Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 380

Archive 375

←

Archive 378

Archive 379

Archive 380

Archive 381

Archive 382

→

Archive 385

Middle East International

I have been using Draft:Middle East International as a reference/source and would like to know if it can be considered as reliable. I appreciate that it is no longer published, probably had low circulation and is not available for checking on the internet. I have been using it in dozens of Lebanon related articles, for instance War of Liberation (1989–1990) and Zahleh campaign. Many thanks. Padres Hana (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen them cited by a few good resources in my search to find their e-prints, but it seems they hosted their entire archive on their own site and now that's kaput. Internet Archive has only their indices stored (and only for select years). I was hoping to read one of their articles used to support one of the more judgemental statements of the WP article (I selected ref 49 in the Lebanese Civil War: MEI 148, 24 April 1981; Jim Muir p.3.). If you know what online database, if any, carries their archives, let me know -- I tried ProQuest and a couple others already.

In the meantime, I'm overall just glad that almost everything in the articles is attributed in-line to specific places in source material (to what degree that correlates to the reality of the sources, I don't know yet). It does seem however that there is a lot of reliance on MEI as a source almost contemporaneous with the event in question, which is not ideal for something that happened over 30 years ago about which many books have been written. It's great to go into fine detail where appropriate, but historical reviews make a more generalized and hopefully more accurate assessment using a range of sources, so it's important to be reliant more on those for bigger-picture analysis. Also, sometimes MEI is cited when a broader source would be perfectly fine, such as ref 84: "three Western hostages were executed and a new round of hostage taking started." That's a pretty easily verified fact, though it seems to usually be lost in secondary history coverage because waaaay too much other stuff was going on. However -- and this is a good illustration of the caution needed using contemporaneous sources in history -- according to Nevin 2003 they "executed 1 US and 3 British hostages within a week." SamuelRiv (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I am away from home and cannot check ref 84 but I would think the report included the names of the men killed which would add to its credibility. Before I left I took a photo of ref 49 and can share if I knew how. Padres Hana (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Temporary loaded to Commons so can present as evidence for reliability discussion

I take the point that a longer perspective might clarify our view of events in the past. This case (reference 84/6) is an example: according to the MEI report it was unclear from the video released by the “Revolutionary Organisation of Socialist Muslims” that the man being hanged was Alec Collett, a 64 yr old British journalist working with UNRWA, kidnapped in March, as claimed. So I put the number killed as three. I haven't followed up the Springler reference you give and don’t remember the full Collett story except that somewhere on Wikipedia I saw that his body was identified in 2009.

With reference to reliability here are some notes taken from the Jim Muir report (2 May 1986).

16 April 1986. Three bodies found in grey blankets near village, Roueissat Safor, single shot in back of head. Two where quickly identified. Philip Padfield and Leigh Douglas, British teachers and long time residents, kidnapped in March. Confusion over third body. Initially thought to be Collett but confirmed as Peter Kilburn, 61 year old American librarian at AUB, who had been taken sixteen months earlier. The family believes he died shortly after the kidnapping since he had had a stroke previously and needed diabetes medication. Doctors were surprised he had not lost weight in time as a prisoner. A note near the bodies from the “Arab Commando Cells” made it clear that it was in retaliation for the Libya airstrikes. Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe quoted as saying he had firm intelligence that the men had been in Libyan hands. The murders were condemned by all West Beirut leaders, including Walid Jumblatt (long quote “my homeland is collapsing”), Nabih Berri and Sayyid Muhamad Hussein Faddallah. A few hours later John McCarthy, “a cameraman with World Television News”, was kidnapped on his way, under escort, to the airport. On 20 April remaining 35 British citizens evacuated from West Beirut. Two days later 11 Americans “escorted across the line”. A few French teachers came out later. Padres Hana (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It was not published in academic press seems like a polemical magazine Shrike (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed

Indeed is a job search website, but is it a reliable source? I used it once on the Hamburger University page, but it turns out that the article on Indeed was copyrighted. AKK700 01:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No. It's WP:SPS and anything to do with job searching websites is going to go over poorly in terms of RS. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I would even be careful using it as a WP:SPS. Yes, the postings on Indeed are usually submitted by the employer, but the postings can also be submitted by recruiting agencies that work on behalf of an employer, so a statement on an Indeed posting wouldn't even indicate that what is said is the position of the employer in question, so I think it shouldn't even be used as a WP:SPS. - Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And note also that the vast majority of reliable sources cited in Wikipedia are likely to be copyright. Almost all websites (and other publications) are, whether reliable by Wikipedia standards or not. Your edit to Hamburger University seems to have been reverted because you copy-pasted content from the source. I suggest you read the note Diannaa left on your talk page back in January. [2] Reliable sources are supposed to be cited to support content written in your own words, not copy-pasted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I already read the note, and that was January 2021 (over a year ago). Since then, I have improved on adding references, typing them in without copy-pasting them. AKK700 02:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Several sources in article that are on the Perennial list, per RELIABLE. Several twitter citations that are not owned by LOTR:TRP are found; others are of a speculative nature and of unclear veracity.

The two most egregious usages are: 1) Fandom.com (unclear licensing, unclear ownership as its fan-based content, unclear wp:NPOV, un-VERIFIABLE, and is seen here at wp:Perennial sources#Fandom; 2) Metro_(UK) (Not considered reliable, unclear ownership of presented video content, unclear wp:NPOV, and can be seen here at wp:Perennial sources#Metro.

Additional input is requested. Thanks GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I am bringing my arguments here from the discussions at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Removal of Non-reliable sourcing and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#FANDOM, was not aware that this was the most appropriate place to discuss the issue. Firstly, I agree that Metro.co.uk is not a great source and usually would avoid it. However, I believe the specific source being used at this article qualifies as a genuine exception from WP:METRO because it is a direct interview that we can clearly verify is reliable and correct using the attached video. There is no alternative since any other discussion of the interview would just be referencing this original source.

The bigger issue is Fandom. Vortex3427 just updated WP:FANDOM to state Although not user-generated, Fandom's staff blogs are also considered generally unreliable as no evidence of editorial control has been found. This was presumably based on the response to their question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 379#Reliability of FANDOM News Stories. I disagree with the change because, as you can see here, Fandom has hired Eric Goldman as managing editor so it does have the necessary editorial oversight. Goldman is trusted as a reliable source for entertainment news and information (he previously wrote for IGN and Marvel.com, is verified on social media, has access to press junkets for film and TV, etc.). The specific article that brought me here was a direct interview by entertainment editor Kim Taylor-Foster, a published author who also has press access for entertainment information and is verified on social media. So, knowing all that, I would suggest that the articles on Fandom actually be treated similarly to other entertainment news and review sites such as IGN, Collider, or SlashFilm. We could change the new wording to something similar to what we already have for IGN, such as Fandom's staff articles are considered generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, but consider whether the information from this source constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

adamstom97 -- do we have anything to go on other than the hiring of Mr. Goldman? I agree, that is evidence tending to show some level of reliability, but by itself I am not sure it gets to full "RS" status for me. I find navigating the fandom site to be a sisyphean task. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should get to full RS status, I thought my wording was cautious enough to make that clear. Just that certain pages which are actual articles should be generally reliable for certain wiki articles, namely entertainment and pop culture. I agree that navigating the website is bad, I have only ever looked at articles on there that were suggested to me by Google or other sites reporting on Fandom's info. If there are still concerns, we could be more cautious and go for something similar to WP:FORBES where we assume that most things on Fandom are WP:USERG and unreliable but allow for certain contributors who meet the criteria for being reliable themselves as WP:SPS. Perhaps wording like this? Fandom's staff blogs are written with an unclear level of editorial oversight and consensus is that they are not necessarily reliable. These should be treated as unreliable self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to this approach, but I don't think I personally would go so far just based on the existence of a managing editor. The best I could endorse at this point is treating the articles as WP:SPS as to named authors, and assessing reliability and WP:DUE status that way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've said something at the talk page first. I don't have any concerns with that wording. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 05:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I just realized I misread adamstom97 above, and he basically was advancing the same approach I was. Chalk it up to old eyes (or an old brain!). Suffice it to say, fine with that wording. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries Vortex, and thanks for the input Dumuzid. Let's see if anyone else has thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

RIA Novosti's and interfax russia's reliability.

in my opinion, RIA Novosti should get the same classification as TASS (generally unreliable for facts), while Interfax should get the status RIA Novosti is now (no consensus, although with a note that the Russian Interfax should generally be avoided), the reason for RIA Novosti is obvious (not only it is a Russian state-owned channel, and the fact that it has already spread fake news, it also published "What Russia Should Do with Ukraine", a opinion paper explicitly calling for the destruction of Ukraine and Ukrainian culture and people, aka pro-kremlin rhetoric, only these facts would already pretty much classify it as a biased source), while Interfax is.... harder to tell, the Ukrainian version seems legit, although the Russian one has spread rumors that Ukraine was building a nuke/dirty bomb, so, i dont really know, any thoughts? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

First and foremost these evaluations have to be time-dependent, and not just some simple color code. Most articles on WP for which newspaper sources are RS take place before 2022, and (probably most?) before 2013 (the merger) as well. RIA Novosti had at least some integrity in their news section as late as 2018, in spite of fake news creeping in (link in article). Opinion was trash since at least 2013, but of course the opinion of non-notable non-experts in newspapers is not a RS almost anywhere. Science and tech is also problematic since 2013 (and comparable, in that writer's opinion, to the UK's Daily Mail prior, which of course isn't great). CJR has a rather nuanced analysis of Russian state media from 2010. Of course the further back you go, the less you have to worry about direct state censorship (and in the 90s, the more you have to worry about crap quality and standards, so I've heard). I mean, what facts are you saying it's unreliable for? If you see a headline like "A pothole on 42nd street got filled Tuesday", do we really think that's unreliable reporting? SamuelRiv (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Im talking about using RIA Novosti for "facts", specially on the war in Ukraine, although we could do with RIA Novosti like we did to Newsweek (until a certain time period (in this case until 2018 for general stuff, and 2013 for opinions, tech and science, maybe also exclude the 90s because of quality, standarts, etc)= more or less reliable), and, no, im not talking about basic things like "pothole on street is filled", im talking about using RIA Novosti for facts about the war in Ukraine and stuff, although it can be used for statements by Russian politicians, kremlin officials and the Russian state, although, as always, attributing the fact that its a STATEMENT/CLAIM, for Interfax Russia, the note should say the same (generally avoid it to state facts, but reliable for STATEMENTS/CLAIMS by the Kremlin and pro-kremlin politicians), as always, also say the basics (opinion papers and stuff shouldnt be used). 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have edge cases or a specific disagreement then it would be helpful to link to that instance. Otherwise we just have to speak in generalities and guess at what you're referring to. You obviously shouldn't use daily newspaper reports for any specific military-related statistics. Many Western newspapers have very high-level sources, but even then it's hard to know whether a high-level government source will have reliable statistics in the middle of a war, especially with less-than-top-tier militaries. So that's one of about 50 possible types of fact you could be trying to verify. Did I guess right? SamuelRiv (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What im talking about is that people will try and push RIA Novosti into random articles to push POV and propaganda, i dont really need to link a single instance, theres a LOT of instances of RIA Novosti publishing propaganda, and some idiots have tried to put it in articles (like 2022 Western Russia attacks) to try and "prove" a point, although the consensus was against including them. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Not just RIA, but any source or reporting in general should be chosen carefully surrounding war. Because as it is said: "In war, truth is the first casualty." What's reported today can turn out to be untrue tomorrow or even mere hours from now as things constantly change. Also some of what you refer are likely syndicated pieces highlighted and often times "Reliable sources" report the same info if even just to inform others what's out there.CaribDigita (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

i know, the thing is that RIA Novosti has spread fake news, if we are going to let them in, them might as well let TASS, RT and Sputnik in, also, a lot of what they have reported, specially related to the war, has been disproven, what i want to is at least make it clear that you cant use RIA to state facts like it has been done in the past, for random claims and statements by Russian politicians or public figures? its fine, but not to state facts, the same way you probably don't want TASS, RT and Sputnik in is the same reason we shouldn't let RIA Novosti in to STATE "FACTS", i repeat, STATEMENTS BY RUSSIAN PUBLIC FIGURES, OK but not to use it as a reliable source in any way, the way RIA Novosti is considered now opens a LOT of breaches that Russian trolls may try to use to push POV and Russian disinformation/propaganda. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't cite any established media out of Russia for factual reporting since February 2022. Prior to 2018ish is qualified per above. But again, the vast majority of citations of Russian media on this site will be prior to 2022, so why should the general classification change? I wouldn't rely on an interview with a person with a concussion for absolute facts, but prior to and after the concussion I'd evaluate things differently. (Not the best analogy but whatever). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

srbin.info

Recently an unregistered user has been using this website as a source for a claim regarding S-400 missile systems in the ukraine war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S-400_missile_system&diff=1099710716&oldid=1099679621

The website seems to be heavily positively biased towards russia. A lot of its articles, including the one above, cannot be verified through prominent news outlets. It also seems to heavily rely on sputnik, which is a wikipedia deprecated source. Interestingly enough, at the bottom of some of the articles the source is stated simply as "Source: Facts".

The website does not seem to be reliable regarding politics, specifically when it's related to russia. Eddmanx (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It was subtle, but I detected a tiny bit of bias in their reporting on the Balkans. Probably just my imagination though. In general wouldn't trust any news outlet for accurate military data in current time in the middle of a war, per another comment I have on this board. Looking into srbn's range of coverage more, I found an article on U.S. policy used a colorful character as its source and played up his credentials quite a bit. On domestic Serbian affairs the headlines are far worse than the content, which seems actually rather objective and possibly reliable in that particular case (though I would always cross check facts).

I couldn't find anything about Russian affairs apart from the Ukraine war, which is probably just saturation, so I can't look at whether they have a particular bias in Russian domestic politics, or in favor of Russia relative to Balkans or EU politics. On Ukraine specifically they're clearly cheerleading for Russia, but factual reliability is an interesting question, because even though you have e.g. mini articles based around quotations that are clearly biased, is the quotation nevertheless real? In that case it says (in the machine translation anyway so it may be wrong) that he told it to "our agency", which would imply they have a foreign correspondent, which is not cheap (or just someone who knows some important people because there's zero communications discipline, or just used a syndicated column and didn't correct the wording), so is that believable for an outlet of this size (I don't know how big it is)? They quote other high-level officials in similar articles, though some of that could easily come from public releases. They also take some detailed war coverage from Sputnik, where again I wouldn't trust facts to be representative of anything other than either what people on the ground actually believe or what they are being encouraged to push (and the two can intermingle). Such an evaluation is for someone like a feature journalist or analyst however, and not for us to make for a WP article. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The Virgin Islands Daily News

The Virgin Islands Daily News is a local newspaper in the American Virgin Islands. I’m unsure as to whether The Virgin Islands Daily News is a reliable source, but the newspaper recently came to my attention when Troy Caesar was nominated for deletion.

It was one of the sources that I referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Caesar.

