of fact, but rather as a source of "what Chinese propaganda said about the whole thing". Whether or not GT's reliable for governmental proceedings or plane routes, I thought that WP:DEPRECATED unambiguously permitted citing biased outlets when the statement was "here's what these biased dudes had to say". What other source could possibly be used for a citation like "The propaganda outlet 'Global Times' said such and-such"? Reading through this discussion, it seems like a few editors disagree with this, and are in favor of removing it in literally all articles (including when they're WP:ABOUTSELF). Am I misunderstanding, or is that really what's being said? I'd appreciate if someone could clarify this. jp×g 17:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@JPxG: I reverted you a single time, but no-one else as far as I can see from the edit history. Either provide diffs or retract. The question on VivaTaiwan is one of due weight, its also not covered by WP:ABOUTSELF as GT is being used to make a statement about the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations which is a separate entity. Specifically we have the GT reporting a comment from their director Wu Hongying, a BLP, which complicates matters. We could use the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (not GT) for ABOUTSELF but then we would *still* have a due weight issue. As for your larger question you appear to be confusing statements where WP:ABOUTSELF would apply with directly attributed statements, just because the format is “X reported _____” doesn't automatically mean its a statement *about* X. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is a hard-and-fast boundary between ABOUTSELF and simple in-text attribution. Reviewing the article, yes; you only removed that part twice (not reverted it twice, as I mistakenly said). My concern here isn't entirely limited to that diff, though; it was one of twenty-five removals you did in a 30-minute period that day (after participating in this discussion), including two [22] [23] where GT was used as a source for the Chinese censors having censored something, and six [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] that were either in your definition of ABOUTSELF, or had explicit in-text attribution where it was noted as being a state-run propaganda outlet (and in most cases was being cited as an example of what propaganda outlets had said). I don't understand how that violates the guidelines for citing deprecated sources. jp×g 18:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken, the Global Times is a *party* run propaganda outlet, CGTN is a *state* run propaganda outlet. The Global Times is not part of the Chinese government therefore it can’t be used for about self when it comes to the actions of the Chinese government (let alone part of the "Jiangxi Provincial Public Security Department” as it would have to be for [30] to be about self, for example). A good example of how to include the Global Times in an article can be found in the Pishan hostage crisis article *after* my edit, that is when mentioned by a WP:RS (in this case the NYT) we can say what the reliable source says about the deprecated source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by this. Are you saying that a Global Times citation can or can't be used with in-text attribution, in a statement about it being run by the party/state? jp×g 19:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

See #2 “it does not involve claims about third parties" and #3 "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source” at WP:ABOUTSELF, its written really clearly. Also note that the context of ABOUTSELF is "usually in articles about themselves or their activities” which doesn't apply to any of the diffs you’ve shared so far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify -- my question was about using the citation with in-text attribution. jp×g 09:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The answer is the same, adding in-text citations doesn't change anything as far as WP:V or WP:ABOUTSELF are concerned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that deprecation should not be overly broad. Sources should be analyzed in context, and I would generally say that it's appropriate to be cited for attribution of what the outlet itself is saying. Benjamin (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  WP:ABOUTSELF is available for deprecated sources. Uses of deprecated sources (by themselves) outside of WP:ABOUTSELF would almost always fail the verifiability policy, as the RfC that deprecated the source found consensus to prevent these uses. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer at dispute resolution noticeboard has redirected the discussion to this noticeboard. This is the requested information:

1. Source:Field, J. H. (1 March 1999). "Two novel special relativistic effects: Space dilatation and time contraction". American Journal of Physics. 68 (April 2000): 367. arXiv:physics/0004012. doi:10.1119/1.19439.
2. Article: Time contraction
3. Content: [31]

84.120.7.178 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

See relevant discussion at Talk:Time dilation#Time contraction. Notifying users Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk · contribs) and Coldcreation (talk · contribs). - DVdm (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• As discussed above, the American Journal of Physics, although a reliable source, cannot guarantee the reliability of every paper that it publishes. Mistakes happen in the peer review process. The author of the paper in question, J. H. Field, has published many WP:FRINGE "Einstein was wrong" papers in the non-refereed arXiv. The paper in question, which the IP editor wishes to use as a source for the novel concept of "time contraction", appears to be in the same vein. There are no secondary source references to "time contraction" which would establish the notability or validity of that subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This source has been cited nine times at least. Among them, J. H. Field published two articles:

• Field, J. H. (2001). "Space-time exchange invariance: Special relativity as a symmetry principle". American Journal of Physics. 69 (5): 569–575. doi:10.1119/1.1344165.
• Field, J. H. (2006). "Derivation of the Lorentz force law, the magnetic field concept and the Faraday–Lenz and magnetic Gauss laws using an invariant formulation of the Lorentz transformation". Physica Scripta. 73 (6): 639–647. doi:10.1088/0031-8949/73/6/018.

And another author about time contraction specifically:

• Sharp, Jonathan C (2016). "Symmetry of the Lorentz boost: the relativity of colocality and Lorentz time contraction". European Journal of Physics. 37 (5). 055606. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/37/5/055606.

There was no mistake in the peer review regarding time contraction. This work is in harmony with mainstream view in special relativity. Perhaps the problem is that we have not talked about the topic. May I explain the source to you at WP:RDS? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty clear failure to get the point. Per WP:Primary, A single research paper, even one published in a reputable journal that isn't supported by any other literature clearly isn't WP:DUE weight for inclusion in the article, in the same way that a primary medical study isn't Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Time dilation is an old topic. I read about it in high school in the books of George Gamow and Rolf Nevanlinna. In other words, there are plenty books (popular expositions for the scientifically informed layperson, text-books, and monographs) in which the topic is discussed, books that have been vetted for WP:DUE. What appears in journal articles but has not appeared in books belongs to footnotes or subsections about a controversy or new developments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

However, "Time contraction" is not an old topic. J. H. Field has published numerous non-refereed articles in arXiv where he flatly denies the validity of well-established special relativistic phenomena such as the relativity of simultaneity and length contraction. In the article whose validity for use as a source is being questioned, J. H. Field introduces the notions of time contraction and length dilation. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a 20-year-old topic. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

J. H. Field has been publishing WP:Fringe "Einstein was wrong" articles in the non-refereed arXiv for 20 years. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Whatever other unrelated publications by Field are irrelevant. We are discussing this source. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there's a consensus here that this particular source is not reliable. Perhaps the reason is that unreliable authors tend to publish unreliable material anywhere. - DVdm (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you point me to the policy stating that reason? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus policy does not state anything about unreliable authors.

Since there are many threads, I will ignore this one for now. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Besides your mistake about not being supported by any other literature, this is not a primary medical study. It is not a new experiment either. In this work, the author analyzes the inverse Lorentz boost, evaluates it for different space-time points, interprets the results under certain observation conditions, and synthesizes these results into the effect. This is not a primary source. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It isn'[t a medical study at all, but it is WP:PRIMARY. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Because you say so? Sorry, but you have not shown any sign that you are qualified to classify this source.

Since there are many threads, I will ignore this one for now. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Can those commenting that this source is unreliable please discuss their rationale with specific reference to what we have written in WP:RS? I'm suggesting that we should use this source; I am, however, concerned that most of the comments are about due weight or other aspects of this source with few, if any, directly addressing the criteria we have established to judge the reliability of a source e.g., the journal's reputation for fact checking, the journal's record of correcting mistakes; the independence of the journal. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

American Journal of Physics is overall a reliable source, but in even the best of journals, mistakes happen in the peer review process. No journal can guarantee the reliability of every paper that it publishes. This fact has been well demonstrated in such cases as the Bogdanov affair. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm extremely dubious and wary of Wikipedia editors declaring a single article in an otherwise well-regarded peer-reviewed journal "unreliable" without providing any evidence that the journal's processes were violated. Again, I'm perfectly content with the consensus to exclude this source on DUE grounds but it seems like everyone is assuming that something is broken with this one specific article in an otherwise reliable journal with no evidence except for their own personal dislike for the author and subject. Personal approval of the author or subject are not criteria included anywhere in our definitions of reliability. ElKevbo (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"Personal dislike" PCH has referred to J. H. Field as a "respected experimental physicist" in other noticeboard discussions on this topic. Many highly reputable journals, like Science and Nature regularly publish duds that can't be replicated. You appear to be unfamiliar with this particular topic, the theory of relativity is considered so well proven that theories that violate it are considered extremely fringe within the theoretical physics community. There's simply no reason to devote an entire section of the article to a random research paper that isn't supported by other literature. It isn't "dislike" to point out that the author of the paper is a known proponent of fringe ideas, which should be used to evaluate the reliability and the weight that should be given to his writing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Hemiauchenia, but you appear to be the one unfamiliar with this topic, because you are unable to refute time contraction whereas I can prove it, just like Am. J. Phys. did.

