Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 386

Archive 380

←

Archive 384

Archive 385

Archive 386

Archive 387

Archive 388

→

Archive 390

Health Liberation Now!

Health Liberation Now! (https://healthliberationnow.com/) is an independent conversion therapy watchdog founded by some detransitioners who fell into the political/ideological detransition network before gettting out and reporting on them.

Generally speaking, they have published many in-depth reports on the current state of the conversion therapy movement. While not being an existing reliable source, I believe that turning our nose at large detailed and sourced reports on the growth of the conversion therapy movement does nothing but harm as it allows those organizations to continue their activities and forces us to ignore good reporting that points out the many verifiable times they've done so. In matters of boots, consult the bootmaker. In writing about conversion therapy, consult the conversion therapy watchdog.

This source can be generally useful, but I'm focusing on Genspect as that's where this discussion started. However, we can also use this source for Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Below I'll lay out and better format the main points before getting specifically into what content depends on the source.

How is Health Liberation Now recognized in reliable sources? (This is every mention I believe)

Xtra Magazine calls them an organization that both puts forward a positive vision of liberation for trans, de/retrans and gender-diverse people through equitable access to healthcare, while also developing resistance strategies against transphobic attacks, which have recently become worse., From the Los Angeles Blade: a trans rights advocacy group that investigates the effects of policy on trans health From NBC News: Lee Leveille, co-director of Health Liberation Now, a trans rights advocacy group that investigates the effects of policy on trans health From The Texas Observer (Specifically an article we already cite in the Genspect Page): All of this could have been avoided had Bazelon listened to more experts and included more transgender people. That includes Ky Schevers and Lee Leveille, who run a trans advocacy group called Health Liberation Now! From Vice: a trans-run resource that analyzes the forces targeting gender-affirming healthcare, From Time Magazine The first known protest of gender-affirming pediatricians was in December 2020, per research by Health Liberation Now (HLN), a trans-run advocacy website that researches political impacts on trans health In a peer reviewed research article here: Studies and collated anecdotal accounts from detransitioners often represent a subgroup that is particularly hostile to gender-affirming care (Leveille, 2021; Restar, 2020). Ky Schevers (2021b), who was heavily involved in detransitioner advocacy for 6 years, described the subculture as “heavily invested in transphobic radical feminist ideology.” Schevers explained that people in radical feminist detransitioned women’s communities were “encouraged to see themselves as women struggling with gender dysphoria and to see any sense of being a gender other than woman as a symptom to be managed, not an identity to express” and that she came to believe that “my being trans was a result of trauma and misogyny” (Schevers, 2021a, 2021b). (The Leveille citation is to health liberation now)

How are the co-directors, Ky Schevers and Lee Leveille recognized in reliable sources?

The Independent: Lee Leveille, a trans researcher and health activist who has extensively documented the origins of what he calls TAnon. (link in original) Xtra Magazine: According to a timeline put together by researcher Lee Leveille, DGR fractured in 2012 due to a series of controversies involving the transphobia of its founders, Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen. (While not naming health liberation now, they do link to it) and researcher Ky Schevers who researches TERFs because she used to be one. She’s written extensively about being sucked into a cult-like “detransition” movement which convinced young transmasculine people that their dysphoria was caused by misogyny and could only be cured by radical feminism. She has been my most patient guide through the world of organized transphobia, having previously spoken to me about the rise of anti-trans activism targeting doctors and gender clinics; every conversation is a whirlwind of names, dates, times and bizarre blog posts from TERF havens, illuminating the underbelly of an obsessive and increasingly dangerous movement. Leveille wrote the following piece in The Advocate with the text: Lee Leveille (an author of this piece and a medically detransitioned trans person who goes by s/he, him/her, and his/hers) was a founder of GCCAN with Lidinsky-Smith (and others). S/he cofounded the organization when feeling deep loss, isolation, and confusion after his/her detransition. Leveille soon realized that Lidinsky-Smith and other members were actively reaching out to and partnering directly with staunchly anti-trans groups like Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics and 4thWaveNow. Lidinsky-Smith connected the group to Lisa Littman in order to promote Littman’s newest study on the supposed harm of youth transition. Ms. Magazine: Ky Schevers, a researcher who tracks anti-trans activity, has been following anti-trans protests since Valentine’s Day in 2021. Salon: Earlier this month, three clinics were targeted in New York City, Seattle, and Los Angeles, with protesters specifically calling out the work of plastic surgeon Dr. Rachel Bluebond-Langer of NYU Langone and pediatrician Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy of Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, as reported by trans journalist Ky Schevers