My question is whether the newspaper is considered a reliable source. I haven’t been able to find previous discussion regarding this newspaper, but I may be mistaken. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fats40boy11. According the the newspaper's About us page, it has been published for over 90 years and has won at least two major journalism awards. The Virgin Islands Daily News verifies that the paper won a Pulitzer Prize and also awards from the Society of Prifessional Journalists. There may not have been any previous discussions because the reliability is obvious. Cullen328 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. I thought that it was reliable, hence why I brought it up in the AFD, however I just wanted to double check with others. Again, many thanks Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Its generally viewed as the USVI's paper of record, albeit not always as the sole one. Historically (pre-21st century) the St Croix Avis is going to be the paper of record for St Croix with the Daily News being the paper of record for the rest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

It has come to my attention that there have been four discussions here about Transfermarkt, a German website used to track football players and clubs. They can be found here, here, here and here. The consensus on all of these articles has been that Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. However, I am starting this discussion for two reasons- first, the most recent discussion was in 2013, and a lot has changed since then. Second, it clearly states on the Transfermarkt FAQ [[3]] that "Corrections will not be taken over right after sending because they have to be checked first by the administrators or the data scouts. Due to the high number of corrections, it can take some time to prove and accept the correction." This means that the information is technically peer reviewed, and therefore (somewhat) reliable. If information sourced off of Transfermarkt was allowed, it would make a lot of things a lot easier. For instance, many result sources link to pages from official league match lists, which have since updated to the latest matches. This would make it much easier to create articles for past seasons (I am asking this because I might use it to make a "2021-22 Tigres UANL season" article. Any suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to think it is not reliable. Its editorial processes are completely opaque. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "opaque"? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear who writes and selects the data that is published and at whose behest. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Heavy.com

Hello everyone. I was thinking of revising the Antonella Barba article which I worked on back in 2019. Would Heavy be considered a reliable source to support a person's birthday and would it be considered a high-quality source for a potential WP:FAC? I am thinking no because Heavy is very much a news aggregation platform, but I wanted to get other people's opinions. I could not find any discussion on this particular site in the WP:RSN archives (and if I missed it, apologies for that). This would be the citation used in the article. I am just doubtful. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It has a RSP entry at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Heavy.com which states There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew that I was missing it somewhere so thank you for pointing it out and apologies for missing it earlier. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

About The Artists

Based on their help page, I think About The Artists is an example of user-generated content. It appears to be cited in a bunch of places anyway. What should I do about it?

To be specific, let's focus on Charlie Day#Theatre. A Google search turns up [4], which I think is a reliable source for the second three plays. I can't find anything for the first three; should I remove them? They don't seem "contentious" (the word WP:BLP uses). Should I just remove the source and slap a {{citation-needed}} on them? Is it better to have a poor source than no source?

Thanks, WallAdhesion (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup. 'About The Artists' is clearly and unambiguously user-generated content, and shouldn't be cited. Wikipedia's own internal search shows it's use in a more convenient manner than the link above, and lists 166 citations. [5]

As for how to best deal with it, I'm not sure. It probably depends on whether it's citation is being used to establish notability (which is clearly inappropriate), or just for minor details in a performer's career. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Is 'World Population Review' a reliable source?

World Population Review presumably provides the latest year data for comparison between countries. However, when I come to check their sources, some of them seems to be old or not working.

I am considering it in List of countries by irreligion, which currently has outdated statistics that does not reflect the world. Statistics need to be updated, as recent statistics have more value. [6][7][8]

Therefore, there is a compromise between reliability and latest data. What do you think? zsteve21 (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No, its a random internet WP:SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

They cite their sources in those maps, so you can cite the sources they cite in a secondary citation: "Pew Research 2020, cited in World Pop Rev".

I'm not sure why zsteve21 says it's random internet SPS without any further explanation -- accepting that prima facie, it is more appropriate to cite sources in a secondary fashion when they are presented this way, even though you could just cite the RS from the website directly; moreover, citing the website in a secondary fashion is certainly better than citing any published source that doesn't cite its sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, I'm not seeing anything that gives me any confidence in World Population Review. There's no "About us" section, so we don't know who they are or if they have any kind of fact-checking operation or even that they're not a one-person operation. Nor am I seeing any reviews of the website by second parties. It's an ad-driven for-profit website. It's not entirely impossible that they have an agenda, since we don't know who they are. Not a usable source IMO. You can't expect the reader to go check our sources sources. Why is "Pew Research 2020, cited in World Pop Rev" better than ""Pew Research 2020"? Herostratus (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Mauryan Art (unpublished, 1952) and Flickr picture

• Agrawala, Vasudeva S. (1965), "Mauryan Art", Indian art : a history of Indian art from the earliest times up to the third century A.D., Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan, Varanasi, pp. 56–74, OCLC 475432099 is a collection of papers written earlier by Agrawala. The particular one, "Mauryan Art," is an unpublished one written in 1952.
• A Flickr picture: INDIA 2019 - Sarnath Archaeological Museum Ashokan Lion Capital which shows a 24-spoked wheel surmounting a pillar.

Would either be a reliable source for an edit in which a hand-drawn illustration of a 36-spoked wheel is proposed to be introduced in a Wikipedia article, Lion capital of Ashoka by an editor in this proposal? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

When there's no severe shortage of quality scholarship, as in this case, you should certainly use the guidelines of WP:HISTRS to help evaluate weight. I read the discussion thread and checked out Coningham and Young at least, but they don't mention "spokes" or the number thereof as a descriptor at all, and there a lot of sources that you list that are only in books so is there any in particular that contraindicates the notion that spokes are important (archeologically, not as a modern symbol), or that the number of spokes in the larger wheel was different and that is also important (or even whether pieces of the larger wheel were indeed found)? I would say that even if there's no recent scholarship on precisely contradicting the older works that assert the larger wheel had more spokes, that because we can reasonably assume that a different number of spokes would be a relevant concern to many readers, depicting it in a hand-made image when it is not backed up by modern scholarship is indeed a majorly WP:UNDUE endorsement of old scholarship. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv:@Fowler&fowler: The "32 spokes" of the Lion Capital of Ashoka are indeed mentionned by modern scholarship, so I don't think this should block us from providing a Creative Commons visual reconstitution. And I know of no modern sources contradicting this number: they only sometimes just don't go into such detail in their descriptions. For example:

• "The wheel that once topped the great Ashokan pillar at Sarnath had 32 spokes" in Huntington, John (1990). Understanding the 5th century Buddhas of Sarnath (PDF). p. 90, Fig.8.
• Indian Government communication of 2009, explaining that as early as 1957, the discrepancy between the symbol on the Indian flag (24 spokes) and the topmost wheel at Sarnath (32 spokes) was noted by Mukherjee, and was the object of a letter to Nehru: "We are somewhat concerned to find that our State emblem, known as Ashoka Chakra, is not an accurate replica of the Sarnath pillar ... a charkra of 32 spokes was in the original Ashokan monument, placed on the shoulders of the four lions." (), but Nehru considered the modification unnecessary in his written answer (Biswas, U.N. (2009). "Essential Service Values & Banga" (PDF). Administrative Training Institute, Government of West Bengal: 50–55.).
• "The recovered fragments of Dharmachakra as on the heads of four lions of Sarnath pillar suggest 32 spokes" in Sinha, Nirmal Chandra (1994). Asoka's Dhamma: Testimony of Monuments (PDF). Gangtok, Sikkim: Namgyal Institute of Tibetology. p. 8.
• "The mahdchakra on top of the Sarnath capital also had 32 spokes" Agrawala, Vasudeva S. (1976). The Heritage of Indian Art A Pictorial Presentation. Publications Division Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. p. 51 note 9. ISBN 978-81-230-2290-1.
• The symbol of the Supreme Court of India actually has 32 spokes Supreme Court site[9]Supreme Court commemorative coin 1950-2000[10][11], as explained page 7, and contrary to what is claimed on Wikipedia this file

and many, many others...

Creative Commons reconstitutions of the Sarnath Pillar of Ashoka

I think that the "32 spokes" thing is actually a non-issue and is completely uncontroversial, and should not stop us from providing a visual reconstitution, as already done by scholarly or official sources that I have identified:

• Agrawala, Vasudeva Sharana (1965). Studies In Indian Art. p. 67.
• "Museum notice in the Sarnath Archaeological Museum". 17 February 2019..
  
• Irwin, John (1973). "'Aśokan' Pillars: A Reassessment of the Evidence". The Burlington Magazine. 115 (848): 706 and 720. ISSN 0007-6287.
• Werner, Karel (30 September 2019). Symbols in Art and Religion: The Indian and the Comparative Perspectives. Routledge. p. 97. ISBN 978-1-136-10114-4.
• Annual Report of the Supreme Court of India (2007-2008) (PDF). p. 2.

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

To future respondents: please note the latter comment was simultaneously posted by User:पाटलिपुत्र to the Lion Capital Talk page thread. I think further discussion regarding archaeology, symbols, and the substance of the claims should be posted on that page, and discussion regarding the suitability of the sources themselves, as well as the proposed photoillustration, for WP, can continue here. SamuelRiv (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem per se with using Agrawala, which has fuller descriptions than most sources, which just mention one aspect of pieces or the period. Yes, it's rather old, but the delay before publication means little. An equally comprehensive more recent source, by a proper specialist, would be preferable, where available. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is not a delay before publication. It is a publication of an old paper privately without peer review, i.e. by a little known publisher. Obviously, if in the ten modern sources cited in the article not a single one makes a to-do about spokes, and that includes Frederick Asher's 190-page book on Sarnath (2020) published by the Getty Research Institute in LA, which has plenty on Oertel, on the excavation, on the discovery of the lion capital, it is UNDUE. Aggrawala is entirely inappropriate for a high-level article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  And Johnbod are you also on board on all the unholy reconstructive surgery being done by user:Pat? The missing lower jaw of one lion in profile (File:Sarnath capital.jpg) has been restored by pasting a mirror copy of the other lion in profile

  (File:Sarnath Ashoka Lions with Dharma Wheel.jpg)? The tell-tale dark stain has showed up too. After that the patient has been given an RGB2GRAY software conversion and it is being called a pencil sketch? What user:Pat is attempting to do is not only unencyclopedic but makes WP come across as being deceitful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

WallStreetPro

WallStreedPro appears to have long-read articles on a variety of topics. How do we feel about this site's reliability? Chumpih ^t 04:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable. Seems like it's a clickfarm. Articles are unsigned, and I can find no information about either the editorial board, the journalists, or some sort of editorial guideline. It seems like it republishes content from elsewhere; sometimes that's indicated at then of the article, but often it isn't. Their current top article is a republication of a Twitter rant. JBchrch talk 18:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Not reliable. Banks Irk (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Is reliability assumed?

Are sources assumed reliable until this is disproven? Or must evidence be furnished to prove that a given source is reliable? It would perhaps follow that the common habit of Wikipedian editors citing a source would imply their acceptance of its reliability, and that WP:RSN serves to place a check on that implicit consensus. But if I brought a heretofore-unused source to this noticeboard and asked whether it is reliable, what would be the default judgement? Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a judgement call for each source. There are such a wide variety of types of sources that I think it's unreasonable to make a judgement call about an assumption of reliability, as each individual source would have its own merits or problems that contribute towards its notability. I don't think "unless we can prove it's unreliable we must assume it is reliable" would be a particularly wise call, especially when the context of what it's being cited for is often as important as what the source itself is saying. - Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thats kind of backwards, sources generally only come here when editors disagree on a source's reliability. Editors are expected to evaluate on their own whether the sources they use are WP:RS, its supposed to be one of the core editorial competencies. So we don't assume reliability however we do WP:Assume good faith that is we assume that whoever added it has satisfied WP:V until we have reason to believe otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

For context, the discussion that resulted in this post is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity#Should the blog "Radical Copyeditor" be linked?. This is also a misrepresentation of what I said at that discussion. I said "We do not operate on an assumption that all sources are unreliable until proven reliable." which does not imply the obvious; all sources are reliable until proven otherwise. I also said that evidence of unreliability should be provided when asserting that a source is unreliable, which in the context of that discussion would be necessary because a several independent organisations consider the source reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Which, I will clarify for uninvolved readers, is a discussion about whether a widely used style guide on the topic should be included in the MoS page's external links section...which Elizium23 and one other are opposing as they believe the style guide's attached blog is an unreliable source. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

False; I believe that the entire website is an unreliable source. It doesn't matter what's attached or whether there's a blog or not. The author is not notable, nor a recognized authority, and the website lacks editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, my point remains. You are treating this as a source on an article, not what it actually is: a relevant link for an external links section on a MoS page, which had its relevancy proven in its wide usage in notable organizatiosn documentation on the subject. My replies have repeatedly mentioned this misunderstanding which I believe is present about what we're discussing here, and your replies have continually ignored it, deciding to discuss the tangential question of the blog instead. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, this is not the place to have this discussion. This is RSN. We're discussing inclusion of a relevant style guide in the external links on a MoS page, not a source in an article. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well, WP:ELNO #11 specifically prohibits Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority.. Now, a MOS page is not a Wikipedia article, and so perhaps Wikipedia's strictures on inclusion in articles should not apply, but I'd hope and pray that any resource which fails our project's criteria for both RS and EL should not even be in the running for enshrinement in our WP:PAG. I mean, come on, really, can't we find anything more reliable than this? Is the the hill people want to die on for this policy? I mean the site itself links to about 3 other solid, reliable style guides in its footnotes! Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, my point remains. "A MOS page is not a Wikipedia article", and this is a relevant link to include on the MoS page, and strong arguments have been given for its relevancy. It is a widely used style guide in this field...on the same website as a blog that is not a RS. No one is saying the blog is a RS. That is not remotely a point of contention here. Your replies insofar have stuck to extrapolating based on article-based policies rather than actually engaging with discussion on the link's relevancy. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

In this context it sounds a little bizarre, honestly, I'm not sure what factual reliability has to do with style. Or why article content guidelines are being applied to project pages. Are we going to remove most of our PAG because they're OR? Or I suppose people could argue ABOUTSELF here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It depends on what it is (for example wiki's are not RS, three is no assumption they are), similar to SPS, you have to demonstrate it is reliable. ON the other hand, a book published by a reputable publisher would be an RS unless shown other wise on the whole. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well wouldn't it require evidence to determine whether a site is a wiki, or evidence that a publisher is reputable? We're in tautological territory here, no? Elizium23 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As I've said a couple of times now, we don't operate from an assumption a source is unreliable until proven otherwise. That also doesn't mean we operate on the assumption that sources are reliable until proven otherwise. It's a lot more nuanced than a blanket statement like that.

There's an RfC ongoing right now near the top of the noticeboard at #Cambridge Scholars Publishing on whether or not they are a reliable publisher. Similarly #Reliability of GB News as a source for citations is about reliability/unreliability of a UK TV channel and website news organisation. There's also numerous other examples of similar RfCs and discussions in the noticeboard archives, as well as a list of perennially discussed sources and links to the various discussions and RfCs over at WP:RSP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

reliability is not assumed.