Since there are many threads, I will ignore this one for now. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The reliable source noticeboard regularly comments about whether a source lacks WP:WEIGHT. That's because there are two aspects of asking about a source here: [A] is it reliable? [B} can I use it to support particular claim X? There are reliable sources that are not suitable for use as citations on Wikipedia for other reasons. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope, there is only one question: Is this source reliable to support claim X?

Since there are many threads, I will ignore this one for now. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I read through the paper. It's not so much fundamentally flawed as it is a weird case study in how under bizarre assumptions you can get bizarre results. It's not clear to me that the author really understands that what he is doing is making a bizarre assumption -- that of uniform illumination. In all thought experiments that SR uses, images are not what is measured. Instead, precise matching of physical rods and clocks at different events are what is done. This is not at all relevant for an article on time dilation, therefore. Maybe we could include it in some article that serves as an umbrella or off-shoot of the Ehrenfest paradox or Bell's spaceship paradox. jps (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Illumination has nothing to do with time contraction. However, you seem to be willing to read the source. The study about time contraction relies on an array of equivalent clocks. I do not think it is a bizarre assumption: Einstein used such an array in his original discussion of relativity of simultaneity. Would you try to understand time contraction? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The uniform illumination assumption is necessary to establish length dilation. You can back out time contraction from this as well. Or you can start with an array of clocks that you observe under assumptions of uniform distributions which is largely equivalent. In either case, the result is one where the observation is that of an image of an extended source rather than measuring shared moments in spacetime. jps (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Time contraction is observation by measuring shared moments in spacetime. Please try to prove that you understand the source. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. Space-like separations are simply not shared moments in spacetime. jps (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Time contraction --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I will not go to another forum until this discussion has been properly handled.

Since there are many threads, I will ignore this one for now. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

American Journal of Physics is a respectable publication, but Field's paper is obviously a primary source, and it has had no significant influence, being cited mostly by Field himself. Special relativity is an old, exhaustively documented subject, and the standard for including any marginal or idiosyncratic take about it must be high (WP:DUE). I see no reason to promote Field's writings on Wikipedia. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Time contraction is non-experimental special relativity. On what grounds do you say it is a primary source?

Since there are many threads, I will ignore this one for now. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are you asking a question and then declaring that you will ignore the answer? XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable, I could say more but since there are many threads I will ignore this one for now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• I happened to have known John Field because he was an associate professor at University of Geneva in the 1990s when I was there as well, also ar School of Physics, but my field is very different. He is/was (do not know whether he is still alive) an academic researcher, and likely notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about him. My understanding is that the paper is not WP:FRINGE. He actually does not say that the relativity postulates are incorrect, but just tries to find previously unknown gedanken experiments. This is well within the scope of American Journal of Physics, which is (or at least at the time was) primarily for physics teachers, and the purpose was to explain modern research in a language accessible to the teachers and possibly to high school students. On the other hand, I do not think the effects he proposed such as space dilation have never been taken up by other researcher and developed further, and, as such, should not be mentioned other than in passing by Wikipedia articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• In numerous arXiv publications, J. H. Field states that Einstein was wrong, and that over a century of analysis of the consequences of special relativity has been misguided. Here is a small listing of quotes from his voluminous output:

• "Many errors both of physical principle and of a mathematical nature are uncovered [in Einstein's 1905 paper]. The `relativity of simultaneity' and `length contraction' effects predicted in the paper are shown to be the spurious consequences of misinterpretations of the second postulate and the Lorentz transformation, respectively."[32]
• "A further consequence is the unphysical nature of the `relativity of simultaneity' and `length contraction' effects..."[33]
• "...analysis...predicts time differences between airborne and Earth-bound clocks at variance with the results of the [Hafele-Keating] experiment."[34]
• "...the spurious and unphysical nature of the 'relativity of simultaneity' and 'length contraction' effects of conventional special relativity."[35]
• "an argument given, claiming to demonstrate that an upper limit of c on the speed of any physical signal is required by causality, is invalid."[36]
• "Spatially separated clocks which are synchronised in their common proper frame are shown to be so in all inertial frames..."[37]
• "A sign error in an angle while drawing the original Minkowski plot has persisted for a century in text books and the pedagogical literature."[38]
• Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am not sure how this addresses my point.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• The quotes establish Field as being a dedicated anti-relativist and a wp:Fringe theoretician of long standing. All relativity-related works by this author must be deemed highly suspect unless backed up by reliable secondary sources to establish notability and reliability. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Our policies and practices about reliable sources do not focus on authors and their reputations but on the publishers and venue in which they publish. It would be highly irregular and require substantive discussion for us to decide to completely ban a specific author. I have not seen such a discussion take place for this author and in fact the discussion so far has been that this journal is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. Do you (or anyone else) have evidence that the journal's review and acceptance of this article was out-of-line with its normal practices? Has our judgement of the journal been faulty or lacking in some respect? ElKevbo (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The American Journal of Physics, although a reliable source, cannot guarantee the reliability of every paper that it publishes. Mistakes happen in the peer review process. It is up to the editors of a disputed entry to establish a local consensus as to whether that entry should be allowed into an article. The local consensus of the editors of the Time dilation article was that inclusion of a summary of J. H. Field's wp:Fringe contributions would be wp:Undue. Discussion of J. H. Field's work on this noticeboard is inappropriate, since the overall reliability of AJP has never been in question. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, one should judge the article on its own merit. "Einstein is wrong" is nothing special, Einstein has been seriously wrong on at least two occasions (entanglement and specific heat of a solid at low temperature), so what? If Field in this article rejects the principle of special relativity, it is fringe. If he does not, it is not fringe, irrespectively of what he writes in his unpublished articles. This is not so difficult to check, no? On the other hand, as I said, I agree that his conbtribution is not notable because it is not cited and nobody else has picked up the idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

We do also consider the author when assessing reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Lowell Press appears to be an obscure regional publisher in the American Midwest. I have no real knowledge of this publisher, but I used a book by it, October 25th and the Battle of Mine Creek by Lumir F. Buresh at Battle of Marais des Cygnes. I think the Buresh book looks okay, but with no prior knowledge of the publisher, I'd like a second opinion on the publisher. The author is also obscure, but I've seen a few larger campaign works cite it, but that may just be because Mine Creek and Marais des Cygnes are very underwritten topics. I think it's okay, given that it seems to have garnered some use, but I'd like a second opinion on it, if anyone else has heard of the book, Buresh, or the publisher. Goodreads suggests the late author was a WWII vet and historian/preservationist in the Kansas City area. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a weird one. I can find absolutely nothing about Lowell Press other that phone book entries such as [39] (maybe there is a commercial printer in Kansas City MO using the same name?), but look at how many hits there are on Google Scholar:

[ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Lowell+Press%22 ]

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

437 for me Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a publisher which has published legit books, such as The Blackfeet: Artists of the Northern Plains: the Scriver Collection of Blackfeet Indian Artifacts and Related Objects, 1894-1990 by Robert Scriver. However, just being indexed on Google Scholar doesn't mean anything: the Daily Mail—as well as pseudo-historical books denying the Holocaust—can also be found indexed on Google Scholar (!) (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be a publisher that wound up just as the internet age was dawning (last publication date I see is 1994) and so never really made it to the digital realm. Lots of stuff on worldcat https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=kw%3A%22Lowell+Press%22 Stuartyeates (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The Gold standard article frequently cites[40] various heterodox economists who subscribe to fringe theories (such as the gold standard being great). The article cites various Mises Institute publications, which is an organization that advocates for bringing the gold standard back, among other things. Should this organization be cited for facts or should they be attributed as POV? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

In general no. However, the Mises Institute includes copies of books from reliable publishers and articles by experts in their fields. In those cases each source should be evalutated on its merits. Some editors say, "Well it's a reliable source for what its writers say." While that's true, we need to establish that their opinions have weight. But their views on the gold standard are fringe and deserve little attention. We could say something like modern libertarians support the gold standard and provide a link in case readers are interested in reading about their position. But it's too far outside the mainstream to explain in the article. TFD (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

We cant say "modern libertarians support the gold standard” because Mises is neither representative of modern libertarians or mainstream within libertarianism. We could say “some modern libertarians support the gold standard” but that might be getting a little weasily. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd even trust a lot of those. Mises is actually good as a source for a lot of full texts of favourite works in Austrian economics - but this includes some absolutely bizarrely terrible histories of economics, written from a completely fringe view. To the point that I'd regard being hosted by Mises as a red flag for reliability of a source.