In short, Health Liberation Now is frequently described the same way in reliable sources, namely as an organization that researches political attacks on trans healthcare/rights and the forces behind them. Some describe them as an advocacy group for trans rights, however, I'll only say once that the rights of transgender people are not a POV but human rights. One can be an advocacy group and a reliable source, stating you support trans people outright should not disqualify you from being considered reliable. More than that, not a single reliable source has brought their reporting or credentials into question. The authors are considered subject matter experts as well, especially with regards to right-wing cooptation of detransition narratives to attack transgender rights.

What are the relevant wiki-policy and guidelines?

WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. WP:USESPS: Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved. Furthermore, A self-published source by an expert may become an authoritative reference for a claim, as with the best-selling self-published book The Joy of Cooking as a source for claims about cooking techniques and a self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source. Under the article's section Acceptable use of self-published works we have The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims. In terms of slightly lowering the bar for inclusion, WP:BIAS states The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, both in terms of the articles that are created and the content, perspective and sources within these articles. However, this goal is inhibited by systemic bias created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects and perspectives on the encyclopedia. and WP:SBEXTstates Representation within sources is not uniform due to societal realities, and the external lack of coverage results in an internal lack of coverage. It's no secret that most news organizations have less transgender staff than statistics would suggest they should, a little about that is available here. Also see the Trans Journalists Association's statements on the state of transgender representation in the newsroom. Generally speaking, the state of attacks on trans healthcare is not always reported accurately in news-rooms, and I haven't seen a single news organization which has done as thorough research into transgender healthcare as Health Liberation Now. Finally, the most important policy, WP:VERIFY: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it This is particularly relevant, as Health Liberation Now are verifiably an organization which investigates anti-trans laws and policies, and as I'll show next, all their claims and reporting are verifiable and well-sourced.

What have they said about Genspect specifically?