• All sources are less reliable than you think. The *New York Times* for instance gets important stuff wrong often enough.
• That said, even some random hobo's blog is like 99% reliable for most facts. If the one-person part-time blog "Elvis Bio Facts for Obsessive Fans" says "Max Alvis was The King's second cousin" it's very likely to be true. (Of course "very likely" and "99%" are not near good enough for our standards. Just pointing out this fact.)
• If you've only a sketchy or marginal source for a fact, ask yourself if the fact is too obscure to bother including. If it's not, there will probably be a good source or several sources.
• The #1 thing you need want to know about a source is details about their fact-checking operation. Is it independent, or can the editor overrule the factchecker? How many factcheckers are there? Is it an intern/entry level position (usually true) or a career job? This is really hard and rare to know, and if you don't know this you have to look for other, less-sure indicators. The proxy is to sniff around their "About Us" section and do other detective work. (For instance, I have no idea what Time Magazine's independent fact checking operation is like, but I operate under the assumption that it's decent because they're big enough to have one and it fits their business model to care if they get facts right and they don't really have an incentive to spin or cherry pick facts to support some ideology, and so on. (This is a main reason we don't like small blogs and publications -- they don't have the money to hire someone to check everything, so any kind of error can slip in). "Reputation" is a poor data point, doesn't mean that much.
• Also, books don't usually have independent factcheckers (they have copyeditors) so most books are less reliable than you think. (This is just a general statement with many exceptions). So you have look at other factors for vetting a book, such as the author's skill, rep, and business model (that is, what are her incentives for getting everything right as opposed to getting to print ASAP, etc).
• There's lots lots more. But basically, WP:RS, correctly, says that there are only two sources that can assumed -- not proven! -- to be usually reliable: peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and publications (such as the New Yorker and Der Spiegal etc) that are known to have robust independent fact-checking operations. Everything else is up for discussion, and we want to seem some proof. Herostratus (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: "Default judgement?" The OP is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, attempting to find purchase for their view on a hypothetical when there's an ongoing discussion of the concrete in the appropriate talk venue. This is also an incorrect forum for this particular discussion; we most often discuss reliable source policy issues on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, not in a forum designed to discuss discrete and current situations in pagespace. Further, the title of this section says much about how the OP views this--participants continue to use the word "assume" instead of the word wikipedians utilize in guideline and policy, "presume." A legendary tek figure has often said "assumption is the mother of all f#ckups" and that's an essential point to understanding the danger in pursuing this thread. Reliability is NEVER assumed. Reliability is a quality demonstrated and recognized, not merely hoped for in good faith as the OP (perhaps playfully) attempts to inquire about the default position of a hypothetical untested source. Society measures the reliability of free throw shooter not on an assumption (a good faith expectation based on hope) and not on a presumption (a good faith expectation based on standards) but on their current success rate and their pattern of success based on experience and training. Likewise, we don't put entries on the Perennial Sources list based on assumptions or presumptions; we link those entries to relevant discussions and consensus on this board as they actually arise. As several editors have pointed out already, we shouldn't be having this discussion here at all. BusterD (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

This is listed as needing a copy-edit, but strikes me as something that possibly should be reviewed by MEDRS people. Since I have no idea how to make that happen, if so, I am asking for help with that. If it doesn’t, fine then, somebody can look at the English as somebody suggested. Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Would posting at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine help to attract people who know about Med RS? Red Fiona (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Techne UK Poll 29/30 June 2022 in Opinion polling on Scottish independence

I am requesting comment on whether this poll should be included in the Opinion polling on Scottish independence article.

For further information please see ongoing discussion here and here. AlloDoon (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@AlloDoon Are you asking whether this is a reliable source or whether information from the poll should be included in the article? This noticeboard can only help you about the former. JBchrch talk 08:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort to try to establish a view to guide us, and hope I am not being pedantic here but the issue with this poll is not whether the source is reliable or not but rather in using such an unusual method (specifically sampling 1600 UK wide with a Scottish sample of 500 within this). In some ways it is similar to there has been about the Yougov/These Islands Poll which asked 2 different Questions on Independence giving samples of just over 500 for each With both it is the unusual nature of there practice that makes me think they don't sit with the Wiki page main section. Soosider3 (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@JBchrch It is the latter point you mention - to check if the source should be included in the article. My apologies for wrongly posting this here. Shall I delete this section of the noticeboard ? AlloDoon (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@AlloDoon No worries at all. Just leave this section up if anybody wants to chime in, and it will be automatically archived after 5 days of inactivity. JBchrch talk 12:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @JBchrch, appreciate this AlloDoon (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is bibleplaces.com a reliable source for anything?

It's the personal blog of Todd Bolen.[12] Bolen is a professor at The Master's University[13]. His cv includes a M.Div., and a Th.M.from The Master's Seminary, an inerrantist instution which is part of The Master's University. His PhD is from the Dallas Theological Seminary which also teaches the inerrancy of the scripture.[14]. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No. - Roxy the English speaking dog 16:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The only posts I see in the first several pages are "Weekend roundup"s, which just list outside media items with a one-sentence summary. If you have the specific opinion or fact that can be attributed only to him and not a secondary source he links, could you post that? Meanwhile, from what I've read even though mainstream biblical studies/criticism and biblical archaeology is now mostly secularized and has decent scholarship, this was only a relatively recent development, and the field still draws many fringe figures. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I finally found a few "web-log"-type posts of his. With the caveat that anything I assess from the writing of someone in a field I've never trained in is completely not worth considering, I'd just say that he seems to cite biblical text and turn-of-the century scholars ([15] and in particular [16] caught my attention in a few places) more than my reading of the above articles would suggest would be typical for mainstream scholarship. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends on what it is cited for. The blog falls under WP:SPS, so the question is whether the author has been recognized as a subject-matter expert and published by independent sources. Reviewing both Google Books and Google Scholar, it looks like he is frequently cited for his photographs on Bible history, including in books published by Zondervan, a division of Harper Collins. He has several articles published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, by the Evangelical Theological Society a reviewed religious journal that has been published for 60+ years. So, I can see circumstances where his blog might be cited as reliable, such as for his photos, or on the views of the society, and circumstances where it would not be reliable. But I can't make a blanket judgement pro or con without specific context. Banks Irk (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society is also inerrantist with anonymous peer review. That doesn't give me any confidence, there's no way of knowing whether all the "peers" are also inerrantist. And here's a mention of a non-peer reviewed article in it.[17] Its article is entirely self-sourced by the way. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be shocked if its editors were not all inerrantists, based on the description of the Society itself. Banks Irk (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

After googling in vain for reliable secondary sources for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, I have prodded the article. What the journal has to say about itself can't confer notability. Bishonen | tålk 16:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC).

Deprodded, so I procedurally nominated for AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would concur with you here. Artemaeus Creed (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would use it on Todd Bolen's page (if one ever exists) but not as a general references. The degrees aren't from institutions known for their academic rigor, they're rather fringe. Same goes for the journals, this guy just isn't published in the mainstream. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• No, outside of Bolen's own views if those views are treated seriously elsewhere. Then possibly could use this site to give some further detail, but generally no. nableezy - 14:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

[procedurally closed]: Fox News: downgrade to generally unreliable for politics and science

This does not satisfy key requirements for a RfC, specifically a brief and neutral statement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please support to support downgrading to generally unreliable for politics and science, and oppose to maintain the status quo. The current state is: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Andrevan@ 05:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Recent failed fact checks Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict Fact check by PolitiFact - No, Black Lives Matter didn’t say it stands with ‘Hamas terrorists’' FALSE Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds. - see fact check here Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers "The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all" Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." Fact-checked by PolitiFact: Fauci didn’t doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster FALSE 2 articles Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand' CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective Fact check by Politifact: "The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact Published research contradicts findings Methodological issues Coverage about the Steele Dossier and the John Durham/Sussman investigation ' Yet the standard for left-leaning media for years on the Russia-related material was it could hold up to scrutiny because it had not been specifically discredited, a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia The dossier has now been largely discredited. Lots of media-bashing and litigating the Durham case. According to mainstream sources, some parts of the Steele dossier were corroborated Coverage on Hunter Biden laptop controversy: basically tabloid style media-bashing, not labelled as opinion but claims uncritically that there is a huge story which has been dismissed and debunked by mainstream sources, and said not to relate to Joe Biden at all. Essentially a right-wing talking point. See related Vanity Fair piece Survey (Fox News) We all know that Fox News is unreliable when it comes to the opinion TV talk segments and op-ed articles. One could say that many opinion pieces are unreliable on all sides of the spectrum from many outlets, that's true. Fox News specifically has been brought up before, at least several times. There has been discussion of Fox News controversies and Seth Rich conspiracy theory, etc. It was argued by the defenders of Fox News' news section, that these objections are primarily in the opinion and TV talk news segments, Carlson, Hannity, et al. However, I contend that Fox News, the general news section of the website, should be downgraded to generally unreliable due to several recent instances of failed fact checking in coverage marked as news coverage. I do not believe these sources or these arguments have been presented elsewhere or previously on this noticeboard. I apologize if they were. There are enough good sources without the extensive baggage and terrible track record of Fox News that we should consider it generally unreliable, like its cousin the New York Post (both are owned by News Corp). Not to mention that going to Fox News' website, there is not a great separation of the opinion/TV content, and it is easy to end up on one page from the other. But most importantly, we can't trust them to report facts based on failed fact checks. Andrevan@ 15:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Comment @Andrevan: Unfortunately, I probably weakly support this decision for politics based content, but will abstain from voting right now, as it might seem, to other editors Bad RFC. This is IMO not an issue that bothers too much, but the RfC comment needs to [include] a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. Of course, I'm not right wing (maybe centrist in my country, but centre-left in US I guess), but I think that maybe some other editors might consider that your one isn't neutral enough. For instance, several recent instances of egregious failed fact checking, and Not to mention that going to Fox News' website, there is not a great separation of the opinion/TV content, and it is easy to end up on one page from the other. But most importantly, we can't trust them to report facts in an unbiased, factual, scientific, verifiable way seem to be not neutral (I agree, it's appalingly biased, but that should come in the survey and discussion parts, not the opening RfC statement). Of course, Politifact is RS, and these examples no doubt show an atrociously conservative slant. A recent RfC wasn't approved, apparently, as it doesn't follow requirements, see [18]. In fact, I did an RfC with a statement that wasn't neutral, and it was procedurally closed. So I don't mind this issue much, though others might have other opinions, but I personally like your edits to AfDs and other discussions, and you have much more experience than me! That said, the RfC could be vague, right now, this RfC considers general news sections, currently, it's only marginally reliable for politics and science, I oppose a downgrade in other areas, but might be neutral to very weakly support for politics and science. But IMO the failed fact checks and your opinion could be moved to the survey/discussion section with a vote, instead of in the opening one. Of course, this is not an issue to me, and many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the note @VickKiang. I moved my statement into a section to make the opening sentence more neutral. If you have any other suggestions please let me know or feel free to WP:BOLDly refactor the RFC. Andrevan@ 14:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Status quo We consider Politics and Science to be the areas where Fox News is unreliable. All the examples from above are politics and science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Yup… Status quo covers this. Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Status quo the above examples (all from Politics and Science) are already listed as unreliable from Fox News. These examples change nothing. --Jayron32 11:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC) To clarify Headbomb, Blueboar, Jayron32, currently RSP states There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. and I am asking to say it is "generally unreliable" for those topics. I'll narrow it down to those 2 topics since I didn't give any others. Andrevan@ 15:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Discussion (Fox News) I just looked into the first three examples (by the way, it would help if you enumerated your examples and then struck-out any you wish to retract, so they can be referenced). The first example has no problematic language in the article body, only the headline, which was retracted, so WP:HEADLINE. The second example case is a completely legit error for Fox, and though I really hope someone did a fact check like that around the time it was printed, it seems to require a little more technical detail than many journalists are willing to get into. The third example is questionable in the headline and the lead, but uncontroversial in the body. It is questionable only in that it was written during the pandemic – in any other time I'd say "dismiss" and "study" are acceptably fuzzy terms for a news article to describe a description of an unpublished preprint. The big issue for Politifact was the Instagram post. Judging the standards of a mainstream news outlet's social media practice is difficult at this stage because there still don't seem to be any clear norms. I was going to go into detail on this topic but this probably has a past RfC and/or could use a new one, but my opinion is that a social media posts fits the headline model far more than it does a news brief or short feature. That's all I'll do for now. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Bad RFC, it is non-neutraly worded. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC) I moved my statement into a separate section so the intro can be neutral, is that better? Andrevan@ 15:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC) References Andrevan@ 05:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

TV Guide for a birth date

• www.tvguide.com/celebrities/kath-soucie/credits/3030062019

TV Guide is a reliable source for air dates and such. I'd say it's also a reasonable choice for biographical details about celebrities. However, in the page linked above, Kath Soucie's birth name is listed as "2/20/1967 12:00:00 AM". Well, that doesn't seem very likely. If we assume that's her birth date, is this usable? As far as I can tell, this is not user editable. I can't even find a way to submit a correction or alert them to the error. That does make me feel a little less sure about using this as a source in BLPs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not likely because of the 12:00:00 AM time stamp, or because that would have made her 12 years old in her first television acting appearance? BD2412 T 03:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how old she is. If you do a Google Image Search, she looks somewhere around 50, though. I'm mostly worried that the site has obvious errors, such as listing her name as a timestamp. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Databaes are going to have errors in them, and I can almost guarantee that there's some central database (or set of databases) that's behind it. The way the urls and formatting work across all of the credits pages indicate to me that the pages are likely procedurally generated from a database without additional oversight. Whether this clear error appeared in the database due to some data entry person mistyping something or from some OCR/robotic process automation error, it's unclear. I'd be surprised if humans were completely uninvolved in vetting the data, and as far as I can tell it isn't quite like IMDbPro where anybody can claim and edit their own page (for a fee). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Deprecating/downgrading two cable news sources

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

---

This is about deprecating two cable news sources that are currently overly sensational while lacking in reliable substance. Fox News Should Fox News be deprecated/downgraded as a source? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The previous (non-neutral) RfC question listed a few examples of failed fact checks. However, I have noticed a few sensational headlines that are very tabloid like and also don't discuss other non-politics topics reliably.

The NewsGuard nutrition label (which was recently downgraded) mentions a few headlines that is particularly misleading. For example, [19] and [20]. I also found on the homepage this not only clickbaity but overtly sensational and thus very unreliable. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC Should MSNBC be deprecated/downgraded as a source? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This NewsGuard label mentions a few instances of unreliable and uncorrected news. Opinionated pieces are not appropriately differentiated from news, making it difficult to apply Wikipedia's guidelines about opinion pieces. This is one of them. Scrolling through the nutrition label also finds instances where MSNBC blunders and fails to correct the story, like in October 2020 with this story. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion I have been skeptical of cable news for a while because of how it pumps out a lot of programming for one particular audience and one particular viewpoint. Fox News clearly is more right leaning and MSNBC clearly is more left leaning. Just because a few of the stories on either of the platforms are mostly reliable does not mean that what people see the most on these platforms is mostly reliable either. The three things that, according to NewsGuard, both MSNBC and Fox News fail at, are gathering information responsibly, regularly correcting errors, and handling differences between news and opinion responsibly. I think some of the older articles may be reliable historically, but I don't think the new content being generated is reliable currently. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

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

• A note to anyone who wants to write neutral deprecation RFCs… for the basic question, just ask: “Should (insert source) be deprecated/downgraded?” That’s it. Stop there.