To answer OP's question: I'd say look for mainstream sources - David Gerard (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

We already have a discussion on Mises above, consensus appears to be that its unreliable for all except the usual about self stuff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

There is already an RfC about Mises Institute articles so I'll ignore those. The other citation hosted on Mises.org is Murray Rothbard's book "America's Great Depression". It's used for these two claims, which do not even directly relate to the gold standard: "This transfer contracted the U.S. money supply. The foreign loans became questionable once Britain, Germany, Austria and other European countries went off the gold standard in 1931 and weakened confidence in the dollar." and " As bank runs grew, a reverse multiplier effect caused a contraction in the money supply." The same book is used as a reference on the Great Depression page, and has been for some time. Would an easily dismissed "fringe" book be cited 1200 times? Hopefully not.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, because Austrian economics is what in Wikipedia terms we call a walled garden. Rothbard's ideas on history are an excellent example of the sort of "bizarrely terrible histories of economics, written from a completely fringe view" I was talking about up there. I would find a mainstream historian of economics, and absolutely avoid an economist tagged "heterodox", which is a word in economics that means "crank with a job" - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets be nice, there are plenty of heterodox economists who aren’t cranks with a job... In the specific case here Rothbard is notable if we’re discussing anarcho-capitalist theory but they aren't reliable for general history as they seem to be being used here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say they are cranks, but notable as cranks. In very limited uses, with direct in-text attribution, you could say occasionally "According to the Mises Institute, and organization which advocates for a return to the gold standard, yada yada yada" but I would definitely avoid putting anything they say in Wikipedia's voice without direct attribution to them. --Jayron32 15:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Mises is not a reliable source, so ought not to be cited for facts about anything except its own plodding operations. Furthermore, with the exception of historical/sociological articles examining the lingering hangers-on of the Austrian School, the scholarly literature that there is on full-reserve banking, metallism and energy-based monetary systems barely mentions the institute, so there is little reason to mention their views beyond perhaps a passing reference. Cambial foliage❧ 23:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Is anything written by Nancy Goldstone considered a reliable source? Her own website states she only has a BA in History and an MA "at the School of International Affairs".

Her works:

• Daughters of the Winter Queen: Four Remarkable Sisters, the Crown of Bohemia, and the Enduring Legacy of Mary, Queen of Scots
• The Rival Queens: Catherine de’ Medici, Her Daughter Marguerite de Valois, and the Betrayal That Ignited a Kingdom
• The Maid and the Queen: The Secret History of Joan of Arc
• The Lady Queen: The Notorious Reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem, and Sicily
• Four Queens: The Provençal Sisters Who Ruled Europe
• Out of the Flames: The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, A Fatal Heresy and One of the Rarest Books in the World
• The Friar and the Cipher: Roger Bacon and the Unsolved Mystery of the Most Unusual Manuscript in the World

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Who published these works and what are their practices and policies e.g., are the works peer-reviewed, does the publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and issuing corrections? ElKevbo (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The first book appears to be published by Little, Brown [41] The titles indicates that writing may use sensationalism, and these appear to be popular history rather than peer-reviewed literature, which is preferred. However, it may be minimally reliable for topics that aren't covered in stronger sources. (The last book advances the unproven theory that Roger Bacon created the Voynich manuscript—a stronger source is needed for such a claim). (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sumit banaphar. Recently I have been trying to make changes in Udal of Mahoba by participate on the talk page , so i want to ask did Aalha Khand consider reliable source for making changes. Book:- Aalha Khand [42]

Author:- Asha Gupta

Publisher:- Vani Prakashan

Page number:-;19

What changes, and who is she?Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to make some caste related changes which I have mentioned in Talk:Udal of Mahoba. And Dr. Asha Gupta is an author of many historical books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit banaphar (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I have not wanted to comment here because I have been involved in the content discussion at Talk:Udal of Mahoba and I think Sumit banaphar is entitled to get opinions from uninvolved editors who look at this with fresh eyes. At this point it looks like no more clarifications will be forthcoming from Sumit banaphar even though they have been active elsewhere trying to get other editors to agree with their changes, so I'll try to explain briefly what it is about.

The article Udal of Mahoba currently includes the text "They" are Udal, a legendary 12th century general who appears in an epic ballad cycle called Alha-Khand, and his brother Alha, another general in the same army. Sumit b wants to remove the mention of the Ahir, arguing that the ancestors of the mythical Banaphars were Rajputs only. The source supporting the current information is Alf Hiltebeitel's book Rethinking India's Oral and Classical Epics: Draupadi among Rajputs, Muslims, and Dalits from 2009, published by University of Chicago Press, which contains a detailed analysis of the Alha-Khand in its different versions, and refers to the "mixed" ancestry of Udal several times. The specific page in Hiltebeitel's book that the article refers to currently is p163, top of the page, but Hiltebeitel also discusses the origins of Udal and the Banaphars fairly extensively on pp 129-135. (Those pages can also be accessed in GBooks, in this edition; see for instance the bottom of p133-top of p134.) The Aalha Khand that Sumit b refers to is probably also a commentary on the epic, but it is difficult to know since Google Books offers no preview, and Sumit b has unfortunately not provided any further information about it. I also have no idea how Aalha Khand is supposed to contradict Rethinking India's Oral and Classical Epics, if the argument is that Gupta is a more reputable researcher than Hiltebeitel, or if it's something else. --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Alha khand is a part of book called parmal raso which is written by jagnik (son of King parmal's sister) and in this part jagnik telling about the brave acts of Alha,Udal and the rest of Banaphars and the book I'm giving as a reliable source is a simple hindi translation of original Alha khand by using the books:- Alha khand,The lay of Alha and many more.

And I'm not saying that Dr.Asha Gupta is better author than Alf Hiltebeitel but this is obvious that Alf Hiltebeitel didn't wrote his book with using Alha khand which Dr.Asha Gupta had, that's it.Sumit banaphar (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Page 19 to 22 seem to be proper reference giving pages on given topic. For absolutism one need to have done genetic studies on sizable samples. As such rest all the authors/scholars other than genetic studies if any exists, are making claims where absolute proof not going to exist. So giving some author extra value than other seems logically fallacious.

Bookku (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So is it reliable.Sumit banaphar (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have doctorate in all Wikipedia commandments and nor I believe in literal blind applications of commandments sans common sense. In my honest personal opinion let other scholar opinions be there need not delete those until you get reference from experts in Genetics , but along with add relevant discussion in the book of Dr.Asha Gupta. Along with local references Dr.Asha Gupta also seems to be discussing western scholars respectfully. Besides provide Hindi to English translation of relevant lines you will be referring from.