Note: To highlight the fact they are reporting verifiable facts I will include references to the sources they cite. Starting with their report A New Era, they've noted: Speaking on “gender issues” alongside James Esses of Thoughtful Therapists, on May 21st, 2022 O’Malley appeared as a workshop speaker at the FET Annual Conference in the UK.[81] An evangelical Christian group, FET has repeatedly lobbied against women’s, children’s and LGBTQ+ welfare, as well as having connections to the anti-gender movement through their appearance at the May 2017 World Congress of Families in Budapest, Hungary.[82] The 2017 World Congress of Families has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “who’s who on the anti-LGBT and anti-choice Christian Right”[83] encompassing a mixture of legislators and religious activists, with several prominent members playing key roles in funding the push against reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights in Europe.[84] 81 Links to the FET's ticket selling page, which lists O'Malley as a panelist 82 Links to a report by the Trans Safety Network which covers FET's activities with plenty of sources and citations. To quote the FET, A conversion therapy ban will effectively make it a crime to suggest to a person who follows a homosexual, bisexual or transgender path that they are on the wrong track and that such a lifestyle may be harmful. 83 Links to the SPLC statement on the world congress of families O’Malley’s workshop at the FET Annual Conference is not the first of such collaborations, nor will it be the last. On November 21st, 2021, the day after Genspect’s ROGD Conference, O’Malley appeared with Bob McCoskrie of Family First NZ.[93] Another Christian-led lobby group with significant international connections pushing conversion practices under the guise of “therapeutic choice”, Family First NZ was also represented at the World Congress of Families in 2017.[85] The 2021 panel of O’Malley and McCoskrie was promoted onto Genspect’s Twitter, tying her collaborations with them into Genspect’s formal operations.[94] Yet this was not the first time she had worked with them. Previously she joined Family First NZ’s push against Aotearoa’s pending conversion therapy ban under the banner of their ex-LGBTQ+ project Free to Live NZ (Figure 10).[95] Alongside her stood the forces of Laura Haynes, representing the IFTCC;[96] Erin Brewer, then representing Partners for Ethical Care (PEC) “on behalf of New Zealand children, primarily, who are suffering from gender dysphoria”;[97] and Family First NZ’s own testimony 94 links to Genspect openly bragging about their actions In addition to their direct collaborations, Genspect has promoted or directed their members to parent resources from anti-trans conversion practice advocacy groups, of both secular and conservative Christian varieties. Archive records show that both PEC and Advocates Protecting Children (APC), a project spin-off also co-founded by Erin Brewer, have been listed on Genspect’s resource list as “helpful groups”,[106] though APC has since been removed from the list. 106 links to an archived version of Genspect's page, which does list them as such In their “helpful groups” list Genspect also promotes Child & Parental Rights Campaign (CPR-C), a conservative Christian firm whose co-founding member Mary E. McAlister has worked as part of evangelical group Liberty Counsel to target conversion therapy bans on behalf of Christian conversion therapists Joseph Nicolosi, David Pickup, and Christopher Rosik.[67] Representing CPR-C, McAlister has also been featured in the supposedly-investigative Christian documentary “The Mind Polluters”, which posits that powerful LGBTQ+ organizations are infiltrating school systems to groom children with pornography.[110] CPR-C cites Quentin Van Meter in their 2020 School Resource Guide as part of a rather hefty citation nest of other notable figures, including but not limited to Lisa Littman, Kenneth Zucker, Susan Bradley, Paul Hruz, Michael Laidlaw, and Michelle Cretella.[111] 67 links to a previously published article by HLN available here which goes into depth and similarly provides proper sources and citations for all. You can view the context, where McAllister verifiably argued against a ban on conversion therapy on behalf of NARTH. They also published an account of Genspect's ROGD awareness day (hosted on Transgender Day of Remembrance as they have no shame): Two days later, a new lawsuit dropped in Waukeska county, Wisconsin. Headed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), the suit (CN: link contains misgendering) sought an injunction against Kettle Moraine school district on behalf of two parents after their kid changed his name and pronouns at school. Genspect later announced that they had met with lawyers from WILL about the case and provided “extensive affidavits from expert and Genspect advisor Dr. Steven Levine.” Yes, you read that right: Genspect is directly collaborating on ADF cases to cut off trans kids at school from supports. - The reference in the original text is a link to Genspect openly bragging about their involvement in the case on their website. Finally they published this which investigated an event of Genspect's: Following intra-community criticism surrounding Genspect’s inclusion of “gender critical” trans people on their team, as well as the feature of Debbie Hayton (a “gender critical” trans woman) on Gender: A Wider Lens Podcast and Stella O’Malley’s associations with Arty Morty, a Twitter Space was arranged by Lorelei (hatpinwoman) and O’Malley for December 11, 2021. Other notable attendees include Kate Harris of LGB Alliance, Julia Mason of SEGM, Sinéad Watson of Genspect and Gender Dysphoria Alliance, Carol Freitas of DetransVoices.org and LGB Alliance USA, Tania Marshall of GETA and (previously) PAGDWG, and a number of LGB Alliance members, doctors, teachers, and representatives of non-profit organizations. Around the same time both Genspect and Arty Morty of LGB Alliance Canada were facing criticisms for promotions of James Cantor, who has advocated for the inclusion of pedophilia into LGBTQ+ communities as a sexual orientation. Within the leaked audio, we find two major factors in terms of how O’Malley operates. Firstly, O’Malley makes explicit confessions to enacting conversion therapy/practices on trans youth in her care, with a particular emphasis on trans girls in this context, and connecting it to the transmisogynistic concept of “autogynephilia” (occasionally referred to as AGP) that is supposedly “porn-induced”. Second, she lays out her public outreach strategy using these practices and her other platforms, such as connecting with government bodies and promotion of the pioneer series in Gender: A Wider Lens Podcast. Quoting O'Malley herself: I suppose, uh, where I’m coming from this more than anything is, uh, to, um, make sure that children are, if- if at all possible, are stopped from medical transition. I think that’s the most important thing for me. when I’m talking to somebody who’s maybe 15 years old and is autogynephilic and has no idea what’s going on except ”get out of my way, I need to be a woman.”’ And that child is not able to articulate what the hell is going on. They don’t have the verbal ability to, they don’t have the conceptual maturity, and I have to try and figure out how do we help this fast increasing number? This is not like the Ray Blanchard numbers, this is a very fast, very quickly increasing number of boys. Now, are they ROGD, are they AGP, or frankly are they what I think: a mix between AGP and ROGD, and I think the AGP is porn induced I’ve no idea whether AGP is innate or not. Why? Because I don’t have autogynephilia, I never had it. So I’m kind of going- if some people are saying it is, and some people are saying it isn’t, my feeling is it’s developmental. I don’t really care whether it’s innate or not because I don’t think that absolves anybody. I don’t think that’s the point. The compulsion is a much more- more um important psychological point because if you look at pedophilia, it’s a compulsion. It gets- it gets them. And how do we get in the way of somebody who has a compulsion that actually seriously negatively wrecks other people’s lives? How do we stop that? Stella O'Malley was interviewed about her chapter in the book Inventing Transgender Children and Young People co-authored by Heather Brunskell-Evans of eliminationist group Women's Declaration International; Beyond targeting legislation banning conversion therapy, O’Malley and her organization Genspect have also been quite active in efforts to reshape social or medical supports for trans youth. In the US, Genspect has contributed to court cases led by Alliance Defending Freedom targeting school boards. Stephen Levine, a Genspect advisor and one of the erroneous “experts” used in the Bell v Tavistock case and Hennessy-Waller v. Snyder in the US, submitted affidavits in the Kettle Moraine School District case.