If you need to say anything else (be it to give background info, evidence, comments, an explanation about why you are asking, or whatever) do that in the discussion or survey sections. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Marquis Who's Who

We list Who's Who (UK) as generally unreliable due to its "poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information", and state that "Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source". Check. But what about Marquis Who's Who, which is used on some pages? For example in Barack Obama, currently footnote 51, it's used to reference details of Obama's pre-presidency career in 4 places. In 3 of the 4 it's not the only reference, and the content is most likely true, but should it be used at all? Especially when other sources are available. MWW seems to have some higher pretensions to accuracy than Who's Who (UK) — certainly if we read its Wikipedia article. While Who's Who (UK) has an extensive, and partly critical, section on "accuracy", and an up-to-date discussion of the subject on talk, Marquis Who's Who largely elides the subject of accuracy, and of where the information comes from. (Also the article has a more promotional tone altogether.) It focuses on the selection of the biographees, and avoids looking at the man behind the curtain — the composition of the entries. All MWW say about that, at least all that appears in our article, is: "Once selected, a biographical draft is sent to biographees for pre-publication checking. In cases where notable individuals decline to submit biographical data, Marquis proceeds to compile all of the information to be published." That sounds evasive in my opinion. (I suppose the dangling modifier doesn't matter, though it's not promising for the quality of the writing.) The two sentences sit uneasily together, strongly suggesting a first step that's not mentioned: that first the individual is asked for biographical data, then the MWW editors compile a "biographical draft", and then the biographee gets to change it, if they like. I do believe MWW normally gets the info from the biographees in the first place, because, you know, if they did independent research, think how much more expensive it would be. I doubt that it does much fact checking. Bishonen | tålk 14:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

Of the various Who's Who's, MHH is probably the most reputable in that it's not a purely vanity publication, unlike others. It does have editors, but its editorial rigor is questionable in that it relies on the subjects themselves (if alive) to provide review of its profiles. A quick Google search contains many anecdotal examples of subjects writing that the drafts they received were inaccurate and had to be significantly revised. It is a valuable research source, but I'd be cautious about using it as a reference, and would never rely upon it alone as a source for an article. Banks Irk (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Should be treated the same as the UK version, as a self-published source. Id just say that Who's Who books regardless of location or publisher should be treated the same. nableezy - 14:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Our WP article is being evasive? The entire thesis of your post seems to rest on your misconception that the sentence you quoted is a direct quotation from someone other than our WP article. Aside from that WP quote, you don't provide any supporting sources at all, nor do you contraindicate the sources referenced in our article themselves. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The section that contains the lines I quoted clearly hews closely to what their chief executive told The New York Times in an interview. The link is unfortunately dead, at least for me; it says I should be "redirected automatically to target URL; if not click the link", and there is no link. I don't know how to handle that. But perhaps I might as well instead quote Marquis' Description of Services from their website: ..we do not and cannot warrant that the description of our Services or other content contained on the Website are entirely accurate, complete, reliable, current, or error-free. .. Users have the option to submit biographical and personal information for publication in our directories. You are responsible for ensuring that any information you submit to Marquis is accurate.[21] Bishonen | tålk 15:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

WP:LIBRARY databases. I also updated the article's link. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Their website says "Marquis Who’s Who strives to provide our listees with the best branding opportunities in order to reach their highest potential."[22]. Though the branding opportunities are outside the listings, the business model of this organization does appear to rely on monetizing the listings and that doesn't give us the necessary confidence in it being a reliable source. For example, I looked up Michael Milken and it doesn't say anything about his convictions, pardons etc., merely labels him as a "think-tank executive, philanthropist", reinforcing the possibility that this is all about branding and not necessarily about accuracy. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable per lacking the basic criteria that we look for in reliable sources. Andrevan@ 16:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable Marquis Who's Who is also essentially a SPS which will publish false information if provided by subjects. At best we can treat it as akin to a press release, but I don't think we should go that far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• General comment: everyone here should check the linked article themselves. There are three relevant critical sources: one is a print book that I'm not bothering finding, one is the 2005 NYT feature that Bishonen cites but says they never read, and the third is the 1999 Forbes piece from before the 2003 buy-out. The takeaway from the NYT, the only real source on this, is unfortunately really lacking in substance: it either means that of the returned corrections, they mostly fact-check but expect to miss some, or they mostly don't fact check except a few, or they never really bothered checking and just hoped their editor would let it slide. The librarian's quote is rather relevant I think. In general, are we measuring its reliability against, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, who thoroughly fact-check, or some nonfiction book publishers, who often don't? ([23] [24] etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelRiv (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• If there is no way of knowing which pieces are provided by the subject without any fact-checking, there is no practical way of separating those that are subject to some review from those that are not. Which means this needs to be judged by the lowest common denominator, and that means cannot depend on it to have performed any type of fact-checking or editorial review, and that makes it generally unreliable or an SPS. nableezy - 23:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Did you read the Atlantic article I linked? It implicates Random House, among others (it accuses all non-scholastic publishers, really). I don't know where you'll find the bottom if you pursue that reductionism without context. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally Unreliable. Probably an SPS, the current summary at RSP says Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a self-published source. There is a broad consensus that Marquis Who's Who should not be used to establish notability for article topics. Seeing these publishing links and the lines Have you made strides in your career that deserve to be showcased to the world? Could you benefit from joining a notable network of like-minded, seasoned professionals? Are you looking for an effective way to revive your professional reputation? from here makes me doubt its reliability also. VickKiang (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of BBC.news for the history of ice cream

Hi, an editor added some info to the history of Ice cream, i would like to know if the source used is reliable or not for this topic. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, copy-pasting from the BBC source is a breach of copyright, regardless of its merits as a source, so I've removed it. As for whether the BBC article can be used for paraphrased content on the subject, I'd have to suggest not. At least, not for the claim being made, since it appears to contradict later text both in the source cited and other sources cited in our article. If ice was being used to make frozen desserts in other places a thousand years or so earlier, we can't say that what was going on in China in 618-97AD was 'first'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think BBC News is a trusted source that can be used for any claim on the English Wikipedia.

I also think citing two sentences correctly doesn't mean copyright violation, but I will change it for you.

This is the first recorded ice cream in history as the Iranians only made it in 550BC. CABF45 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You think that 618-97AD is earlier than 550BC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This site is one aimed to children, and while it is unlikely to be absolutely wrong, there has to be far better quality sites for the same information. --Masem (t) 12:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the BBC News source OK or not? CABF45 (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's CBBC, the children's site, so probably not unless it's for something where a source aimed at children would be clearly necessary. Also, even if a source is generally ok, that doesn't mean you should just republish it when it prints WP:NONSENSE. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually it's not just CBBC, it's a page from CBBC's Newsround. As far as I know, despite its target audience being children it nominally falls under the remit of BBC News and follows their editorial standards. That said, the citation is pretty old, and there's almost certainly better sources we could use for the history of ice cream. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As with any other source, it depends on what it is being cited for. The history section of the ice cream article is contradictory as it is, and adding further to this isn't at all appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Just as all of the above people said, reliability is context dependent. The BBC is generally considered reliable, which is to say we trust them to do an appropriate level of fact checking and that they generally do it correctly, but until we know WHAT wikipedia text is being cited to WHICH information from the BBC, we really can't answer definitively if the specific usage is appropriate. In this case (non-specialist source aimed at children, contradicts information from other sources, etc.) it's probably best to leave this out, but that doesn't impugn the BBC in this case, just that this usage of this BBC source doesn't work for our purpose. --Jayron32 13:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

News sources are reliable for news. When ice cream was first created is not news and shouldnt be citing a news source. nableezy - 14:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of these disputes arise from some camps of editors seeking to establish a "first" origin. (Quoting User:AndyTheGrump from the related talk page discussion "Wikipedia needs to avoid definitive statements - and ideally, to avoid sources which make them.") I agree with User talk:Jayron32. We can do without the BBC for this. The same information can be sourced to widely used on Wikipedia Reaktion global history series. Spudlace (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In general, history is not the sort of thing that we should be using news organizations for, especially if there's any reputable WP:SCHOLARSHIP out there regarding the origin of ice cream. And it turns out that university professors have written books that include the history of ice cream within them (Ice Cream sixth edition, seventh edition; The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets 2015 edition; The Science of Ice Cream 2nd edition). When undergraduate textbooks and scholarly reference works cover the topic and tend to not support the claims made by a news organization regarding history, it's often because the news organization is outside of their area of reliability (i.e. news reporting). In general, news reporting from established news organizations is reliable for facts, but WP:SOURCETYPES notes that [w]hen available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources and WP:NEWSORG notes that [s]cholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's "buffalo milk, flour and camphor". Camphor is like turpentine. It sounds awful, thickened buffalo milk no sweetener and tasting of lamp oil. If it counts as ice cream, seems open to interpretation. -- GreenC 19:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a terpenoid, not a turpentine. And camphor does have historical culinary uses, as well as a few modern ones. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

DB Cooper and the FBI: A Case Study of America's Only Unsolved Hijacking

I'd like to get some input on whether this book should be considered a reliable source for information about the D.B. Cooper hijacking. It's published by "Moonshine Cove Publishing". I notice a few questionable books in their nonfiction catalog, such as "The Geology of Climate Change" (the jacket says "Is the Earth's Climate changing? Yes! And it has been changing since the Earth formed...") and "Truth Lies and ETs" (the jacket says "If you want to know the truth about Extra Terrestrial Vehicles, read Truth Lies and ETs. Dr. Donderi presents the facts, the reports and the hard evidence than other research scients ignore and professional disnformants deny."), which makes me suspect the publisher has less than thorough editorial oversight.

The D.B. Cooper book in question is written by Bruce A. Smith who the book jacket claims is "an investigative journalist", although it doesn't mention any newspapers or magazines he has written for. This site describes Smith as "a beach-cleaning entrepreneur, journalist, he podiumed at 1997s storyteller of the year, he's a published author, a student of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, gardener, alien abductee, and DB Cooper expert" (emphasis added). Here is Smith's own web page, which does not fill me with confidence.

An editor has recently added a fair amount of information to our D. B. Cooper article, sourced to this book. It concerns me that much of this new information directly and explicitly contradicts other information in the article, sourced to other reliable sources. For example, a quote from an FBI investigator about Cooper's likely lack of skydiving experience is followed by this new statement sourced to Smith's book: These claims about Cooper's lack of skydiving skills are seemingly refuted by the testimony of Mucklow who was impressed by Cooper's skill with a parachute. And later after a statement that the FBI believes Cooper did not survive the jump, a new statement sourced to Smith's book says Despite the dire assessment regarding Cooper's fate given by the FBI, it should be pointed out that all of the "Cooper Copycats" survived their jumps, some in worse weather conditions and some with no skydiving experience at all. Although I'm tempted to revert most of these new changes, I hesitate to do so without broader input about the reliability of the Smith book. CodeTalker (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we can do better. With such a major case, we can afford to stick to the established experts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What is an established expert for D.B. Cooper research? Bruce Smith, odd a guy as he is, IS considered an expert in the D.B. Cooper world. Hell, he was interviewed for both the most recent History Channel and HBO documentaries.

As far as contradicting reliable sources, there are plenty of things that contradict Larry Carr's opinions that are pretty basic and logical. The fact that all of the Cooper Copycats survived IS a statement of fact, including that one of them had never even touched a parachute and that one jumped out into snowy conditions wearing a tshirt and cowboy boots. I've removed Smith's cites on those and added others.

The only people that any of this stuff is contradicting are statements made by the FBI. They are essentially the only people who still think Cooper was some amateur idiot. The skydiving community has never thought that nor the special forces community. What Larry Carr says isn't gospel and it is misleading a ton of people about the D.B. Cooper case whenever they read this wikipedia page. He flat out calls Cooper an idiot for jumping out of the plane with an inoperable parachute despite the fact that Cooper could NOT have jumped out of the plane with that parachute because he had no way to attach that reserve parachute to the main parachute he jumped with. Earl Cossey is the main who supplied the chutes to the FBI that they gave to Cooper. In his statement to the FBI on 11/26/1971, 4th paragraph "...he described the missing back pack parachute as having a sage green nylon container, model NB6 with sage green nylon harness, which harness has no "D" rings to mount a chest pack." There needs to be some balance in that section and I was shocked to see that the entirety of his FATE section was: he was an idiot and he died. The end.

Regarding Bruce Smith in particular. Is he a strange dude? Absolutely. But so is everyone else who writes books about Cooper. I love the Cooper story and have for decades, but I'm not weird enough to spend time writing a tome about it. So what book is a reliable source about Cooper at this point? I'd say that currently Geoffrey Gray's is great but the problem with Skyjack is that it is essentially written as a novel, so it's not really a "source." I see Himmelsbach's book quoted repeatedly in the wiki article but it is terribly outdated and is now 36 years old. I'd also argue, as a former District Attorney myself, that Himmelsbach's work is just as bias as any other work on Cooper. Himmelsbach (and the rest of the FBI) have a vested interested in portraying Cooper as a fool who went splat somewhere in Washington. You can't arrest someone who is dead, right?

I own many, many Cooper books and Smith's, for my money, is the most straight forward and comprehensive of all of the Cooper books. It's 506 pages and is basically a Cooper encyclopedia. Is he a weirdo who believes in UFO's and Remote Viewing and all that crap? Yes. However, nothing I would ever cite from his work is anything that is out of the ordinary in the "Cooper canon", and none of that has ANYTHING to do with what he writes about the Cooper case. At least he isn't a grifter trying to push a particular suspect in order to make a buck like Thomas Colbert pushing Rackstraw with The History Channel and his book The Last Master Outlaw.

Anyways, I've written far too much about this. If you want to wave a wand and expunge everything I've contributed from Bruce Smith, then so be it, but nothing I've contributed that is sourced to him is incorrect, and I don't know anyone in the Cooper World who thinks Smith is just making things up. Everyone thinks he's weird, but his knowledge on the case is respected by all. I'm a former prosecutor, I'm not some lunatic. I would never put something on Cooper's wikipedia page that I wasn't sure was backed up elsewhere (things I've added from Smith such as: Cooper's seat number, the lack of D-rings, cutting the shroud lines from the functional reserve, McNally never wearing a chute before, etc). But Bruce's book is essentially the Cooper encyclopedia and is by far the easiest book I own to just go to when I need a quick cite.

Regards SillyRyno (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither his appearance on the History Channel nor on HBO seem to count for much in demonstrating that Smith is a respected expert on Cooper. The History Channel is famously willing to promote all sorts of nonsense: its WP:RSP entry reads: "Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories". As for the HBO documentary, it seems to be largely about the people who research Cooper, but not exactly an endorsement of any of them in particular: in an interview for Vanity Fair, the director says "My initial ambiguity was: Are they just going to be a load of wackos and crazies? And some might argue they are. I don’t. The people that we picked genuinely believe [in their theory]." As endorsements go, "I don't believe he's completely crazy but some people might" and "he does genuinely believe the things he says" are about as lukewarm as you can get. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, I don't really care about the History Channel because you're right; they are the network of Ancient Aliens anyways. However, "DB Cooper and the FBI" is considered by many people in "Cooper World" to be the "Cooper Bible". It is extremely well researched, comprehensive, easy to read, and doesn't promote any particular suspect to try to make a buck. Heck, I was today just listening to the Cooper Vortex podcast and their two hour interview with Larry Carr, the FBI's lead agent on Cooper for over a decade. He was asked if he'd read "DB Cooper and the FBI" because the host mentioned how it is basically the greatest work out there about the Cooper case and Carr laughed and said that he hadn't read it, but he appreciates Smith's work, although he'd like to have a talk with him about some of his conclusions (Carr is a big proponent that Cooper died...most Cooper researchers believe he lived).

You ask what you need to prove Smith is an expert. He co-led the Panel Discussion at the DB Cooper Symposium at the Washington State Historical Museum along with Geoffrey Gray (a highly regarded journalist and editor of New York magazine). He has been a featured speaker at every CooperCon that I've ever attended and all of them that I've ever even heard of.

Honestly, the fact that I'm having to defend Bruce Smith's expertise on D.B. Cooper is like having to explain to someone why William Shatner is an icon in the Star Trek world. Smith is like the Godfather of D.B. Cooper research. When people say so and so "wrote the book on it"...well he literally did on the Cooper case. It's a 500+ page tome that has sources listed. I don't know of any other Cooper book that is as much like an encyclopedia about the case than it. Almost every other book about Cooper is some quick money grab by someone trying to sell a book by promoting that they've solved the case with some new suspect they've uncovered. It's just trash.

I'll repeat this again, I'm a former federal prosecutor, state district attorney, and now a criminal defense attorney. I'm not some cracker jack lunatic. Smith is certainly an eccentric. Lots of people in the Pacific Northwest are when it comes to the Supernatural, but the man knows his stuff on the Cooper case. I wouldn't cite his stuff otherwise. I've literally thrown Cooper books in the trash that I've gotten off Amazon, but his book is the immediate go to source for myself and many other Cooper fans because we trust its accuracy.