That is my opinion Bookku (talk) 09:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Based on what you said above: No, it is not a reliable source for that article. If it is a translation of the Alha Khand, it is a primary source. Wikipedia articles need secondary sources such as Hiltebeitel's book which is a scholarly commentary and analysis of the Alha Khand (so your claim that the author didn't "use Alha Khand" is not correct – it's literally the topic of the book). In other words: No, you can not remove claims sourced to a secondary source unless you have strong arguments (based on other secondary sources, not on your own interpretation of a primary source) for why it is not reliable, and you shouldn't use a primary source other than in the limited circumstances discussed on the page I linked. @Bookku: Genetics are irrelevant since the question here concerns a legendary 12th century figure. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay I will find a strong sourceSumit banaphar (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems User:Bonadea is unfortunately in mode of presuming without enough grounding in background. I don't know what he knows of South Asian Caste and clan issue, And I have seen many such cases happening at this forum decisions happening without proper application of background info and logic.

While reason for this discussion thread came up from related article cursory look at Talk:Banaphar will give general idea that many (or most?) members of their community for some reason do not prefer to be identified as mixed caste and if that community want to prove that on Wikipedia having pro western bias for sources which color it otherwise can only be differently proved with Genetics only by any chance.

I doubt User:Sumit banaphar has made his case properly. If he comes out with translation of above referred page numbers it is likely to make very well a different case. The page numbers he referred are intellectual discussion on various Indian and Western references and I don't know how does an intellectual discussion remains primary source? May be later part of the book would count as primary source, IMHO above mentioned page numbers don't make it primary source but very much valuable secondary analysis. Only a western bias can think otherwise. Thanks anyways

Bookku (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that lovely expression of WP:AGF! The question was explicitly about Udal of Mahoba and not about Banaphar. You will, I am sure, forgive me for believing Sumit b when he or she saidthe book I'm giving as a reliable source is a simple hindi translation of original Alha khand. You will also notice that I was very careful to say "Based on what you said above", since I know that Sumit b has had some trouble phrasing himself/herself and understanding exactly which information is required. If would indeed have been very helpful for you to supply more information about the source instead of making unfounded attacks on good-faith contributors. --bonadea contributions talk 13:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering whether using Archive of Our Own is acceptable in a very limited instance. Specifically, it is a fanfic that Molly Ostertag wrote about characters from Lord of the Rings earlier this year, which she promoted on her Twitter account and even made a specific alternative Twitter account for it. Here's an excerpt from Ostertag's article where I tentatively linked the fanfic, specifically in the first sentence of this section:

If not, that's fine. I'd just like to know. I have other sources I'd like to ask about, but I'll start with this one. Historyday01 (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Archive of Our Own is user-generated content and it's not really a source in my opinion (although some might disagree). In this case, if there's no doubt that this is Molly Ostertag's publication we go by WP:BLPSELFPUB which states that we can use her AO3 profile as a source on herself. We can also use the work of fiction itself as a primary source for information about it. Generally using the work's page on AO3 would probably be ok from a reliability perspective and considering the work explicitly describes itself as "A retelling of the Lord of the Rings (movie canon) from Sam's perspective. Also he and Frodo are in love." your usage is supported by the source. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Glad to hear that.Historyday01 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I came across Russian news site Infoteka24.ru. While its bottom shows the website's placement in some external ratings (e.g. Rambler Top 100 and Yandex Webmaster), the content's reliability looks dubious, in addition to evident Armenian bias. E.g. they use some Twitter account named notwoofers for the claim about the involvement of a certain Adel al-Shahir in Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Their Authors section states that anyone can become their author, while the editorial staff includes just four people. Brandmeister^talk 14:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... Woofers have a WP account and he have a bad habit of editing aircraft shotdowns with Social media (Youtube and Twitter), he was warned at his given time. I think Social Media sould be used carefully. Regarding Infoteka24 it seems like a news agregator to me, so they just do a secondary source job. Just dont use it, instead look for the primary source.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Brandmeister^talk 20:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Found a book called Sabotage in Greece, its on sale on Amazon, Barnes and Noble as well as being available at Google Books. However the publisher is Lulu.com, so it seems to be self published. Is it considered RS or not?--Catlemur (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say not an RS; self-published and the author does not appear to be an acknowledged expert in the field, but rather a hobbyist. Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Relevant quotes from his interview:

• "I confess not to have read any Greek or German accounts of the war, hence my account is very British-centred."
• "I am not a professional historian."
• "My work I have to admit is not 100% accurate as I don’t have and can’t have all the pieces. I can’t read Greek or German."

Probably an interesting book, as his sources were "mostly agents’ personnel files and mission report found in the British National Archives in Kew", "numerous biographies, autobiographies, articles in academic journals and historians’ accounts of the war in Greece", and (from the CIA website) " lots of files of interrogation reports of captured Nazi personnel, including the officers sent to Greece to initiate and implement the sabotage plans." Just not RS. Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm also leaning no on RS, and probably a touch of systematic bias due to relying only on one side's accounts. Might be interesting to read, but I'm seeing no indications the author is a recognized subject-matter expert. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As others have said, looks like an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable, self published. This being priced at 20.40$ for a Lulu book... Well, you can ask for anything.--Hippeus (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Lulu.com (RSP entry) is a self-publishing company, and there is no indication that the author is a subject-matter expert. — Newslinger talk 22:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Does The Spinoff [ https://thespinoff.co.nz ] meet the requirements of WP:BLPRS?

Claimed to be a reliable source for BLP information at Talk:Cavetown (musician)‎#RfC on aromantic and transgender identity.

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 221#The Spinoff.

Article at The Spinoff --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Context matters. What do you think is being reported that’s not acceptable in some way? Glee^anon 04:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Asked and answered. I clearly stated the context above. I realize that you have strong feelings about the RfC, but while you are here please limit your comments to whether or not The Spinoff [ https://thespinoff.co.nz ] meets the requirements of WP:BLPRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, Does The Spinoff [ https://thespinoff.co.nz ] meet the requirements of WP:BLPRS? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The source is used as follows:

The BLP subject has publicly discussed, and identified as being aromantic so this article is reporting that identity. Glee^anon 21:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The Spinoff is reliable: it's a mixture of sensible analysis and light entertainment and it's fairly obvious which is which. The question is whether the focus on sexuality is WP:UNDUE, and I would guess it probably is, so leave it out. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

While doing research on Guo Wengui and GTV Media Group, I came across a relatively new source called The Dispatch (thedispatch.com) that published an informative article about Guo that appears to be reliable:

• Lawson, Charlotte (October 26, 2020). "The Strange Case of Guo Wengui". The Dispatch.

The Dispatch describes itself as a website that provides "Fact-based reporting and commentary on politics, policy and culture – informed by conservative principles". One of its co-founders is Stephen F. Hayes, former editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard (RSP entry). The Dispatch's editor-in-chief is Jonah Goldberg, former senior editor of the National Review (RSP entry). There are 15 individuals listed on the website's "People" page.

Goldberg states that The Dispatch aims to produce "conservative, fact-based news and commentary that doesn’t come either through the filter of the mainstream media or the increasingly boosterish media on the right". Nieman Lab described The Dispatch as "center-right", and offered some context on the US media landscape. The Atlantic (RSP entry) covered the beginnings of The Dispatch with cautious optimism.

Is The Dispatch a generally reliable source, and is its report on Guo reliable for the Guo Wengui and GTV Media Group articles? — Newslinger talk 07:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think The Dispatch and similar Substack-style outlets are probably in a similar place now as some 'new media' outlets were 5-7 years ago. There is some indication that good journalism might come out of them, and there are some specific outlets about which I am optimistic. However, there is absolutely zero track record on them. The NiemanLab article you quote from mentions "eight full-time staff members", and this TechCrunch article notes that they have an at least one editor (though that editor is Stephen Hayes, also the CEO). The article describes The Dispatch as "in many ways the flagship among full-fledged news organizations built on Substack, but the list of publications now includes Asia Sentinel, Let’s Go Warriors and Write for California", so evaluating this outlet 1) could be done by looking at those other three, and 2) could be used as the high water for Substack (assuming we trust TechCrunch). The NYT described The Dispatch as "a conservative newsletter with more than a dozen employees" as of September 2020.