Changes proposed to the article

The long story short is we have multiple cases of them working with far-right groups which we are currently unable to include even though it's verifiable and of crucial relevance to the article. In many situations, they brag about it, and we only can't point it out since we don't consider this source pointing that out reliable enough. The following summary is not what would go into the text 1-1, but an overview of crucial details we are forced to leave out at the moment. Genspect was involved in attempting to sue a Wisconsin school for allowing children to socially transition without letting parents stop them (which gives more context for their ties to the Alliance Defending Freedom which are already mentioned in the article). Genspect has ties to the far right anti-LGBT groups FET, Liberty Counsel, the IFTCC (who's reason to exist is literally to advocate conversion therapy for LGBT people in general) and the World Congress of Families Genspect members were involved in the Bell v Tavistock case Genspect has worked alongside Family First New Zealand to oppose conversion therapy bans in NZ (we already mention they opposed the bans but don't mention they worked with Family First NZ) And Stella O'Malley, speaking for Genspect, has been quoted: stating her primary goal is to stop people medically transitioning describing teenage transgender girls as suffering from "porn-induced" "autogynephilia" with a side of ROGD, comparing their desire to transition to the urge of pedophilia

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure that this site is "acknowledged experts" based on the links I checked. So I doubt they pass RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Unlike what was said above, USESPS, BIAS, and SBEXT are essay pages, not policies. And how we address systemic bias is not by lowering standards for RS but by being sure to represent all RS, not just those aspects well-known to overrepresented demographics. There are lots of LGBT-focused media outlets that are used and recognized as RS, as well as outlets that are not LGBT-focused but do concern themselves in large part with progressive politics and still cover these issues, and may have transgender journalists. Quite a few of both of these sorts are cited by TheTranarchist above and in the Genspect article already.

I don't think it can be doubted that this is a self-published source. The site is run by two "co-developers", who seem write the material and one of whom wrote the post being quoted above. To emphasize it more clearly, WP:SPS states: Anyone can create a personal web page...That is why self-published material such as...personal websites...personal or group blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources....if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.[9] And in that footnote: Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Obviously, there are no peer-reviewers, fact checkers, or editorial staff checking the article in question here. Therefore, it is an SPS. And as such, no matter what, it cannot be used for any claims about living people, as OP proposes, per the SPS policy: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

To count as an expert SPS, this requires that it be produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. And the link to subject-matter expert says that this is defined by a person's degree or licensure, which makes sense. The sources above almost always refer to Health Liberation Now as an advocacy group, which does not necessarily imply expertise (note that anti-gender-affirmation advocacy groups also exist).