Bruce Smith's expertise on Cooper is unquestionable. Not trying to be disrespectful so don't mistake my tone, but if you were a fanboy/fangirl of the DB Cooper case you'd understand why questioning Smith's expertise is a bit silly and why I'm so bemused by this. There's a reason he's on every single TV show about Cooper and he's a featured speaker at every single CooperCon, and featured speaker at every single Cooper Symposium. It's because his knowledge is RESPECTED! SillyRyno (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is that most of what you are saying is basically irrelevant from the point of view of assessing whether Bruce Smith is a reliable source in Wikipedia's eyes. It doesn't matter that you're a former federal prosecutor – your personal expertise is not important here. Listening to anonymous editors' claims of personal expertise is how we got Essjay. Nor is the fact that DB Cooper fanboys like him. What we want is evidence that either his work has been published by a publisher with a track record of reliability (which it apparently hasn't) or he has been recognised as an expert by reliable sources, not just DB Cooper fans and anonymous internet commenters. To that end, being invited to lead a panel discussion in a museum symposium is the kind of evidence which is actually useful for demonstrating reliability. But frankly, for someone whose book is from a publisher of no reputation, and who publicly claims to have been abducted by aliens, we need very strong evidence of reliability. Has Smith had any writings on the Cooper case published by a publisher with a strong reputation? Has he been cited in other unquestionably reliable sources? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have voluntarily removed all Bruce Smith cites and replaced them with mostly FBI.gov cites from their recently released case files. SillyRyno (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussions over a new Fox News RfC

Two separate users are intent on posting a new RfC to reassess the reliability of Fox News, and I don't think either of them can be dissuaded. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Second_Fox_News_RfC in order to discuss the potential format of the new RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Formally deprecate Natural News as a source

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

---

Yes, I know that Natural News was blacklisted as per the result of a previous discussion for its notorious (and currently continuing) publishing of grossly degrading disinformation. However, I'd like to dedicate this RfC solely to questioning whether or not we should formally deprecate Natural News as a source, since it hasn't really been formally done yet. I really don't think I need to go on; it's basically been proven time and time again that the site is practically the empire of a dubious, cheapskate journalist that should pretty much be avoided at all costs. So I'm going to limit this RfC to two major options: deprecate, or don't deprecate. ToThAc (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate and blacklisting should automatically apply to any website owned by them as well without needing to come here. NadVolum (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Is this actually a problem? Obviously a shit source, but is that in doubt? If we deprecate every obviously shit source we'll be here for ever, and it's just bureaucracy. Alexbrn (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Utterly pointless blacklisting is scorched earth deprecation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, it isn't currently being used in any articles as a source - there doesn't appear to be anything to depreciate. - Bilby (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• YEP timewaste - Roxy the English speaking dog 11:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• No need - if it has been blacklisted then we have taken it beyond deprecation. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

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

GitHub repos and accounts controlled by reputable news outlets

Greetings! Here's an interesting one. It turns out that the Washington Post holds an account on GitHub where they maintain various repositories of software and data. One of those repos is currently being widely added as a source to support biographical assertions about slave ownership in early America. So, if the WaPo is reliable, are data dumps in their GitHub repos reliable too? Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Secarctangent is doing the adding. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Look, I'm happy to add the WaPo article instead if that's what people prefer (and indeed I've seen some instances of editors do that in some articles and did not edit it), but to me, it seems much more useful to readers to be able to access it in this format. WaPo's article is both paywalled and slightly annoying to navigate by comparison to being able to access the underlying source, especially given the considerations that @Sideswipe9th mentions below. Secarctangent (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a really interesting one. In most cases I'd say that a GitHub for a reliable source isn't inherently reliable by association and an assessment should be done based on their contribution guidelines on a repo by repo basis.

In this circumstance, while it is accepting user submissions off GitHub, according to the README.md file the two Washington Post staff contributors are vetting and verifying the submissions before adding them to the data dump. As long as editors are careful to cite Washington Post controlled repo and not one of the (currently 4) forks, I'd be somewhat inclined to say it is a reliable source based on the verification being done by the WaPo journalists prior to addition to the repository. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This is primary unfiltered research data. Anything based on it would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree, with one caveat, you could use primary source data from a reliable outlet, e.g. Johns Hopkins covid data linked from NYT, CNN, Washington Post or something like that, for simple verifications of fact only. Andrevan@ 23:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree it's a primary source, and great care should be taken in the use of it, but that wasn't the question being asked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

As others have pointed out it's PRIMARY (not OR or SYNTH unless it's used for anything other than referencing what's in the dataset). The publication medium (Github) is irrelevant in this case since the page itself can't be modified by anyone but the creator, and I suspect we would have consensus that WaPo is an RS as SPS (They state their methodology, the primary author, the sources, and have previous recognition (if controversial) for publishing on history, and they're more or less competent enough to essentially mostly just cross-check census data). Other datasets on Github must be traced in a similar manner to an RS. It's not at all unusual for authors in academic journals link their code or datasets to cruddy their personal sites, blogs, or github repositories -- whatever works. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As a technical matter, the Washington Post is not self-published, since anything it puts out goes through an editorial process first. JBchrch talk 07:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

But the data sets are probably not editor approved if they are just data dumps. GenQuest ^"scribble" 08:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@GenQuest I seriously doubt that journalists at the WaPo have the authority to just dump data on Github under the WaPo name without editorial approval. However it's kind of a moot question in this case because the data is reproduced in the article. JBchrch talk 11:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch, I doubt editors care what their GH-approved journalists are dumping in their file storage. GitHub is about as reliable as IMDB. If there are articles that contain some of that data, then those should be used. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the "official" WaPo GitHub, not the journalists'. In any case, a story is linked in pretty much all of the repositories containing "interesting" data. JBchrch talk 17:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is much better than a dump on GitHub. The data dump on GitHub would the same as a journalist putting it on their personal Twitter or Facebook.PrisonerB (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually no. The data dumps on GitHub represent a deep and serious commitment to open sharing of raw data. It'd be like if, in 1985, the New York Times collated and transferred all their investigative Cold War research notes to microfiche, cross-referenced it carefully to every article they'd ever published on the topic, and then mass-distributed microfiche packages to every public library in these USA. It'd be a revolutionary step of openness beyond a daily piecemeal publication of stories.

This openness of data-sharing has parallels in government, as well. I personally receive a police report every week that's collated by LexisNexis, which is a service that allows me (or anyone anywhere) to use a simple web interface to review crime data in any neighborhood that's covered. My city government has massive open-data projects including GIS stuff. I sat down with one of the techies over coffee and had great conversation about it; she was actually interested for me to add a local point of concern to their vast database to be shared with the general public.

I deeply respect WaPo for this GitHub project and, while I've only skimmed the front page of the corresponding blog, I'm amazed at the sort of infrastructure they're sharing with the general public. Elizium23 (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Useful incorporation of that raw data into a citation for article use would often border on OR, wouldn't it? GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO using raw data can be OR-compliant if used for very discrete pieces of information, like buildings' heights, stock market prices, population stats... The moment it begins to be incorporated in a broader "narrative", I agree that it will often be problematic. JBchrch talk 21:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone could call it "raw" data. In the IT world, raw data is unprocessed and unfiltered. What WaPo has offered the world is a curated collection of analysis by credentialed researchers working under editorial oversight. It's only "raw" data if you consider its format as machine-readable. Just because data is machine-readable doesn't make it a less-worthy source for Wikipedia's purposes! Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, there's jargon or a term of art in the data world that raw data is raw data, and once you process it, it's now processed. I think the data in a Github repo is probably cleaned up, denormalized, what have you, to make it a little better. "Useful incorporation of data into a citation" is decidedly not WP:OR if you are not making a conclusion about it. It is totally appropriate to use primary sources to cite simple facts and stats like the ones mentioned and they can even be WP:BUNDLEd with a secondary source citation. Andrevan@ 22:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, when I say "raw data" I'm thinking of, like, spreadsheets or graphs, devoid of any prose or analysis. Example. JBchrch talk 22:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, hang on. It'd be tricky to cite a graph, but if you had a raw dataset, and that was from a reliable place, you could use it to cite a specific stat. You could also combine it with secondary sources to source material provided you weren't using it to drive a conclusion, just offering it as an additional exhibit. Andrevan@ 22:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to call such data "structured". It's structured in a particular way that may not be human-readable or include extraneous trappings such as prose, text formatting, etc.

Wikipedia already uses plenty of structured sources and we also generate structured data. That's Wikidata. That's images on Commons such as political maps. That's tables of filmographies and the like. So we're already both consumers and producers of structured data in addition to the prose we write in articles. I don't see why WaPo's GitHub products should be any different than a PDF full of tabular data. Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. With the caveat that Github is just a platform and any given Github repo with different policies for how stuff gets merged into it may not be reliable, but the Wapo one is. Andrevan@ 23:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a historical survey, however basic, so it depends what the article editors' consensus feels is the standard for publication -- if that's academic peer review, then WaPo editors and fact checkers might not meet that standard (for 1619, they brought in at least one fact checker from academia). The next few comments don't seem reasonable considering it is an account under WaPo's name and the dataset page lists the linked story, the primary journalist, and the methodology. I cannot see any scenario in which that's possible without editorial oversight. The comparison to a journalist's social media post is interesting, if we accept it at face-value, since journalists are held to very high (arguably unreasonably high) ethical policies on social media by major outlets. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that I'm not sure we got to consensus here, but assuming that others feel we did, @Elizium23, I would have preferred if you hadn't gone through and just deleted the source in all the articles instead of replacing it with the article. Now I have to go through a lot of these and revert a whole change rather than just editing in a different citation.

Is there a way to mass-replace one citation with another across a set of contributions I've previously made? It seems like you made all those edits quickly, so maybe there's some sort of tool I can use as an editor to do the article citation replacement. Secarctangent (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Secarctangent you experienced a good deal of pushback when you initially added this to lede sentences. I would say that you should consider the placement of this fact.

If I went through sources to find every US politician who'd cheated on his wife and added "Jonathan Q. Public was an adulterer, slave owner, and Senator" then I think I'd catch some heat for it. It's fine that we publicize their slave-ownership, (I mean I guess because it's good to impute shame onto notable people who's been dead for 300 years and did totally normal 18th-century things,) but some of us don't believe that it's a thing that warrants MOS:LEADBIO prominence. Elizium23 (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but unrelated to this discussion about which source to use. Secarctangent (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Since your change affects a wide swath of articles, I'd prefer that we had a centralized, visible discussion of its merits. Your user talk page is not suitable, and no other discussion is currently open. If you'd like to move venues to a WikiProject or another noticeboard, feel free to suggest a venue change, but let's not WP:FORUMSHOP the problem out of sight. The sourcing of your claims was a good technicality to cast doubt on the wisdom of mass article changes, but since you're holding an alternate source then we need to address the root issues of WP:DUE and neutral placement within the articles. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Github is fine if we are linking to it as a repository for say a pdf copy of a source. It should not used if we are using the raw data. Take the edit that resulted in this question. Even if we assume the data about slave holding is correct (and I would assume it to be) how much WEIGHT do we assign to the information? As a data source Github can't help us there. The edit in question[25] changed the opening sentence which is meant to summarize the most notable, factual aspect of a person. It previously stated that the person was a politician and at one point speaker of the house. After the edit he was most notable for being a slave owner. While slave ownership is reprehensible in the region and time it wasn't something that was uncommon for a wealthy person. This data source doesn't provide that context thus, even if we consider this reliable for the basic statement, "owned slaves" it doesn't tell us how much weight we should apply to that fact inside of the larger biography. In the case of a plantation owner only noted for cruel mistreatment of enslaved people it could be the majority of the biography. In the case of one of the slave owning presidents it might be a small part of their overall notability. Springee (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a single dataset couldn't be used to give something a lot of weight on its own, but not that it couldn't be usable at all. Andrevan@ 23:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess there are two issues there. The first is do we trust a data set on Github. I presume in this case we do. Second is when might it be appropriate to use such data. I would say only when it's clarifying a point made by another source. So if no RS says "owned slaves" then we can't use this dataset to establish that fact. However, if it were a detail question, "Swift brand racecars won 17 SCCA national championships" I would be more inclined to agree assuming we have a RS that said Swift cars won a lot of SCCA national championships. The database is only filling in a small fact, not establishing weight for the fact nor the only source supporting the general subtopic. Springee (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, we can use primary sources to establish facts. However it might be of limited weight. Andrevan@ 23:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

While this isn't NPOVN, there's no need to seek a different venue to determine what weight to give these primary sources. The answer is to give it little or no weight. If far better references refer to the fact or provide a proper context for the fact, then it might be used, though perhaps only as a supporting reference or footnote. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Little weight, yes, which is not 0, there might be situations where the inclusion of this information is merited. The question here though is whether the information is reliable, which I think we are saying it is. So each article can be determining the weight in context and whether or not to include the content based on that article, but in general, these primary sources should be considered reliable. Andrevan@ 17:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The primary source is the 1850 census that says e.g. "Bill Williams household: 1 wife, 6 children, 1 slave". The NYT dataset took census data (among others) cross checked with other information and lists the notable names they confirmed. It is in every respect a secondary source if it is being used as a source for a statement like "The NYT project showed Bill Williams was a slaveowner," with or without explicit inline attribution (depending on what editors make of the NYT's credibility in historical research). It only becomes a primary source if, after being used as a raw dataset for another study, it is cited within that study. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I agree with your clarification Andrevan@ 17:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good point. It's raw data, devoid of any encyclopedic context. It absolutely does not belong in the lede immediately after the person's name and nationnality.[26]. --Hipal (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

New Emperor Trajan book - reliable source

Book Title: Trajan, Rome's Last Conqueror (2022) Author: Dr. Nicholas Jackson Publisher: Greenhill Books https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trajan-Romes-Conqueror-Nicholas-Jackson/dp/178438707X

Book being used for several citations in the following Wikipedia page on TRAJAN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#cite_ref-ReferenceF_209-0 2A02:C7F:681:800:F42D:3A73:7F4A:7334 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that Nacjackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) judging by their username, has been adding citations to their own book, which is a quite clear conflict of interest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and fair comment. I do agree, I have a conflict of interest. Learning the right way to work on Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:681:800:2150:1C30:1731:168C (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a readable account but way out of the author's field of competence. It is a sign of integrity that the author addressed this page to inquire whether his work met Wikipedia's criteria. Aside from WP:COI, the major problem is that it falls short, whatever its merits, of the strong criteria set forth at WP:RS, which must govern articles like this, where the bibliographic abundance of academic scholarship on all aspects of a classical life is such there is almost no room for amateur (in the best sense) input. If one's lifelong study of a subject outside the ambit of one's professional purview does turn up something not noted or overlooked by specialist sources, the way to go is to seek a scholarly confirmation of that 'something', get it quoted in an academic source. If that occurs, then the book you wrote could certainly be considered as a source for the relevant article.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the sort of difficulties we have. Some years back a fullyfledged classical scholar of some distinction edited the Homer page. He'd just written a book arguing that Homer was Euboian. So he had a conflict of interest in showcasing his personal take by editing that underlined his approach. No one doubted his competence. But the article could not be tilted to one viewpoint at the expense of so much other peer research which argued differently. Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed work by an academic press, so I think that it is a reliable academic source for wikipedia's purposes. If it were pushing controversial positions (as in the Euboian-Homer example cited above), then there would be an issue, but there is no sign that that is the case. I acknowledge that there is potential for a conflict of interest if the author adds material from the book to articles, but it is clear that said author is eager to work within the norms of WP, so I don't see the need for a blanket decision - it will be better to resolve things on a case-by-case basis as/if issues arise. Furius (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Muslim-institute.org and pakistaninfo.com

Can these two links "Muslim-institute.org"[27] and "pakistaninfo.com"[28] be used as WP:RS for population figures, demographics and/or history pertaining to the Tajiks? These two links, amongst others, were used to state that the number of Tajiks in Pakistan amounts 1,2 million thereby replacing an UNHCR source that stated 221,725.[29]- LouisAragon (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they are reliable for demographics. I doubt if any of the census on this is very reliable but I think we would prefer UNHCR. Spudlace (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The UNHCR report gives the number of ethnic Tajik Afghans in Pakistan, not the total number of Tajiks in Pakistan. If the UNHCR or World Bank or some other agency has a survey on Pakistan itself they might possibly have reasonable independent data. You can't use stuff from Tajikistan because this is an article about ethnic Tajiks, so remittances and citizenship data isn't much use. As for the Muslim Institute I can't find independent information on them, their own information on themselves is virtually nonexistent, and the piece you linked is labeled "opinion" (which doesn't mean their facts should be less accurate than if it were not opinion, but it just means there's even less justification to cite it for facts). PakistanInfo's article is interesting because they say that 1.2m is the number of Tajik migrants coming from the Soviet-Afghan war and the USSR collapse, which completely changes the math, and that restricts the regions and dates enough that it's reasonable to try to independently verify the numbers. So then it's a matter of whether for counting the Tajik ethnicity in Pakistan it suffices (or is a reasonable substitute with an explanatory note) to give the number who migrated in the past 50 years instead.