To summarize my thoughts: this site is probably fine for non-controversial claims, though it should be replaced when possible with outlets with more history. The biggest issue is just that it has no history. Most of the people involved have reasonable decent track records as conservative journalists, but it seems very premature to treat this as a reliable source. This might change in a year or two. A second limiting factor is lack of evidence of editorial standards. It looks like The Dispatch has many, many sub-newsletters, and it is unclear whether 1) editorial standards exist, and 2) whether they are the same for all sub-newsletters. So: okay for non-controversial claims, but untested and lacking editorial transparency (as far as I can tell). Jlevi (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally we like to see some daylight between the ownership and the editorial staff, not really seeing that here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sure. To be clear, I think that for the moment we should probably treat this outlet as experts/journalists self-publishing on a marginally controlled platform. That may change as the outlet gains more experience/discussion/transparency. Jlevi (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It would appear that more time is needed to evaluate whether The Dispatch should be considered a reliable source. Their articles look to me to be well-research, full of details and hyperlinks and I have yet to see the magazine publish an article filled with false claims, but the outlet is only a year old and the layout of their website has very much an amateur feel to it (or "bloggy feel" as some would say). If they are serial purveyors of fake news, then this will bubble to the surface in time. Fortliberty (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Can following news about Muslims and Pastafarians Vs. Atheists in Melbourne counter-demonstration, be used as reliable source ? Melbourne counter-demonstration: Muslims and Pastafarians Vs. Atheists

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

While I would count myself as one sympathetic to the noodly deity, for me, this is a flat no. The interest here is not in presenting "news," there is no reputation for fact checking nor accuracy, and the heavy does of satire, while appreciated, does not lend itself to RS status. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that your potential source currently shows the message "Error 404 - Not Found", no. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@ HiLo48, Updated the link, thanks Bookku (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I too appreciate the satire, but still no. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Quoting:

"Islam and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism have the same core beliefs in common; we believe ..."

"We just have different opinions about the name of that god ..."

Thus, this is an opinion piece, and self-promotional at that. Limp noodle and all that. Shenme (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ramen to that, brother. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

For what?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Do this notice board needs more Pastafarians to assist naysayers. Matter of fact is I am not too dependent on this source for any thing. My primary case is to revisit nuances of Wikipedian culture, Whether more nuanced views are really not possible for this or any other cases. I do find insistence in Wikipedian concept of necessarily throwing child with bath water that too on the basis of antecedents of the child quite strange.

For, example in this particular case a live satire was played out is informed. Now the information too might have been given in satirical way, even if that satirical way is stripped out information of satire took place remains to have minimum information irrespective of Wikipedians accept it as a reliable source or not. So for example can this link be used in external links on articles Religious satire or Humour in Islam.

I am not expecting any one even to agree on for even in external link section. I purpose is to make people rethink to have more nuanced encyclopedic culture. Thanks

Bookku (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment The website in question is a parody of religion, and therefore is not a reliable source. Maqdisi117 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have a couple sources and I don't know if they are considered reliable independent and sig coverage, I tried to create the article through AfC but it got deleted. I am not happy with the explanation. These are the sources I would like to know if they meet WP:NCORP, thanks to everyone :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriptocurrency (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, there is an ongoing long discussion without concensus on Vasojevic talk page [43] about the letter send by Radonjic (2 letters in 1788. and 1789.) to Queen Catherine 2 , is it reliable source and does it goes under WP:AGE MATTERS since there is also reference of the letter from an autor from 1900. Thank you. User:Cobalton (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The work in question is Bido, Ardit (2020). The Albanian Orthodox Church: A Political History, 1878–1945. Routledge. ISBN 0429755465. Edion Petriti (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? A claim about The Albanian Orthodox Church? Probably. If something else then would need to look more closely at the matter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, is it a reliable source in general, being published by Routledge. We're having issues with some editors, regarding the author, Ardit Bido. Edion Petriti (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What are the issues though? It can be a reliable source for claims, but does that not automatically mean the author is notable enough to have article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the talk page Talk:Korçë [44] for the latest discussions. There are editors who want to dismiss him entirely for being a member of a political party. Edion Petriti (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Have responded there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Ardit Bido and anyone else is neither reliable, nor unreliable as a source. Their work is either reliable or unreliable. If someone's work gets picked up by Springer, it's reliable. If the same author publishes a brand new theory on twitter right after his Springer deal, it's not reliable. The work in question isBido, Ardit (2020). The Albanian Orthodox Church: A Political History, 1878–1945. Routledge. ISBN 0429755465.) It's part of a Routledge series: Routledge Religion, Society and Government in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet StatesThis Series seeks to publish high quality monographs and edited volumes on religion, society and government in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states by focusing primarily on three main themes: the history of churches and religions (including but not exclusively Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism) in relation to governing structures, social groupings and political power; the impact of intellectual ideas on religious structures and values; and the role of religions and faith-based communities in fostering national identities from the nineteenth century until today. Thus, it's a monograph published by a highly valued academic publishing house. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP:Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. it's WP:RS.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sumit banaphar. Recently I have been trying to make changes in Udal of Mahoba by participate on the talk page , so i want to ask did this book consider reliable source for making changes.

Book:- Alha Udal Ki Veergatha [45]

Author:- Acharya Mayaram Patang

Publisher:- Prabhat Prakashan

Page number:- not given but I'm giving the link of the exact page that i want to show here[46]

The article Udal of Mahoba currently includes the text

And I want to change it to

so i want ask that, is this source is reliable for making the changes.Sumit banaphar (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Quoting the google-page: "Prabhat Prakashan, 1 Jan 2018 - Fiction - 176 pages" (my emphasis). So no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• If it is a work of fiction, then it can't be used as a source. Also, not a comment on sourcing, but, apparently, the original statement is well sourced and is a superset of what you're proposing. I don't get why you want to change it? --RegentsPark (comment) 17:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Sumit banaphar P. avoid getting confused. As I stated earlier @ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Aalha Khand page 19 to 22 of Aalha Khand analysis in chapter 'Lokgatha' by Dr. Asha Gupt (It is not 'Gupta" but just 'Gupt') very much amounts to be secondary reliable source as expected by English language Wikipedia. Dr. Asha Gupt is Doctor of literature in Hindi language in Bhagalpur Hindi University and hence he is an acceptable authority. You just need to translate his commentary part in your own words put it on talk page of the article and then use gist of it in the article.

Please do understand original epic poem amounts to be primary source. It's analysis by an expert is secondary source. So use analytical part by Dr. Asha Gupt and don't use original epic poem as reference in the same book.

If you still need help in understanding issues discuss at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics or at Hindi Wikipedia itself. They might explain issues and rules better.

Bookku (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku I already proved my point in hindi wikipedia[47].So can we use the translation of the hindi Wikipedia's page? If not, then I will participate on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics for help. And thanks for guidance.Sumit banaphar (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no direct bearing of one language Wikipedia on other language Wikipedia as such. You will need to prove your point interdependently on each of language Wikipedia as such. I told you to contact experienced users there not as a proof of your point but there are certain nuances you are finding difficult to understand and they can help you better probably. Contact @ Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics not for campaigning purpose because that won't work. First understand how Wikipedia operates about references from them then probably you will understand Dr.Gupt can be your best possible positioning that what I can foresee.