That a source contains things an editor wants to include or cites sources of its own in no way constitutes evidence it is reliable (lots of blogs do the same thing). I don't think this qualifies as an expert SPS and even if it did, it cannot be used for any BLP-sensitive matters. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. This is not a neutral notification, as the nature of HLN is itself a major part of the issue here. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Crossroads AndyGordon (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

TheTranarchist, I have collapsed the request. It has only received negative responses thus far, and it's a 23,166 character trainwreck. I am skeptical the source satisfies our reliability criteria, but your own post obstructed me from even attempting to evaluate the question. Your post was grossly overlong, and it is saturated with WP:Advocacy. Please read the Advocacy link, keeping in mind that the righteousness of a cause is irrelevant here. Our job is to accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say, without getting into the issues ourselves. If you open a discussion on this source, or any source, or on any question, or if you post a notification linking to a discussion, it should done in a neutral manner. You can then !vote and respond to the question with your arguments. Any arguments you present should address the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the evidence to make that case, rather than attempting to argue that an issue itself is good or evil or beneficial or harmful to the world. Alsee (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alsee:

1) There have been 3 against, two in support if you count me and Newimpartial from the original discussion on the talk page.

2) Please be civil, I could call your response a trainwreck but I'll stick to responding.

3) I collapsed the pre-existing sections (previously deliminated by indents) so you can read it before you judge.

4) The very first section, which you seem to have given up reading before accusing me of Advocacy, discusses how the publication is regarded in other reliable sources. The second section addresses how the authors and their expertise are regarded in reliable sources. The third brings up wiki-policy and guidelines (the fact wikipedia can be biased to reflect power imbalances in the real world is verifiably true). The fourth is what they've said that's relevant to the article, and the fifth is what changes (verifiable information that add crucial context to the article) are proposed based on that. Please point to the Advocacy.

Note WP:Advocacy states advocacy is avoided by letting the facts speak for themselves, as I've done.

5) I apologize for not putting it as a vote, I was confused by the format and will do better next time. However, the other day someone let me know I formatted something incorrectly without being uncivil. Not to mention, this was a pre-existing discussion migrated here for broader comment.

6) The issue I've highlighted throughout is that the source provides context for the article. Considering the fact that the article in question is about an organization that advocates conversion therapy, forced detransition, and works with far-right groups, more context is a good thing as no writing exists in a vacuum. Misrepresenting them can have real world consequences, accurately representing them is a mitzvah. But also, more context is generally a good thing. Two birds with one stone.

7) The issue at hand here specifically is whether Health Liberation Now can be considered a reliable source, either generally or specifically for this article and in the mentioned ways. Now that I've reformatted it, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that issue specifically. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Alsee, I am curious how you are seeing a trainwreck here? I see an RSN inquiry, perhaps overly detailed, but no more POV than other issues that are routinely raised here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

TheTranarchist/Newimpartial, Regarding that there was a support on the talk page, please note the distinction between the issue itself and the quality of the question as posted here. I have experience evaluating and closing over a hundred discussions, and participating in hundreds more. I have learned what works well and what doesn't. This was a 23kb wall of text and I found it unduly difficult get through it well enough to provide a useful response. I called it a trainwreck because I foresee little likelihood that it will receive much useful response or a constructive outcome. I expect many editors will either skip it due to length, or they will find it difficult to provide a quality response, or they may vote against it because it's overlong and difficult to take in. Speaking as an experienced discussion closer, sometimes it best to scrap a poor start and try again if necessary.

Regarding advocacy, the general tone gave me the impression that you are putting real-world goals ahead of Wikipedia policies. More specifically, I found several parts of your text unhelpfully distracting while I was attempting to understand the issue well enough to respond. For example:

• It's no secret that most news organizations have less transgender staff than statistics would suggest they should. That is a fine advocacy point if you are off-wiki working on fixing the world. However that has no bearing on whether content or sources are compliant with Wikipedia policy.
• I believe that turning our nose at large detailed and sourced reports on the growth of the conversion therapy movement does nothing but harm. Again, fine advocacy if you are off-wiki working on fixing the world. However those beliefs have no bearing on whether content or sources are compliant with Wikipedia policy.
• rights of transgender people are not a POV but human rights. Not only is your statement irrelevant to Wikipedia policy, it is advocacy to the point of denying the existence of any other POV. Saying the earth is round is a POV. Saying women should be allowed to vote is a POV. Saying we should not feed lead paint chips to children is a POV. We can and do have opinions on which POVs are good or bad, but as editors that is not supposed to affect our content and policy decisions.
• Generally speaking, the state of attacks on trans healthcare is not always reported accurately in news-rooms. I have said this to many people before: Wikipedia policy is that we accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say about a subject. Arguing that Reliable Sources are wrong or biased or unfair is effectively admitting defeat. An argument of that kind acknowledges that, under policy, we are required to summarize the sources in exactly the way you don't like.