Meanwhile PakistanInfo claims it's the largest online news website in regional languages in Pakistan, but they still don't seem to print any kind of editorial policy, and only have the profile of the one managing editor available (who's not a journalist). It's not the kind of fact you want to have to source out to something like this, but I get that in this region of the world right now there's not a lot of good options, and again the article gives enough information about the number that it's probably reasonable to independently verify it. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aayan Uzoqov: You might be interested in leaving a comment here. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Aayan Uzoqov, the "user" who added those links, turned out to be a sockpuppet and has been CU blocked in the meantime. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The Times Group

These are all news papers of Times Group Are all these news papers considered reliable? The Times Of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times, Maharashtra Times, Ei Samay, Mumbai Mirror, Vijaya Karnataka , Bangalore Mirror , Pune Mirror PravinGanechari (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

They are at the least reliable for uncontroversial subjects such as film reviews, music reviews, sports reports and the like. Anything else would need specific examples of their use, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The Liberacy

"The Liberacy" is a website that publishes news, but it seems that one of their articles is fabrication (fake news). https://theliberacy.com/2021/07/27/china-a-prison-of-nations/ In this article, it calls "Hookien", "Basuria", "Goetsu", "Hong Kong", "Aksai Chin" as "nations". But this is evidently false and Hookien, Basuria, Goetsu are not names of any country or territories. It also says that Hong Kong is currently an Independent Sovereign Nation which is false. Is this correct or not AAAAA143222 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Strange article, indeed. The site is Indian, self-proclaimed as advocating for liberal democracy in India. Aksai Chin is the subject of an active dispute between India and China. Much of the rest of the article appears to be talking about the PRC asserting full control over various territiories that have historically been part of China, but which were more or less defacto autonomous during the first half of the 20th century. A few other articles I looked at did not seem outragious, but I wouldn't want to use the site as a reference. - Donald Albury 18:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

legacy.unreachedresources.org

Can this website "legacy.unreachedresources.org"[30] be used as WP:RS for population figures or demographics pertaining to the Telugu people? This website is being used for the population figures of Telugu people in Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Fiji, Mauritius and South Africa in the article Telugu diaspora. Merxat Yalkun (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Cyber.Eyes.2005

• It is not a reliable source (once you get past the url being wrong in the citations). It is a product of a religious organization that says it gets its data from a variety of questionable sources and is overseen by three volunteers who do not identify any credentials for expertise in the field. Banks Irk (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• It seems like the site is now at joshuaproject.net (so the link you provided on Telugu in Singapore (archived version) is live here). Their disclaimers on data are repeated on every page, which is good, and they also list their data sources, though not specifically what is sourced for each statistic on group. Also, the specific number given (800) for Telugu speakers in Singapore seems quite small, since at a glance Indians are 9% of Singapore's population and Telugu is the 4th-largest Indian language. It may reflect only the count that the mission has been able to identify themselves, but really you would have to track down if it comes from any of the listed sources. As to the quality of their sources, a lot of them are missionary groups, and while I don't think missionary groups are necessarily unreliable, unless someone there knows what they're doing in terms of methodology it can be very easy to generate misleading statistics. So given that joshuaproject is just aggregating this data in a rather opaque manner, I'd say if you think a number they have is interesting then try to verify it using the sources they provide, and then evaluate those sources for reliability. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

National Resource Defense Council

I was reviewing a page called Environmental issues in Fresno, California and see 11 statements of fact sourced to the National Resource Defense Council. This seems to be similar situation to an already completed discussion about PETA as they are both advocacy groups. I brought it up on the talk page and did not receive a response. Am I correct in thinking this sourcing is not adequate? Nweil (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, most of those citations are done improperly, and it looks like a later 2015 NRDC report link disappeared at some point. Regardless, advocacy groups and think tanks span something of a spectrum between opinion and an expert self-published source. The best think tanks trade on their reputation for reliability, accuracy, and thoroughness, though that kind of market accountability is still not quite the same as academic peer review. Looking briefly at NRDC and their publications it's clear they're neither a pure think tank nor pure activist group. It doesn't appear from the linked reports that they are on the ground doing empirical research themselves, but maybe they do that in other projects. So as a secondary source interpreting a number of primary sources, as they are in the report cited in the Fresno article, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't give reliable assessments of basic facts. Any further conclusions that they draw, or overall summaries, should be attributed to them though as WP:OPINION from an qualified source. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think NRDC is best described as a notable legal advocacy/activist group, or a nonprofit charity, moreso than a think tank. So, I would agree, they aren't an unbiased source, and they make no presumption of neutrality, unlike say a news org or a journal, or even a mainstream well-respected think tank where there's some expectation of sound methodology along with a perspective. NRDC is an ideological group that accepts donations to fund cases, kind of like the ACLU, but for the environment. They're comparable to the Sierra Club or the Audubon Society, or Habitat for Humanity. Probably reliable for a list of trees or birds, but maybe need some counterbalancing and attributing when they're talking about policy and issues. They're not quite as radical as PETA or Greenpeace, but the comparison isn't totally unreasonable. Some of their reports might be primary sources, like briefs in a lawsuit, or reports of their activities. Andrevan@ 23:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I stuck a CN, OR and a primary tag on the article per the above. Andrevan@ 23:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

NRDC is an advocacy organisation and it it no more reliable than PETA. Its statements are opinion. Statements about itself are generally also opinion but with attribution should of course be included on Wikipedia.XavierItzm (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Interviews

Hello, RS Noticeboard frequenters,

I've started closing AFD discussions this year and one issue keeps coming up that I'd like some clarity on. And that is, there seems to be a basic divide between editors who think interviews with article subjects should not be considered an independent, reliable source and those editors who think it depends on the format and content of an interview, that they shouldn't be automatically disallowed to establish notability.

I looked for guidance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and they have nothing to say about the reliability or unreliability of interviews so I'm not sure where this wholesale rejection of interviews as acceptable sources got started. Maybe a User essay? Anyway, I imagine that there is some previous discussion of this buried in the RSN archives but I'm hoping that someone can just point me to where this principle on rejecting interviews is anchored in policy. It would help evaluating participants' comments on deletion discussions much easier if I can find a policy that supports one point of view over another. Many thanks for any assistance you can supply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem with how we handle interviews is long-going, with the only P&G being on footnotes at WP:PSTS. There are some that steadyfastily claim they are primary and only primary, but I think the measure is context dependent - what agency is doing the interviewing, who the interviewee is and their relation to the topic, and what claims from the interviewee are being used to support notability. On one end you do have business trade magazines where it is easy to "buy" an interview, and thus that source automatically should be taken as primary and one should consdier the reliability issues involved. On the other end, when you have major newspapers doing a Q&A or long-form style interview with a person to use that person's expert stance on a topic they know about, there's very much few of the problems that occur, and we should take those as reliable and secondary, as long as we recognize that attribution is likely necessary. --Masem (t) 22:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The footnote that User:Masem referenced is very good guidance. Even if published in an unquestionably reliable source, is should be regarded as a primary source. For example, the famous Alex Haley interview of Jimmy Carter in Playboy would be a completely reliable, but primary source for Carter stating, "I've looked on a lot of women with lust". And, if that were the only reference available for the quote, it would be subject to the limitations on the use of primary sources, especially in a BLP. Of course, in this example, there were countless reliable secondary sources reporting on the interview. The reliability of the interview as a source depends entirely on the reliability of the source where it was published. But, it is a primary source.Banks Irk (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course, all faithful direct quotations are primary sources if used in this way, and many articles have been able to reuse an interesting quotation from, say, a major newspaper piece, to decent effect. There are important differences, however, between live interviews, taped or printed interviews, and an in-depth profile article. At one extreme is a newsmagazine profile in which the subject is followed and interviewed repeatedly over days to weeks, and as the story finally is written and edited the journalist still has several days to contact the subject for clarifications or fact-checks. In such a profile the quotations are part of such a composition that they could probably be interpreted as a secondary source, and they are likely not going to be contentious, in context of the story, with the subject. At the other extreme is a live podcast or radio broadcast for which the subject is given no preparation. In my opinion quotes taken from something like this are worse primary sources than Twitter, because at least with Twitter you can in theory reconsider what you say both while and after you say it. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: This is something I've noticed people at AfD having a lot of opinions about as well. To me, the idea that an interview isn't independent coverage varies wildly based on what the context of the interview is. As has been said, many trade magazines (and many news outlets) will just publish an interview with somebody as-is, and not do any kind of verification of what the person says. On the other hand, some people will use the term extremely broadly, interpreting it to include any news coverage that features quotes from the subject, or saying that the entire piece is tainted, or saying that it's not even permissible to attribute the quote (i.e. CorpoDyne CEO John Smith said that the company was founded "in his garage"). This seems clearly incorrect to me, and not based on any actual policy or guideline. What SamuelRiv said above is intelligent as well. jp×g 01:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

My feeling is that an interview in a reliable outlet goes toward notability, but may not necessarily be usable to cite the truth of the statements unless attributed. Andrevan@ 05:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: The other issue is that a lot of interviews in various media (Asian newspapers are particularly bad for this) are paid advertorials - i.e. the subject pays to have an "article" featuring an interview with them published in an otherwise reliable source, to plug their latest film/book/single etc. That's why you have to take each one on its merits. Black Kite (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the essay is WP:INTERVIEWS Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - In addition to Wikipedia:Interviews, one place where interviews are specifically called out are at the policy Wikipedia:No original research which says in note (d) at the bottom of the page "Further examples of primary sources include: ...editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews..." so they're primary sources, but are they independent? WP:PRIMARY says that "Primary sources may or may not be independent sources." so it's not black and white "yes interviews are non-independent." However the context of the interview is important. Wikipedia:Independent sources says "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views." So going by that, John Jones being interviewed is not an independent source for an article on John Jones, because an interview is literally his own views. For interviews where the article's subject is the one being interviewed, they are non-independent sources. If The Daily Planet interviews John Jones, the relevant content from that interview is coming directly from John Jones, who frames the content and the answers exactly how he wants; he controls the content. As a person is obviously not independent of themselves, an interview where John Jones speaks is not independent of the article for John Jones, especially if he's speaking about himself. This is absolutely a situation where an interview is not an independent source. There are times where articles will interview someone who has no direct connection to the topic and is being interviewed because he is an expert in a given field, and this would be an example of a time where an interview is an independent source; if an economist is interviewed about Tesla stocks, it's independent if he has no connection to Tesla itself. So while an interview is not always non-independent, if the subject of the interview has a connection with the article's subject, it's not an independent source for that article. - Aoidh (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Denisova's declarations on child rape

The question is whether former Ukrainian ombudsperson Lyudmyla Denisova's interviews and statements about sexual crimes committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine qualify as reliable source in the context of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Some background information is needed. Since March 2022 Denisova has released interviews and statements about rapes committed by Russian troops against infants, children, young women and men, elderly people. We already had a discussion on this at RS/N, following which we dropped the more gruesome, shocking details from the article on War crimes and we're now saying that Denisova reported multiple rapes of children, some very young. We are also reporting that according to her about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were locked in a basement and raped for almost a month in Bucha, and nine became pregnant (as reported, but not verified, by New York Times, BBC and other outlets). However, in the article Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine her declarations are still published in detail, although we are not reporting her statement about a 6-month-old girl raped by a Russian solider with a teaspoon.

Since that first discussion at RS/N, 140 Ukrainian journalists and human rights activists have signed an open letter asking Denisova, among other things, to Publish only that information for which there is enough evidence, check the facts before publication (here the letter in Ukrainian [31], here an account in English [32]). On 31 May the Ukrainian Parliament removed her from office accusing her, among other things, of making "not verified", "unverifiable" or "unsubstantiated" declarations about child rape (these being the words used by Deutsche Welle, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post respectively). At the end of June, Ukrainska Pravda published a report on Denisova (in Ukrainian) which was summarised in English by Meduza (here). The report says that Denisova was circulating information gathered by her daughter, who was working for a psychological helpline service Denisova had set up; it says that Denisova's office never sent any information about the alleged crimes or the victims' contact information to law enforcement agencies; finally, it says that Denisova explained to the Ukrainian prosecutor office that she "told these horrific stories because she wants Ukraine to be victorious."

Based on this essay on interviews, I think that Denisova's statements qualify as a secondary source on war crimes in Ukraine; based on the information I've just shared, I believe that they don't qualify as reliable sources on conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine. We had a couple of discussions on this in the talk page of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: #Denisova's dismissal and #25 girls between the ages of 14 to 24 raped in Bucha, held captive in a basement, nine became pregnant and we didn't reach a consensus. I hope that a discussion at RS/N could help us move forwards. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Having read that the Ukrainian parliament don't consider her reliable in her declarations, and that these statements may harm potential victims of sexual violence, it is fairly clear that she is not a reliable source for any factual statements. As both sides in the war consider her to be making statements which are at least partially false, I can't see how we can use her statements in anything other the article about her. She is in essence WP:FRINGE. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

On 31 May the Ukrainian Parliament removed her from office accusing her, among other things, of making "not verified", "unverifiable" or "unsubstantiated" declarations about child rape (these being the words used by Deutsche Welle, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post respectively). Worth noting that these words are neither from the parliamentary statement on her removal nor from these RSs’ descriptions of it, but their paraphrase of a social media post by one (important) MP. Agree we can’t use her as a source for particular atrocities happening (unless verified by other sources) but we can mention her comments with attribution as she’s obviously a major figure in the story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to include her comments without immediate qualification that she made unverified statements and didn't check her facts. If we have to do that, why are we including her comments? Reference to her is only warranted on the page about her, or possibly in a section which explains that her comments are unreliable. I can't see any other way under WP:NPOV to include comments which everybody accepts to be dubious.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Making that qualification risks SYNTH. I’d need to see an example of a contested use, but for example if multiple RSs say “Denisova alleged X” that might be noteworthy even if other sources say other allegations weren’t verified by anyone else. If we mention specific allegations that RSs say weren’t verified, then we should make the qualification. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Can I check, is this the disputed text? It feels due to me as couple of strong RSs. If it is the disputed text, are there sources saying this specific allegation was unverified (because it’s different from the child rape cases the open letter focuses on isn’t it?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your position @Bobfrombrockley because it seems to me you're making two incompatible claims. On the one hand, you say that if multiple RSs say “Denisova alleged X” that might be noteworthy. I agree that it might be noteworthy in an article on Denisova but I don't understand how it might be noteworthy in an article on war crimes in Ukraine (unless Denisova is taken to be a reliable source). On the other hand, you are also saying that you Agree we can’t use her as a source for particular atrocities happening. But how do the two things work together? In March and April, The New York Times, BBC and the others took Denisova as a reliable source on war crimes because she had access to important informative channels. But in May quality press at large stopped publishing her horrific accounts of war crimes in Ukraine, and today The New York Times would no longer write "Denisova alleged X". By the way, this recent report by the OHCHR doesn't mention 25 young girls raped for a month in a basement, rapes against toddlers, baby tortured with a teaspoon, children used as human shields: there's a huge amount of terrible war crimes, but not these. So why should we continue to have Denisova's allegations in our articles? Why should we be less reliable than our sources? We are writing an encyclopedia and we should choose our sources carefully. We have many policies and guidelines that should prevent us from uncritically include these materials: WP:RS, WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I’d need to see the disputed text to know what’s being argued over. But what I’m saying is we probably shouldn’t say “x atrocity occurred” and cite her as a source, but we might want to say “Denisova alleged x atrocity occurred” in a context where it is noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Re SYNTH, there are several Rs which deal with Denisova's sacking and detail the criticisms of her, alongside details of her claims. I don't see how SYNTH could be relevant here.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be SYNTH if we said something like "Denisova alleged X[fn1] but some have accused her of making unverifiable allegations[fn2]". (If a single source includes both, that wouldn't be SYNTH, or if the specific allegation we mentioned was contested in an RS.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would be synth, but there would be not need to do that as sources which detail both her claims and the reaction to them exist. Denisova's claims should not be in the main body of the article, as nobody thinks she is reliable. What might possibly be valid is a separate section detailing the fact she made certain claims and the reaction to them, indicating that there were severe doubts about her reliability. I don't think there would be any difficulty avoiding synth, given the wealth of sources which cover her sacking. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I see this as a fundamental misunderstanding of “what is a source”. Denisova is not the source. The media reports of her statements are the sources. The real question is whether statements about war crimes in Ukraine made by a Ukrainian official appointed to investigate war crimes are notable. The fact that she was reproved for talking so much about “unverified” claims was accompanied by complaints that somebody else had done her duties with respect to humanitarian corridors and other quite obvious crimes of aggression such as the bombing of kindergartens and other civilian infrastructure. Sexual crimes are always difficult to prove, and it isn’t amazing that some of the victims she was talking about have since disappeared or lost touch with a criminal complaint that if anything threatens their safety. I don’t know how many times we need to go through this. Don’t quote her if you don’t want to, but stop calling her untruthful, omg. It is a massive NPOV violation Elinruby (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The consensus of the Ukrainian parliament and 140 Ukrainian media figures is that she made "unverified claims". To cite her without mentioning this is a massive NPOV violation. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