Secondly this is not the forum to discuss caste and clan mindsets but since those are driving force behind this contesting; but Adding new scholar opinions is easy, most probably removing other scholar opinions won't be an easy task on English Wikipedia unless you get a informal doctorate in rules here by gaining editing other articles. So add Dr. Gupts references as of now and forget issue till you get enough experience of Wikipedia rules through un related articles. That is my honest opinion. For more help seek guidance from Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and Wikipedia Tea house etc. Bookku (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark I want to change it because the article is not totally correct, that's it.Sumit banaphar (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

New Era is a Namibian newspaper that is owned by the government of Namibia. As a news outlet it is clearly bias toward being favorable to the government. According to it's Wikipedia article "The Minister of Information and Communication Technology has the ability to appoint and discharge members of the board of directors. Several researchers report that government ministers have acted as direct owners of the newspaper, telephoning the editorial department about articles that have criticised them." Although a Sweedish study didn't have the same findings, but it's still a government owned news outlet either way. So, given the newspaper's lack of independence as a news source, it's clear to me that it should not be used as a reference for anything that is related to the government. Which I would appreciate confirmation of. The main reason I'm asking is due to it's use as a reference for information on government ran schools. Which are already being covered pretty well by other outlets. For instance The Namibian has pretty good coverage of them and isn't forced to write favorably about the government. There's other also. There's no reason to use a clearly bias source when better alternatives exist. I guess I could do an RfC, but I don't see a problem with using the newspaper for things that don't have to do with the government. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with you that it's not editorially independent of the government (similar to some state media, such as Xinhua, Telewizja Polska, unlike others—BBC, Deutsche Welle). But there's not enough information to say if it's generally reliable. We would be willing to cite a school website for certain info and this is one step removed from that so I would not completely ban it from use on articles of government-run schools, just be cautious and supplement with other sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair compromise. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Am I correct to assume that supplementing it with other sources would also apply when using it as a reference for items in a list? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it depends: if it's the only source for the entire list, then maybe think about whether it's WP:DUE, otherwise, I see no problem for instance using a non-independent source to fill in the gaps and provide a complete list of something. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• If better alternatives exist, by all means use the alternatives. But where this discussion is coming from (Talk:List of schools in Namibia) the contested action was to remove entries from that list, together with their New Era reference and an edit summary of "unreliable source". As explained over there, New Era is not a good source for the evaluation of Namibian government. To simply state that school X is in village Y and was established in the year Z, the source is good enough. --Pgallert (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep. I didn't say I had problem with that did I? Anyway, you wouldn't even let me change a dead link without making a massive deal out of it. So, no, the problem wasn't "removing entries from the list." That was a separate issue, that still hasn't been resolved yet, and didn't have anything to do with this. Plus, last time I checked, you had zero problem with New Era. Even when it came to being used directly as a reference for the government. At least this is dealt with though. Ultimately, I could really care what reference is used. As long as follows the guidelines. Which is why I asked about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You didn't. You simply removed it, and only after we repeatedly reverted you did you even find the talk page. But as with many other guidelines, you're oversimplifying: Reliability of a source depends on the context, on what we want it to be a reference for. You will not find an example of me giving a New Era reference for something like "Massive support for the president". But for factual information about a flood in the North, the electrification of a village, or name and location of a school, New Era is a source as good as any other. --Pgallert (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed ones that were dead links. Outside of that, I could really care less how you use references and your personal preferences have nothing to do with why I asked about it. The important thing is that the question was answered. There's zero reason to WP:BLUDGEON things beyond the answer just because you feel like making this personal. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently going on a dispute at the Syrian Kurdistan article. The parties are me, who believes that the existence of Syrian Kurdistan is common sense as all major researchers on the Kurds mention a Kurdish population in Syria. The Kurds have defeated ISIS in 2017 and Turkey wages a war explicitly against the Kurds in Syria, so it is more or less common sense that Kurds live in Syria, that there exists a Syrian Kurdistan and most of the people active on Wikipedia probably accept that there exists a Syrian Kurdistan. The editor Ibn Amr disputes that there exists a Syrian part of Kurdistan and brings the PhD candidate Mustafa Hamza as a reliable source in the dispute. Do you agree with Ibn Amr that this is a reliable source for such a claim or not? Usually I don't bother to come here for such nonsense, but Ibn Amr explicitly states it is not me who decides what is a reliable source, and in his view it is one, whether he is a professor or not. So his PhD candidate should equate all the lecturers and professors who write about a Syrian part of Kurdistan and therefore it shall only be mentioned that "some regional experts" see call it either a Syrian Kurdistan, Western Kurdistan or Rojava. Here you can find the discussion we had on the topic. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

A person is not a source. Tell us about this document. Who published it? Was it reviewed prior to publication? Does the publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and corrections of mistakes? ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

About Mustafa Hamza, little is known. I have googled him, but to no avail. The paper was published by the Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies in Doha. According to Ibn Amr, it is a peer-reviewed paper, but I guess it wouldn't pass a good article review on Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

If this is a peer reviewed publication with a legitimate publisher and editorial processes then it's highly unlikely that we'd consider it unreliable. Of course, that doesn't mean that it meets any criteria for due weight; just because a source is reliable doesn't mean that it merits inclusion in an article. That, however, is a separate discussion from its reliability. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@ElKvbo, I have adapted the title of the discussion to the book of the PhD candidate Mustafa Hamza. I hope it is enough if I only like to it here in the discussion and don't spell it out in the title of the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a peer-reviewed journal article. PC is getting the spelling of author name wrong (same as with my user name). So, their claims need to be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, this article is not unique in saying "Syrian Kurdistan" is a nationalist Kurdish invention. below are some books talking about Kurdistan without any mention of a "Syrian Kurdistan":

• David McDowall, 1997. A Modern History of the Kurds
• Denise Natali, 2005. The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.
• Edgar O'Ballance, 2004. The Kurdish Struggle.

Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, book reviews are not subject to the same peer review processes that research articles undergo in peer-reviewed journals; they're typically only read by the editor who runs the book review section of the journal prior to publication. So they're often not of the same scholarly weight as research articles published even in the same issue of the same journal. The specific details of how or if they're solicited, written, and reviewed vary so we'd need to know how it's specifically done in this journal. Nevertheless, book reviews in legitimate journals are typically held to editorial standards and processes that are sufficient to meet our definition of "reliable." Due weight is likely the more pressing issue. ElKevbo (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, very diplomatic and tolerant you are. Another discussion at the NPOVN will follow ASAP then.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

ArtistDirect is a digital media website that mostly posts news about and interviews with famous music artists. I used an ArtistDirect interview with Avicii while working on the article, "Levels (Avicii song)", due to it having information about how "Levels" was made. I want to know whether or not ArtistDirect could be considered a reliable source.

Choose one of the options below and the reason why.

• Option 1 - ArtistDirect is a generally reliable source.
• Option 2 - ArtistDirect is a questionable source, or should be used with considerations.
• Option 3 - ArtistDirect is a generally unreliable source.
• Option 4 - ArtistDirect needs to be deprecated due to providing false or fabricated information.
• I think that for biographical information directly, in the website's own voice, it may be borderline, but for the words of the artists themselves per WP:ABOUTSELF, I think it can be acceptable for use. If you're using an interview, and paraphrasing or quoting the artist's own words, I see no reason to suspect they have fabricated the interview. I think that for other aspects of music journalism (such as original news stories) the information may lack some of the pedigree of more established music journalism sources; that isn't a "don't use it" warning, but a "use with a bit of caution" warning; there may be a time when it develops a well-respected reputation in the industry, but I'm not sure it is there yet for those purposes. If we have to vote, I would say "option 1 for interviews" and "option 2 for news". --Jayron32 15:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• For me, it’s generally a source I use as a last resort, but try to find other sources if possible. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any directly mentions on archives, so I'm asking this question. I came to here after this discussion. My thoughts about it was that it could be conflict of interest on that topic and -that following part is specifically about my edit- I couldn't find any third party source to confirm it (other ones were repeating itself as far as I see).--Ahmetlii (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• It's a generally-reliable mainstream WP:NEWSORG, isn't it? - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• The only way for there to be a COI is if the paper is run by and not editorially independent of the Greek (or Turkish) government. Just being published in Greece does not make a COI. (t · c) buidhe 23:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe I know, and that's why I opened a discussion on RSN because I don't know whether it's reliable by verified by other reliable sources or it's editorially dependent (and I couldn't see a discussion about it in here).--Ahmetlii (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Daily Sabah or Kathimerini are not the best sources for the Greek-Turkish relations page. Kathimerini diverges significantly from the mainstream press on some issues, which is not unusual for local foreign language papers. Take the illegal immigration section for example. There is no lack of mainstream sourcing for this. Reuters has run countless stories on the subject, and so has every other mainstream international news outlet. While that doesn't rule out the sources for Wikipedia purposes, it does imply good sense in their use. In this article it has been cited for the following content:

"According to Greek sources the Turkish authorities are tolerant of smugglers trafficking illegal immigrants into Greece; a notable such incident is the one of a trafficking boat, filmed on September 14, 2009 by the Latvian helicopter crew of Frontex patrolling near Farmakonisi island, during which "it is clear that the Turkish coastguard, at best, does not prevent the "slavetrade" vessels to sail from its shores. At worst, it accompanies them into Greek territorial waters".