Alsee (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alsee: I think you're right that I brought more from the original discussion that necessary, but I brought up that rights of transgender people are not a POV but human rights because WP:NPOV is a core Wikipedia policy and due to WP:FRINGE and WP:DUEit is absolutely relevant to policy. Real world goals and Wikipedia policies are not mutually exclusive. In the earlier discussion, editors had characterized HLN's position as an advocacy group for trans rights as therefore pushing a POV. However, medical consensus, and hopefully human decency, are in favor of trans rights.

I brought up the uneven proliferation of transgender journalists in newsrooms, since real-world circumstances and distributions of power affect what gets written and by who. My point therefore, is that the fact the source is self-published is mitigated by the material conditions of the world, and the fact that trans people concerned about conversion therapy are more likely to work together to publish large detailed reports of it than could be published in traditional short newspapers.

Besides, as I've said, there is context missing and too be added, not unverified radical departures from the prevailing view of the reliable sources. It is clear what Genspect is in the reliable sources. Genspect is known to work with far-right groups to oppose transgender rights. They do it a lot. Many of those sources quote HLN and link to their articles. HLN is merely another reliable source giving more specifics.

In consideration of your expertise in these discussions, and my admitted lack of it, and the desire to convey the most with the least, I'll relist it in a better format and trim as much as possible. Trainwreck is still more uncivil than helpful though, as is focusing on perceived advocacy as opposed to the point that advocacy for human rights is not inherently bias and not neutral. Most of what I did was quote:

1) how reliable sources describe them (as an organization known for researching political attacks on transgender healthcare),

2) how reliable sources describe their authors (as subject matter experts / researchers who track anti-trans activity),

3) what WP policy is relevant, since I find it useful to have the relevant policy supporting inclusion on hand for other editors to be able to read easily

4) what exactly they've wrote about Genspect, an organization known for its political attacks on transgender rights, ie what Health Liberation is known for reporting on. (all quotes from them containing cited and easily verifiable information)

5) some take aways from them specifically I want to include.

If relisted, do you believe that I should restrict it to discussion of Health Liberation Now rather than the more specific case of whether it's considered reliable in the case of the Genspect article? That does seem to have been a mistake on my part, as I thought specifics would be better than generalities but admittedly quotes from Genspect take up a large chunk. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist: hopefully human decency, are in favor of trans rights I agree, however I would suggest you'll have an easier time and be more effective on Wikipedia if you can learn to set aside those kinds of arguments here. They don't work here, and it can actually undermine your efforts. Real world goals and Wikipedia policies are not mutually exclusive true, however all humans are vulnerable to Motivated reasoning. The stronger one's views are, the more difficult it is to avoid bending or misinterpreting or misapplying rules in a way that serves a desired result. That can lead to trouble. The stronger one's views, the more careful one needs to be. I hope that comes across as helpful insight, rather than offense. WP:NPOV is a lofty ideal, not easy or simple.

I don't know if this will help or if I'm belaboring the subject, but my 'trainwreck' was intended in a functional sense, I was focused on the difficulty and likelihood for new arrivals to absorb and respond. I don't know if it helps to say 'Advocacy' was a contributing factor for why it turned out that way.