verified is a tricky word. Most sexual assault claims are unverified. The complaints about her job performance centered on other issues, like not taking care of prisoner exchanges. I don’t understand the determination to make this woman out as crazy or a liar. There are plenty of solid secondary sources that rapes occurred. Pick a different rape if you must. It isn’t your job to “verify” these sexual assaults, and frankly with war crimes so thick on the ground in Ukraine I don’t see why you two are obsessed with this. You are making false and possibly libelous statements — not sure if she counts as a public figure — and you really need to stop with the BLP violations. You are misrepresenting the sources as well. Deutsche Welle did not say she was unreliable. That would be libel, since the actual issues cited were pretty different than that. Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the reason I am talking about this is because her words do not meet the standards of inclusion in wikipedia without the serious qualification that what she said may not be true. If the information is agreed by everybody unverified, we shouldn't be publishing it without stating this. Denisova has personally admitted to exaggerating her reports for propaganda purposes, so the information she provides has no place in our coverage until a reliable source appears. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with Boynamedsue that Denisova's declarations (unless "qualified" with elaborate and possibly off-topic explanations) don't satisfy a reasonable threshold of notability/inclusion in an article on War crimes: simply put, there's no good reason for having them there, they are not informative enough with regardto the subject of the article. However, I also think that these declarations should be treated as (unreliable) sources. I quote from the essay on interviews linked in my opening comment:

The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. Statements made by interviewees about subjects unrelated to themselves (e.g., the historian interviewed on the radio about local history) are independent and may be either primary or secondary.

This looks crystal-clear and irrefutable to me. Denisova's declarations about sexual violence are a secondary (alas, unreliable) source on war crimes in Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to further this, I think the blistering Ukrainian Pravda article on the debacle says it best: The state of Ukraine, on whose behalf Denisova acted, also became a victim. Yes, her place in office is the responsibility of the state. However, the ombudsman was not authorized to lie. Denisova's story will not succeed and there is no need to silence it. Let it become a clear sign: Ukraine is fighting on the side of truth. We don't need to further demonize the Russians. They themselves coped with this task

People who insist on including her claims in articles other than those directly about her are not doing any favours to the Ukrainian cause, it actually reflects very well on the Ukrainian state that they removed her from her post. --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's both surprising and admirable that they have been capable of maintaining a functioning democracy under these circumstances. And it's not in their interest to have these questionable materials published in Wikipedia: one finds out the 25 girls held in a basement in Bucha is a fake (if it is a fake) and one starts wondering if the Bucha massacre has ever happened. Wikipedia should have no part in this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, a few Ukrainian members of Rada said that Denisova, an official Ukrainian ombundswomen at the time, made some statements that could not be supported by proofs, meaning that she only had the claims by victims, some of whom might be even anonymous, so basically this is classic "she said". This is all. No one found her promoting any lies. Hence her statements, as the top Ukrainian human rights official, can be included on any relevant human right pages, with appropriate attribution. Should they be included to specific page X? That should be determined per WP:CONSENSUS on the corresponding page. Speaking on sources above, I would suggest not using this particular publication in Ukrainian Pravda because it was disputed in the next publication in the same Ukrainian Pravda (that political life and controversies in Ukraine are messy, no one really knows why some people have been suddenly dismissed, etc.). Let's just use other, better sources that are many. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point she has been so vilified that it may be better to simply avoid this argument in my opinion. That doesn’t make it right or mean that Wikipedia should be hosting these inaccurate claims about her. But it isn’t as though there aren’t plenty of war crimes to write about. Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I presume that Gitz6666 and Boynamedsue are saying that Denisova made false claims. Well, if that was the case, a state official making false claims is a very common situation. How to deal with this? Exactly as in other cases. Meaning that you need RS (by fact checkers or others) saying that a specific claim was false and explaining why it was false. That was done with regard to many claims by politicians from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. But we have ZERO specific claims by Denisova disproved in this way. All we have are generic claims by others that some her claims were not independently verified. Yes, sure, but this is something also very common and entirely different (see my previous comment here). My very best wishes (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point and I actually agree with you. But let us distinguish the BLP from the BLP elements of the war crimes article, where there is if anything too much material and this argument serves as a shiny object. I find it highly plausible that she has had truthful reports that were anonymous or whose complainants are hard to locate for any of a number of reasons. Nonetheless Ukrainian politics are murky, media ownership is murkier, and the workings of VR Kontacte murkiest of all as I am sure you know much better than I. For purposes of the war crimes article, a reliable secondary source such as the Washington Post or Agence France-Presse reports what it reports and if it hasn’t corrected itself it presumably stands by its reporting. All the OR these guys want to do is completely irrelevant and she herself is peripheral. For purposes of the BLP the firing is huge and definitely should include the media campaign against her. Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I presume that Gitz6666 and Boynamedsue are saying that Denisova made false claims. Please don't make fake assumptions. Alternatively please provide a diff (here or at AE) where I say that she made false claims. I said that she is no longer a reliable source because of the reasons I explained here above in my OP. Your mentioning the case of Trump is completely off topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So, you do not think she made false statements? Meaning her statements well could be true (that is what I think)? OK. But then why did you start this thread? My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to state that most of her claims of sexual abuse against children by Russian soldiers are widely believed to be false in Ukraine, both in terms of detail and scale. Her discussion of sexual abuse against women is believed to be incorrect in many details, though probably not scale. As this is the case, an article which is supposed to detail these events should not include her opinions on the matter due to WP:NPOV.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"most of her claims of sexual abuse against children by Russian soldiers are widely believed to be false in Ukraine". Says who? Can you cite any sources to support such assertion? I bet that Ukrainians believe in all crimes by Russians. But in any case, that would be just a matter of public opinion and therefore irrelevant here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Already have, reread the above discussion, by "widely-believed to be false" I mean by the Ukrainian press and political class, the people best placed to know. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We could quote Zelensky's party We removed her because she failed in her duty as a guarantor. Sometimes she broadcast events which seem very improbable and information whose source is unknown. Or here, from the Ukrainian parliament which criticise her for concentrating on crimes of a sexual nature which can't be confirmed with evidence, damaging Ukraine and distracting the world media from its real needs. Then of course there is this Former Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights Lyudmila Denisova, while in office, made up scary stories about the rape of children by the Russian occupiers. She is simply not reliable for anything other than her own opinions which come under WP:FRINGE at this point. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that "most of her claims" and "some of her claims" are radically different. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh noes! I quail before your uncited quotations! Do you understand what a guarantor is? The issues was her priorities, not her truthfulness, and that will be true no matter how many times you pound the table Elinruby (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Come on, we are talking about the sexual abuse of children, perhaps a bit of seriousness is due? The quotes are all attributed and linked to sources you can check. And the meaning of guarantor (of which I am fully aware as I translated from the Italian "garante" in the article) is not central to the meaning of the following sentence "Sometimes she broadcast events which seem very improbable and information whose source is unknown". Now, can you provide any sources which postdate her dismissal, which was, according to the Washington Post, in part for spreading unsubstantiated information on sexual violence, which state that she is a reliable source of information on the topic of sexual violence? --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I do now see the external link in the third quote, so striking that. However my point about “guarantor” is that this is a reference to the evacuation corridors, which some people apparently believe should have put more work into, as opposed to sexual assaults, which are difficult to prove at the best of times. But all this discussion of the reasons for her dismissal is rather peripheral to the actual topic of the article. She was always a primary source and there are a lot of secondary sources, so I find it frustrating that we are repeatedly looping through peripheral events. I think this discussion violates the BLP policy, but to the extent that it can take place accurately and dispassionately, should take place on the talk page of her BLP. Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I would point you to the Deutsche Welle coverage. I would also point you to my comment a little further up the thread that *she* is not a source, the *publication doing the reporting* is the source. We’ve already had the question on this noticeboard of reliable sources quoting liars, as you want to imply she is, and it boils down to this — we let the reporters do the reporting, as long as it is published in a reliable source.

If i seem a bit flippant, it’s merely that I have said most of this multiple times already. You realize that we already had a thread about exactly this? I find that in the face of sealioning, varying my vocabulary relieves the monotony and preserves my sanity ;) What you are trying to do is called original research, or possibly synth; I don’t frequent those boards and am not sure.

In any event, *you* need to find *me* a correction about these sexual assaults that says that because Denisova was fired we don’t believe these women were raped. You are the one who wants to make the change; therefore you need to cite it. Elinruby (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

At no point has anybody suggested the removal of claims of sexual assault not stated by Denisova, or stated as fact by other organisations. The source you provide does not state she is reliable, it merely gives background to her sacking, mentioning the criticism that she made unverified claims. Can I take it you now accepts that part of the reason she was sacked was that she made unverified claims? Asking you for evidence when you have provided none so far is not "sealioning" it is how things are supposed to work. -Boynamedsue (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

please re-read what I already said above, more slowly perhaps. Then if still confused take a look at WP:BURDEN. If there is an actual language problem here I am very willing to help. Otherwise I am not willing to repeat myself any further. Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could simply answer the question, I understand everything you have posted but don't find most of it very pertinent to the question at hand. Could you simply state, yes or no, do you accept that Denisova was sacked as the Ukrainian parliament and the Washington Post state, in part, for making unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault? --Boynamedsue (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• She did not make a single provably false claim [33]. Yes, the claims by victims she recorded in her database have not been verified or proven, exactly as the cited sources say. However, this does not make her claims any less reliable than claims by any other Ukrainian officials that have not been independently confirmed, but have been widely reported. What we need here is merely an explicit attribution. Such claims may or may not be included to pages depending on various factors and consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is almost impossible to prove a negative. She did make claims which several hundred Ukrainian journalists and the Ukrainian government state there to be no evidence for. She was then sacked, in part, for making these claims. Claims for which there is no evidence except the statements of one person who was sacked for making them shouldn't be included on the page. I have no problem whatsoever with anything she has said, but which other more credible Ukrainian or international officials still sustain, being included in the article with the claim attributed to them rather than her. --Boynamedsue (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Most outright lies by state officials are easy to catch, see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. However, not in criminal rape cases, especially if the victims prefer to remain anonymous and frequently do not even bring official charges, and especially during war time. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, in this case she kind of was caught, the Ukrainian government found no evidence to support some of the things she said and sacked her for it. I'm referring specifically to some of the grotesque details regarding abuse of children, there was literally no supporting evidence of any kind. Absolutely nothing. When they interviewed her she told them she was making the claims to help the Ukraine's war effort. Like I've said before, this episode actually shows the Ukrainian authorities in an excellent light, that they are not prepared to tolerate misinformation on rape from their representatives. There is more than enough evidence from reliable individuals and bodies to not have to rely on Denisova for our articles. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Using all available RS on the subject - yes, sure, that is what WP:NPOV requires. Let's do it. But consider the case when such sources (NYT, BBC, etc.) discuss statements by Denisova as Ukrainian ombudsman in any context (positive, negative, whatever). Not only we can, but we actually should cite what these sources say about Denisova and info she provided. This entire discussion is misguided. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• As about "she kind of was caught", no, unlike Trump and many other officials, she was NOT caught of claiming any specific lies, only that her claims (and the claims by victims) in general were not proven, and possibly will never be proven in any court. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Shall we ask for a formal closure of this discussion? I think the closer should also take into account the other discussions we've had on Denisova's statements following her dismissal. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think we have a specific enough question for a formal closure. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What about "Do former Ukrainian ombudsperson Lyudmyla Denisova's interviews and statements about sexual crimes in Ukraine qualify as reliable source in the context of articles on war crimes and/or sexual violence? Shall her interviews and statements be quoted in the context of those articles?" Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• That would be meaningless. Like I said above, the sources to be used here are not Denisova, but articles in NYT, BBC and other mainstream English language sources which discuss Denisova and her statements (and not only about rapes) in various aspects (positive, negative, whatever). These sources are obviously RS and can be used. Instead, I would rather avoid using Ukrainian Pravda and other weak sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is for the closer to determine. You are not an uninvolved editor. NYT is a reliable source, yes, so we know that Denisova said what she said, but that doesn't solve the issue - is she reliable? As explained in this essay,

  Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material.

  The question thus is: is this self-published material a reliable source on war crimes in Ukraine? In March NYT, BBC etc. probably thought it was; what do we think now? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, you are mistaken. The sources in question (NYT, BBC, etc.) are not interviews. And interviews in general are not WP:SELFPUB, only some of them are (i.e. if an interview was self-published, for example). My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no significant difference between interviews and statements - the difference is only quantitative, meaning that an interview is a collection of statements published together in a single article. But both in case of statements and in case of interviews the publication, even if it's of high quality, merely repeats what was said without exercising any editorial oversight. That's why statements and interviews should be treated as self-published material.

Let's make a fancy example. Donald Trump releases an interview/statement in which he says that the Confederacy won the American Civil War. That statement is a notable primary source in the article Donald Trump although, before including it in the article, we'd better have a reliable secondary source reporting the statement with attribution to Trump. However, that statement is not a reliable secondary source in the article American Civil War, because Trump is not an expert. It doesn't matter if CNN, BBC and all news network in the world have published that statement: in American Civil War it's WP:UNDUE and Trump is not a reliable source on the subject.
Mutatis mutandis, Denisova's statement about a Russian soldier raping a 6-months-old baby with a teaspoon [34] could in principle be used in Lyudmyla Denisova and perhaps also in Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and elsewhere, but arguably it could not be used in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and similar articles. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

To say that specific statement A by person X (for example that a baby John Doe was raped) was a lie or disinformation, you need strong RS saying this specific claim was fabricated and explaining how and why. For example, such and such investigators found that John Doe never existed. There were such fabricated cases, for example, the story about Crucified boy. But we do not have a single such case here. Perhaps she was telling the truth? Personally, I have no doubts she received such complaints. Were these complaints true? We do not know, but this is not promoting lies or disinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

UTC)

I don’t think anyone is arguing out articles should say something like “There were 25 cases of child rape…” with a footnote to a statement by LD. Rather, some articles might say something like “LD reported that she had documented 25 cases” with a footnote to an RS reporting that. Whether the latter is appropriate or not as a question of due weight not a question of reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I do tend to agree that this is probably a question of weight. Given the reservations about Denisova's truthfulness in Ukraine, I can't see any value in adding anything she says to any article outside her own except with caveats about her lack of reliability. However, in the scope of wikipedia policy BfB is probably right to say that our objection is about giving weight to fringe sources rather than the wiki policy on reliability. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Royal Central (cont.)