Context matters, and saying the Turkish government is accompanying slave trading vessels into Europe is tabloid-quality stuff. If it were true I think it would have attracted attention in the mainstream press. I'm not inclined to read the article in more detail but I wouldn't be surprised to find many more examples like this in there. Spudlace (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• A politically biased source. As the main article notes, Kathimerini is "one of the main conservative voices of Greek media". The Greek Wikipedia version of the article helpfully points that it has the same owner with Skai TV. The channel "has been ferociously criticized by Greek socialists for allegedly promoting right-wing politics, liberal and pro-EU politics". Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• jacobite.ca  

This request for comment has elapsed, and can be closed. Please remove this template while closing.

Should http://www.jacobite.ca be removed from the deprecation list? Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

On 1 June 2020 Guy created an RfC on More nobility fansites asking that five sites be deprecated. Among the sites listed was one edited by me: http://www.jacobite.ca. Three other editors responded "Deprecate all". On 14 August 2020 the discussion was closed by MrX with a consensus to deprecate the five sites.

Deprecation is meant to be "reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues". This is not the case for jacobite.ca. Usually deprecation is used for inaccurate news sites.

In the orignal request Guy said that jacobite.ca is "another one-man project, Jacobite fansite run by an enthusiastic amateur but no editorial board and no relevant academic status". No other editor made any other comments about jacobite.ca. It does not seem to me that the RfC was listed on any relevant talk pages to encourage comments from users who have cited the website on wikipages.

jacobite.ca is a "one-man project" and it has "no editorial board", but it is not a fansite. It is well-known on the web (within its scholarly area), as the largest academic site about Jacobitism. I have two graduate degrees and have been employed as an academic librarian at a Canadian university for over twenty years. As such I am a member of the University of Toronto Faculty Association. Like many of my academic colleagues I was trained largely in one area, but my research has moved over the years in a particular direction. The claim that I have "no relevant academic status" is false; every year my university provides me with ten research days in which I am permitted (among other things) to visit Jacobite sites in Europe and publish my research online. I choose to publish online for free in order to make my research available to as large an audience as possible.

The two largest parts of the site are Documents Illustrating Jacobite History http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/index.htm and A Jacobite Gazeteer http://www.jacobite.ca/gazetteer/index.htm The vast majority of these pages have multiple footnotes citing my sources. On most other pages of my website I include a bibliography of sources.

The site is written from a Jacobite perspective and I use Jacobite titles for certain individuals. On multiple webpages I make clear that these titles are the ones "recognised by the Jacobites" or "used for them by the Jacobites".

jacobite.ca has existed for almost 25 years. In May 1998 it received a StudyWeb Academic Excellence Award as “one of the best educational resources on the Web”. In January 2000 it received a Britannica Internet Guide Award as “one of the best [sites] on the Internet when reviewed for quality, accuracy of content, presentation and usability”.

No editor has shown any evidence that jacobite.ca is "highly questionable" or "generally unreliable".

Remove deprecation for jacobite.ca Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mcferran: Thanks, for bringing this up, it's probably worth discussing further. Above, you said: "It is well-known on the web (within its scholarly area), as the largest academic site about Jacobitism." Perhaps you can help us with some evidence that shows your site is used by other authorities? GPinkerton (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a "straw man". The point is whether or not this site has "a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues". If it doesn't, it shouldn't be deprecated. No evidence has ever been provided of any such fabrication. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mcferran: There are other reasons to deprecate something. In any case, this noticeboard is about assessing ratings of reliability. If you want a rating to change, you should provide evidence supporting the change. Otherwise why bother. Reliable sources are supposed to have a reputation for fact-checking. Does this self-published website? You have claimed "it is well-known on the web (within its scholarly area), as the largest academic site about Jacobitism." There should be lots of citations to to it beyond Wikipedia; it shouldn't be hard to find them for us. GPinkerton (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• In support of Jacobite.ca's reputation, I have found citations to it in John M. Owen IV, Confronting Political Islam (Princeton University Press); Caroline Castiglione, Accounting for Affection (Springer); and some articles on Google Scholar [48]. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There are less than 54 references to the website on google scholar, the vast majority of which have almost nothing to do with jacobitism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Retain deprecation (first choice) or Change to Generally Unreliable (second choice). Wikipedia's standards for source reliability are well understood. As the request acknowledges, this is a one-man site and there is no editorial board. It is also written "from a Jacobite perspective" - that's WP:FRINGE in context. What are the author's relevant qualifications and credentials? The comments above make it sound as if his credentials are in a different, albeit perhaps adjacent, field. It looks very much as if this request is prompted by a drop-off in referral traffic, which isn't really our problem to fix. As to why these references exist on Wikipedia perhaps the user who made this edit can help? Oh, wait: user:Mcferran. Fancy that. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that people can make false accusations on Wikipedia talk pages without any evidence. I don't follow traffic statistics for my website. I learnt about this change because of a newspaper report about Wikipedia deprecation. If Guy looks closely at that edit, he will see that I re-ordered the links which were already there (which included a link to an essay on my website) and added one other. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mcferran: What newspaper article? Did you see the other questions I asked? GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Mcferran, {{citation needed}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Retain deprecation – clearly fails the (limited) exceptions sanctioned by the WP:SPS policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Retain deprecation - unconvinced it isnt a fansite, I hate to say this to the guys face but while their site is “well known on the web” it is not respected within the relevant academic communities nor do I see any indication that they themselves are a respected or notable scholar in their field. I don't see the sort of publications and lasting impact I would expect to see from the level of expert we would accept this sort of one man show source from. This appears to be a clear case of WP:FRINGE and I support retaining deprecated status for this site as well as the rest of the royalty hobby sites deprecated in that RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Fansite? Do you see the almost 150 historical documents which are available on the site, http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/index.htm