(Continuation of the discussion here). I'm starting this to reference to the Royal Central discussion a few weeks ago. Having messaged them informing them of the apparent plagiarism, I can report that after 2 weeks (and having returned from holiday), I have received no response from them by email and the offending article still shows the apparent copied Wikipedia content. So I think this does go back to my original question but having read others opinions, I think instead of the full depreciation suggestion, we only depreciate anything written by the journalist/author who wrote the article. I suggest this given the other examples of apparent plagiarism from the writer that were provided by other users in the original discussion. What would people think would be the best way to approach this? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Any thoughts? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of message you sent, but if it took the form of a copyright takedown request (no standard format) then there's no strictly defined timeframe for them to take it down, and though Facebook was apparently penalized for taking 8 days, Microsoft can take weeks (in 2008 at least). The best people to help at this stage might be the WP copyright noticeboard, but there's a backlog. Perhaps the question of reclassifying RC should wait to see how this incident is resolved, or whether it just stays in limbo for a long time. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@The C of E: Are you planning to launch an RfC? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: I may well do but I do think it would have to be in regards to the author rather than the site as a whole. Why do you ask? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Should Jrank.org be deprecated?

Jrank.org   is cited in over 1,800 articles but its articles have unclear sourcing. Examples: [35] and [36]. Jrank.org looks like a content farm designed to serve up ads, not a reliable source. Amigao (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a tertiary source, so no, I don't think it should be used. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a search engine/aggregator, which means it is no more reliable than Google or Bing. What it links to may or may not be a reliable source, but it should not be used as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to place it under formal deprecation, but yeah, the above are correct. This is self-evidently an unreliable source, and you don't need permission to make Wikipedia better by replacing references to it with better sources. --Jayron32 12:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Deprecate per nom. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

From searching these up it seems to be an mirror of encyclopedia.com, from the given examples there's exact match to [37] and [38] respectively, probably an unauthorized one due to the lack of sourcing... Probably just blacklist this then? Jumpytoo Talk 21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Deprecate at minimum, as a search engine/mirror site. Curbon7 (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not reviving an old discussion: just want to say thanks for catching this one. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Podchaser.com

User:Josepherino is uploading content to Thenmozhi Soundararajan from https://www.podchaser.com/creators/thenmozhi-soundararajan-107abHp5ia The info is taken from a revision of Wikipedia. Is it reliable? Primeive (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The podchaser.com website appears to be based around user-generated content, and accordingly shouldn't be cited for anything. [39] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

In the case of sites that copy content from Wikipedia articles, that's WP:CIRCULAR and shouldn't be used. AKK700 19:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Is "Factinate" a reliable source?

It's used in these articles.[40] For instance, [41] plus others, as Jason Momoa doesn't show in that search. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

According to [42], it's basically a well-curated listicle website; it's basically a tertiary (or maybe even quaternary) source, and probably one we should avoid using. It doesn't serve our purposes, regardless of how well researched their listicles are. --Jayron32 13:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I dunno about the well-curated bit. The site says that it's writers have complete editorial control over the content. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean exactly, but it doesn't inspire confidence about fact checking an do editorial oversight. Banks Irk (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I would avoid any listicle-focused site entirely, because being rigorous for such sites generally means 'having a source', with little or no regard for the quality of that source. I see sources cited in this example, but their authority ranges from 'acceptable' to 'questionable'. Happy (Slap me) 14:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Trellis.law

Trellis.law has been used at Myong J. Joun to source the sentence "Joun has worked with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the National Lawyers Guild, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, the American Bar Foundation and the Massachusetts Bar Foundation". Upon looking at the source it appears similar to Wikipedia in content/format but offers no sourcing of its own beyond several paragraphs describing the career of said judge. I did tag it with {{better source needed}} because it doesn't appear reliable to me. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting site, not what I was expecting. Trellis is an aggregator of information on cases and judges to be used for legal analytics in litigation. The CEO describes it as "Google for state court data".<ref>[https://www.technolawyer.com/hot-product/trellis-1428312.html]</ref> The profiles of the individual judges look to be reliable, and are not simply search engine results, but written by the site, compiled from other sources on the web.Banks Irk (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

CSPAN

What's the story with CSPAN (also, didn't mean to link to a defunct proposal for fair use of Wikipedia:CSPAN?)? Anyone know? Is it considered reliable? Since it's primarily a source of primary source transcripts and videos of Congress - but some of it is secondary coverage I think? Andrevan@ 01:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think footage from inside Congress can be considered a "primary source". As for the commentary, I think it should be mostly reliable as a secondary source, but I do not know. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with this point. Artemaeus Creed (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Should be reliable. The footage from congress isn't doctored. Commentary is balanced and informative.PrisonerB (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Unedited footage from Congress hosted by CSPAN falls under WP:PRIMARY. Commentary falls under WP:RSEDITORIAL. The unedited congressional footage is reliable, but limited to WP:PRIMARY usages. The commentary would be considered the same as commentary/opinion/editorials as any newspaper: useful for quotes and direct attributions, not useful for statements in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 12:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

SPLC at ALEC

This is about [43], please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

SPLC is an RS for hate groups, but not "as an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source." Has SPLC designated ALEC as a hate group? BBQboffin (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

ALEC desires that homophobic hate speech organizations don't get censored by Big Tech. So, even if ALEC is not a hate group, it is their friend, ally and enabler. It protects the fame and fortune of racist and homophobic organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the prose written around the SPLC is a bit OR and going way beyond what is actually published by the SPLC, but it absolutely fair to include that the SPLC states it "furthers efforts to push companies to eschew diversity and maintain ties with anti-LGBTQ hate groups" (quote fro the SPLC page). Masem (t) 03:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be libelous. According to ALEC and its CEO Lisa Nelson, it is good to be homophobic. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

[Person's name] is a champion of homophobia and transphobia (diff) is unsupported by the source, and a serious BLP violation. gnu57 03:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The tone of the entire challenged addition reads to me more as arguing for the SPLCs view than neutrally summarizing it. Additionally, the added sentence, in Wikipedia's voice "[X] is a champion of homophobia and transphobia" is inappropriate, even if one assumes it falls under the attribution umbrella of the introductory "According to..." in the previous sentence (if it does, this is not clear to readers). More troubling, the purported source does not contain the words "champion", "homophobia" or "transphobia", so it appears some POV has been added while paraphrasing. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

But she is described as:

Much of the Back to Neutral coalition’s work challenges companies’ attempts to expand racial and gender equality, CMD and Hatewatch found. An older nonprofit where Nelson is a board member, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), spearheads that coalition. They purchase shares in corporations, lobby their board members and urge shareholders to vote out directors who support diversity initiatives.

I don't know what you make of it, I construe it to mean that she is a homophobic activist. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

None of that even supports "is a champion of homophobia and transphobia", that's absolutely OR and against BLP. If you are reading that that way and writing that as your conclusion, you really need to step away and understand what BLP, NOR, and NPOV all imply. Masem (t) 04:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, she is described in all the article as a homophobic activist. I mean: there is a difference between "being called" homophobic and "simply described as" homophobic. I agree the former is not the case, but the later is. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: to take what you have just quoted and add into an article that Its CEO, Lisa Nelson, is a champion of homophobia and transphobia is BLP-violating original research. Endwise (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I can agree that my conclusion is a tad too simplistic, but it is not false. The overall tone of the article and its overall message is that she is homophobic.

If you want me to translate from English to English, "champion" means CEO or board member of homophobia-promoting or -enabling organizations. This is the conclusion of reading all that article, and I don't see why it would be wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not at all acceptable to infer it from the "overall tone" of an article, which does not describe a living person as homophobic or transphobic, and then write in Wikipedia's voice that that person is a "champion of homophobia and transphobia". This should not even be a debate. Endwise (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

But she is CEO or board member of such organizations. Do we agree upon this fact?

I am perhaps too many steps ahead, but I can assure that I have been praised for my talent of grasping the essence of the texts which I have read. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Well in this case you have several editors saying you need to work on your accuracy. Maybe propose an edit and see if it passes consensus.--Animalparty! (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a fairly ridiculous discussion, so I'll just reply to this comment and then disengage -- the article said she was a board member of NCPPR, who "purchase shares in corporations, lobby their board members and urge shareholders to vote out directors who support diversity initiatives", have "teamed up with the Koch-funded New Civil Liberties Alliance to challenge the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision to approve Nasdaq’s Board Diversity Rules", and have "petitioned Amazon’s board of directors to stop using SPLC’s hate designations to guide the company’s philanthropy, without success." If you think being on the board of such an organisation means we can describe her in Wikipedia's voice as a "champion of homophobia and transphobia", you should maybe consider taking a step back from editing BLPs/information about living people. Endwise (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

She stated We are certainly a part of that. Part of what? Part of a coalition begging Big Tech not to deplatform homophobic, racist, and violently extremist organizations.

So, whether she is herself a homophobic activist or just a political activist who is an enabler of homophobic organizations, seem to me just a quarrel about parsing words. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong, buddy. Have a nice day. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

In the current form, the wording is unacceptable. You can use SPLC to say organization X is homophobic/transphobic, but this must be explicitly said or at the very least they must very strongly hint they mean it. Deducing the correct adjective from the description of its activities is OR. That said, there are other types of questionable activities that the SPLC mentions, so you can write about them instead. Or you can find another source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: Are you objecting to the following?

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, ALEC is part of a coalition that includes two anti-LGBTQ hate groups and undertakes a range of anti-LGBTQ activities. The coalition is begging Big Tech to refrain from deplatforming homophobic, transphobic, racist, and violently extremist organizations.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence is OK. As for the second, "begging"? "Lobbying" is better here. Besides, I don't see the fragment that supports the label, and I'd question the need to include it here based on the fact it does not describe ALEC. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: Back to Neutral opposed Amazon, Apple and Google..., and all other mentions of the purposes of Back to Neutral. Let me spell out the choices:

ALEC/Nelson are:

1. gay-loving;
2. gay-friendly;
3. gay-neutral;
4. not politically active in respect to gays;
5. gay-bashing;
6. fight against homophobic organizations;
7. are neutral about homophobic organizations;
8. defend and enable homophobic organizations;
9. not politically active about homophobic organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Basing on this sentence, I'd basically say that they lobbied these companies to quit booting Parler, and you can describe Parler based on what is in the lead of that article, with sourcing. Again, I will not label them "homophobes" by themselves based on this fact, unless SPLC explicitly says their whole activity is homophobic, which it doesn't. Just like you won't label ALEC conspiracy theorists based on the fact that Parler hosted a lot of these and they did not want Parler to disappear - even if this is true in practice, it is OR. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

But choice 8 is not WP:OR.

This is a verbatim quote: A highly influential, “nonpartisan” group of lawmakers and corporate lobbyists focused on advancing free market principles also furthers efforts to push companies to eschew diversity and maintain ties with anti-LGBTQ hate groups, an investigation by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) Hatewatch found.

People who haven't even read the title of the article are telling me I'm faking WP:BLP info through WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The title does say that but WP:HEADLINES applies for this piece of info. While the policy says this also applies to subheadlines - and apparently this is one, this is also quite accurate summary of the article's content, so I think you can paraphrase this sentence you quoted in the last reply. Which means that the only thing you can say from this sentence is that it lobbies companies against implementing diversity initiatives and that it has ties to anti-LGBT groups.

When you compare this with the description of the lobbying group as a staunch defender of extremist organizations which propagate hate speech about homosexuals and transsexuals, e.g. ALEC fights against the deplatforming of such extremist organizations by Apple, Google and Amazon, that's a bit far-fetched. "Have ties" and "be an apologist of" are two different things. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: You did not get it: ALEC is pushing Big Tech to maintain ties with LGBT-hating organizations, i.e. pushing Big Tech to refrain from deplatforming LGBT-hating organizations, racist organizations, and violently extremist organizations. All three categories of organizations are mentioned in the article as being defended by ALEC in general and Nelson in particular. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still remain unconvinced. It's the coalition, not ALEC by itself. Anyway, I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: That's true: it's the Back to Neutral coalition which does that. But both ALEC and Nelson belong to the Back to Neutral coalition. You can walk and chew gum at the same time.

The Back to Neutral coalition is simply one of their many Mitläufer organizations. And none of this is original research. It's all in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not with the specific words that you are using, and when you are introducing labels and subjective terms, you cannot pull those out of thin air if the article does not state them directly, otherwise that's OR. Masem (t) 12:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: So if an article says there is an animal, which could be both feral and domestic, having four feet, a long tail, catches mice and birds, but also eats packaged food, and meows, I cannot say "it's a cat"? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Cat" is not a subjective term or label. Anti-LGBT does not necessary equate to homophobic, though they are often common, but you're trying to state they are one and the same. Masem (t) 12:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: Okay, let's state anti-LGBT instead of homophobic. Problem solved? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This is an NPOV issue, not an RS issue. The source is good enough to use -- the issue is the language used in the summary and inferences made therein. An issue here is while the source is primarily about ALEC, it doesn't say all that much directly about it and LGBTQ issues. It talks about other organizations it has defended or is involved with through Back to Neutral, but we can't attribute those organizations' activities/views to ALEC; we can say they're involved to the extent the source says they are. Admittedly, the way it's written is a little confusing, with all the acronyms, and tripped me up, too, when I made an edit yesterday to dial back some of the language (*facepalm* thankfully Genericusername57 caught it). Probably better to continue this on the talk page IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's really concerning to me that after making this egregious WP:BLP violation, and being called out on it by numerous editors, that tgeorgescu does not seem to be hearing the feedback and is instead doubling down. I changed the article content to actually reflect what the source says. Marquardtika (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The edit reports the SPLC's opinions. Certainly the SPLC website is a reliable source for its opinions. Whether or not including that opinion in the article is a matter of weight, and therefore should be discussed at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. TFD (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

How is it a BLP violation? ALEX is not a "living" person. TFD (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "Its CEO, Lisa Nelson, is a champion of homophobia and transphobia." See this. Marquardtika (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And, frankly, solving a BLP violation by simply hiding her name seems like a sleight of hand. That would mean anyone is fair game as long as we don't mention their name in the article. If that's the only secret to obeying WP:BLP, I wish somebody told me that before. Or better, write it in big shinny letters. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Legal persons and groups: BLP "does not normally apply to material about corporations, [etc.]" Since most corporations have CEOs, I don't see why ALEC is an exception. In any case, BLP merely says that extra care should be taken to ensure that NPOV, V and NOR are followed. We are therefore allowed to report criticisms of even the ALEC CEO, provided it is properly sourced, significant and accurately summarized. Some articles for example report serious accusations against Donald Trump, although he has not been convicted of any crimes. We are able to do that because they have been widely reported. TFD (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I admit I was guilty of a WP:BLP violation. In my defense, as I have argued at [44], that's pretty much a purely formal concern. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Historical demographics source

Can the following source A contribution to the history of the Nothern Epirus' Hellenism: Mathiew Papagiannis be considered reliable for the purpose of adding the following text At the beginning of the 16th century the settlements in the valley of Dropull were Christian and Greek speaking. to the article Dropull? The source is academic and the claim uncontroversial, as the area of Dropull in Albania is inhabited by ethnic Greeks. Khirurg (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand it's a conference paper (Πρακτικά Α΄ Πανηπειρωτικού Συνεδρίου), right? If so it's not the same as a journal article and its reliability depends on whether the authors are subject-matter experts. I believe it still can be used. If there are other sources which contradict it, WP:NPOV should determine the appropriate weight given to different viewpoints. Alaexis_¿question? 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)