@Mcferran: Is there some reason these documents would not be available elsewhere? Indeed, is there any reason, they can't just be uploaded to Wikisource? GPinkerton (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Fansites can cite sources, and include replicas of reliable sources. They often do. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Retain deprecation - Sources should not be undeprecated just because they were deprecated in a bundle with other sources. If the reason for deprecation is no longer valid then it can be revisited, but only then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Not one single example of falsity or fabrication has been cited by an editor, and yet the site has been deprecated. Deprecation is not the penalty for Self-published sources. I don't see any other group of sites listed on Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. It seems to me that the site has been deprecated because of its topic (history related to royalty) not because of any lack of reliability (since none has been cited). Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  There is precedent for the deprecation of self-published sources. See Baidu Baike (RSP entry), Crunchbase (RSP entry), and Rate Your Music (RSP entry) for examples. Deprecation is intended to caution editors against the addition of unreliable sources. If a self-published source is being inappropriately added to many articles, and there are few to no valid uses for the source in Wikipedia articles, then deprecation would be a valid solution. The jacobite.ca website may be one of these cases. — Newslinger talk 08:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Remove deprecation: This is what the policy saysA small number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. ... It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues This is clear cut. What is the point of having policies if voters just ignore them? To boot, McFerran is right and I've found his website cited in a number of books and journal articles. ImTheIP (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Remove deprecation The site qualifies as a reliable self-published source per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Assuming good faith that the OP's credentials are valid, I see no reason to deprecate this SPS. --Jayron32 14:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Remove deprecation Per ImTheIP and Jayron32. Also, just because a site has a point of view doesn't make it unreliable. From WP:BIASED:reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Retain deprecation - I agree with Francis Schonken. It should retain its deprecation per WP:SPS and WP:RS. Also, what has happened in the mean time to change its deprecated status? I don't see any significant changes.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'll ask again. Where is the evidence fora substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues Just being self-published is not enough to make a site deprecated. There has to be inaccuracy. I am relieved that some editors see this; I was beginning to lose confidence in the Wikipedia community. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Mcferran: Meanwhile you're ignoring my and others' questions to you ... why should anyone satisfy you with an answer to (another)one of yours? As for errors and inaccuracies, why does the claim appear thatFrom his birth Francis was recognised by the Jacobites as a "Prince of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Prince of Cornwall and Rothesay"? Who are these Jacobites, how did they "recognize" him, and how did they do so on the instant of his birth? Why should an encyclopaedia rely on this kind of fantasy? Again, why should anyone cite this site, when the documents can be cited to their actual origins and when the original material is pure fantasy. What is a "prince of England" anyway? GPinkerton (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • A charitable explanation of Mcferran's absence is that he doesn't have as much time for this as you and I have. The Jacobites are pretenders who believe that the English revolution in the 17th century was illegitimate and that they are the heirs to the throne. An article in the Guardian explains Franz' claim:This could mean that the next rightful monarch of Britain would be neither Prince Charles nor any of his close relations, but a 74-year-old Bavarian duke called Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria von Bayern. For this amiable man, who lives alone in the enormous Nymphenburg Palace near Munich, is the closest blood descendant of King Charles I and considered by Jacobites to be the rightful Stuart heir to the British throne. In my opinion, it is troubling that Wikipedia editors that don't know what Jacobitism is, are participating in this discussion. They can't possibly tell if jacobite.ca is a reliable source or not. ImTheIP (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell taking Jacobite claims at face value is a problem vis-a-vis WP:FRINGE... This whole website seems to be some sort of Jacobite role playing exercise which treats Jacobite claims as historical facts. At best this is a highly partisan source that can be used to provide the Jacobite viewpoint on a given issue, its useless as far as actual history is concerned. Now I will give you that at best it would not be worthy of deprecation it would just be generally unreliable. The problem is that the Jacobite viewpoint is inherently fringe so there is just no way we can use this site for anything. Any removal of deprecation would be purely symbolic, it wouldn’t allow this source to be used on more than a half dozen pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of WP:FRINGE claims on the site? Is the Guardian article I cited also WP:FRINGE? ImTheIP (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Take for example "The documents made available here illustrate the intentions of the Jacobite kings: liberty of conscience for all; liberty for all to worship in their own fashion or even in no fashion; the national integrity of each individual kingdom - England, Scotland, and Ireland. This may be compared with the intentions of their opponents: religious intolerance (not only towards Catholics but also to all those who did not believe in the Trinity); required attendance at Protestant religious services; forced unions between England, Scotland, and Ireland.” [49] which is way beyond what we would expect an academic source to say. This guy is clearly arguing a corner and presenting a rather fancifully curated version of history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The quoted text is not WP:FRINGE (nb. FRINGE is defined as "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field") ImTheIP (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion it is fringe, I respect that you disagree. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, the Guardian article is an opinion piece the mentions Jacobitism tangentially. The author goes on to note that Franz, the notional heir, "ridicules the claim and has never considered giving up his Catholic faith." Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree that there's some drift between how sources are handled here, and how Wikipedia:Reliable sources describes deprecation. I think the guideline is out of date, given the sorts of discussions I see here, though I leave that to regulars to address. I also note that the original, rather perfunctory discussion said nothing about jacobite.ca. Typically a self-published source is evaluated based on whether the author is a recognized expert in his field; that is, is the author's reliability certified by others even though in this instance there are none of the usual editorial controls. The question of whether Jacobitism is even a thing in the 21st century is somewhat beside the point; that's a question of undue weight and wholly separate from reliability.

On the question of deprecation, then, we need to turn to McFerran's credentials. He holds multiple academic degrees and is employed as an academic librarian at a university. He receives several weeks research leave per year; I'm curious to know more about this, but I would note that this is not enough time for there to be any expectation of producing a book or an article. He doesn't appear to publish in academic journals because he wants to make his research freely available. That's a fine and laudable goal but it also deprives us--and him--of the scholarly commentary that establishes a reputation. Most of the Google Scholar citations are to documents that he has hosted. That's a good and useful function but it doesn't help establish reliability. The website awards from 1998 and 2000 do, but the Internet was a fundamentally different place twenty years ago. Is there anything more recent? Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Retain deprecation. Per Mackensen, I do not see evidence of the rather extraordinary credentials needed for SPS exemption here. I also agree that the guidelines ought to be updated to reflect the current treatment of unreliable sources, which, as mentioned by others, is trending towards exclusion of sites that provide limited citability (i.e. information on them can easily be obtained elsewhere) regardless of documented falsification. And Wikipedia editors absolutely don't need expertise in a subject to weigh in on whether a source meets the mostly objective RS criteria discussed here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I would think that it is simply a blog, but it claims to be a hyper-local news. My question is, would it rise to the level of news blog? Graywalls (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to have input here on two books, The Story of Pomona College by Charles B. Sumner (1914, Pilgrim Press) and The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969 by historian E. Wilson Lyon (1977, Castle Press), which are used at Pomona College and related pages. They are the two main historical scholarly accounts of the college, so I've been using them for sourcing and establishing notability as I've worked on those pages. However, both Sumner and Lyon had ties to the college—Sumner as an influential early trustee and Lyon as a retired president—so their independence has been questioned in the context of a notability discussion.

I haven't been able to find reviews of The Story of Pomona College, but reviews of The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969 praised its scholarly detachment: The American Historical Review called it a "clear and objective account", and Pacific Historical Review noted Lyon's "established reputation as a professional historian" and stated that "Lyon's detachment in writing this history has been exemplary."

I note that similar situations exist for many other colleges/universities, such as with A History of Georgetown University by Robert Emmett Curran (2010, Georgetown University Press), the most definitive history of that institution, which is cited frequently at FA Georgetown University despite its author having worked there as a history professor for three decades.

Personally, my view is that these books do qualify as reliable sources, mainly because they were published through independent publishers who had final say over their content and held them to objective scholarly standards. What do you all think? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Well they are reliable in my opinion as they have met with critical approval in reliable sources and held to a high standard by respected publishers. However if there is an extraordinary claim of some sort then that would need more than one source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We should be suspicious of histories of organizations that were written by employees or commissioned by the organization, especially if they were self-published or published by a publisher that does not have a strong reputation for being reliable. There are many colleges and universities in the U.S. that have commissioned "house histories," especially when they're celebrating an important anniversary, and there is tremendous variation in the quality and reliability of these publications. So we can't make a blanket judgment about this genre of publications but must judge each one independently.

In this case, The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969 sounds like it's got some acceptance among historians so I'm relatively comfortable relying on it. You haven't presented any information that tells us that The Story of Pomona College meets our criteria for reliability so I'm much less confident; until we know more about it, it's probably okay for information that isn't controversial but not much more than that. ElKevbo (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Twitter thread – worth a read. Matthew Sheffield provides important context regarding American conservative journalism. What he says is worth considering when we write about conservative coverage of US politics. feminist (talk) | Americans, unite 02:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Feminist. Editors that worked on the Great Barrington Declaration will be interested in the link at the end to Sheffield's piece on Creationism and Covid-19, which discusses the milieu of the American Institute for Economic Research, the Discovery Institute, the Hoover Institution, Jay Bhattacharya (one of the Great Barrington authors), David Berlinski, and Peter Thiel. [50] GPinkerton (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Like. It should be beyond obvious at this point, but a disturbingly large number of people still think of conservative media as some analogue to mainstream or liberal journalism with just a different bias, rather than an entirely distinct profession that has no interest in the truth-seeking mission of actual journalists. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  It depends on what you mean by "conservative journalism", where both of those terms mean different things in different contexts. Are you talking Buckley or Bannon here? There is legitimate media with a conservative editorial stance. It's not the batshit crazy stuff, but it exists. Sadly, it doesn't do much to advance the agenda of the far-right in America, so it doesn't get put forth as a source to do so, but it exists. I've never seen any significant criticism of source like the Wall Street Journal or the Christian Science Monitor or The Hill, though those sources are rarely used to try to push the contentious Q-Anon stuff that everyone wants to try to support with the less savory right-wing sources. --Jayron32 17:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's fair. I'm not talking about The Wall Street Journal here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hoover Institution has (or at least used to have) real scholars in addition to partisan hacks. (t · c) buidhe 11:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)