The response below by Sideswipe9th provides an excellent example of how to give a support rationale for this source. I think they may be overreaching by comparing this source with the vastly more established and vastly more WP:USEBYOTHERS orgs SPLC, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. While I think it was a bit of a reach, it was a respectable evaluation of the source under Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Regarding future RSN submissions: The "general reliability" style is appropriate for cases involving a source used across many pages, mainly when someone is considering large scale removal. The banner at the top has guidance for the more usual case: (1) When possible link to any previous relevant discussions, (2) clearly identify the the source (3) identify the article (4) include the exact statements in the article that the source supports. Sometimes additional info can be included in the initial submission, but avoid debating the article or off-wiki issue. For example any mention of Genspect should probably be limited to something like "Genspect is known for criticizing and opposing gender-affirming care and social and medical transitions for transgender". Note that I copy-pasted that from the lead, it's a great way to prevent opponents from derailing the discussion with complaints about a description I cooked up myself. The simplest and safest thing to do is to put your entire supporting (or opposing) rationale as the first reply to the submission, leaving a clean classy and indisputably neutral question. You can even post a submission and a your !vote/argument in one edit. Just put ~~~~ after the RSN submission, add a ===Discussion (sourcename)=== header, add your bulletpoint !vote and second signature, and save it in one shot. Alsee (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, it's not a reliable source. It is self-published and the authors are not subject-matter experts independently published elsewhere. Coverage of the blog in other media is not the same thing as recognition of reliability as a source. And, as noted above, a wall of text does little to convince readers, and drives most of them off. Banks Irk (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, but this approach doesn't seem consistent with how WP treats material directly published by other activist organizations with a reputation for reliable commentary, such as the SPLC or HRW. Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a reliable source. I think one of the most relevant parts of WP:RS for this discussion is WP:USEBYOTHERS. TheTranarchist has provided us with two lists demonstrating use by others; one for the publication Health Liberation Now, and a second for its two co-developers; Ky Schevers and Lee Leveille. For me, TheTranarchist has already demonstrated (if slightly weakly) that Leveille and Schevers are subject matter experts. So I'm going to focus on use by others demonstrated in the first list.

For the publication, we have use by six reliable media sources, and one academic source. All six of the media sources describe the publication in neutral to positive terms. Xtra's article appears to be a profile on both the publication and its two co-developers. LA Blade and NBC's uses are in attributed statements to Leveille. Texas Observer use for attributed criticism of a New York Times article published earlier this year. Both Vice and Time use the source for factual reporting, in their (Vice/Time) own editorial voice. The one academic source uses an article on the site factually supporting a sentence on detransitioners. That Vice, Time, and an academic are all satisfied to use the site for factual reporting I believe demonstrates sufficient USEBYOTHERS that we can consider this a reliable source.

With respect to bias, WP:BIASED lays it out pretty clearly that while we need to adhere to a neutral point of view when writing our articles, our sources do not, and indeed Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Despite some protestations from editors across the political spectrum, we generally do not hold biased publications to be unreliable solely on account of their bias. When we come to a consensus that a source is WP:GUNREL, it is usually either to do with their track record for a lack of fact-checking and a failure to correct errors, or because they are user-generated in some way. As it stands right now, while this discussion is slightly difficult to parse, I don't think any editor has pointed out any factual errors or criticisms of Health Liberation Now from other reliable sources.

Accordingly, I would weigh articles published by Health Liberation Now in the same way I would weigh an article by the SPLC, Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch. All three of those organisations are considered reliable sources per their entries at WP:RSP, and all three suggest that when using those sources for particularly controversial statements, those statements should be attributed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please clarify as to whether you believe they are an expert SPS, or an outright published RS? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's quite a leap to use WP:UBO to treat HLN on same terms as SPLC, AI, HRW. The policy says: "For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it". Where is the evidence that HLN enjoys "widespread citation without comment" on the same level as those three orgs? AndyGordon (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

To give one example, that is exactly how NBC uses HLN as a source here - they are referenced without comment for facts. I imagine this is typical. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

They described it as a trans rights advocacy group and assured the claims. This isn't an organization with a long history to draw on. If a RS cites them then we can cite the RS. They, by themselves should not be treated as a RS. Springee (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Joshuaproject.net - Citing Wikipedia and other information?

Hi, I know that this has been discussed in the past, and just about every time, the Joshua Project has been deemed an unreliable source of information, but some users have still cited the website for population numbers, such as the page for Japanese people at least as of early August 2022[1]. The citing of Joshua Project was in the infobox for a supposed Japanese diaspora number in the country of Greece. The cited link in the Japanese people page actually cites Wikipedia as one of their references.[2] Their "Data Sources"[3] section makes no mention of citing Wikipedia but it seems possible that many other pages may have cited Wikipedia without outright stating it.

I've just added a screenshot of the pages references, if that's sufficient enough for quicker access.[4]

Furthermore, their page on Russians in China for example, makes an unfounded claim that the few "purebred" ethnic Russians remaining in China (Russians in China are recognized as one of the 55 recognized ethnic minorities) are members of a religious cult who instruct their members to not intermarry with other "races".[5] This contradicts the account of at least one ethnic Russian living in China, who recalled a "necessity to gradually make [his] bloodline more Han Chinese through marriage" to avoid discrimination in Chinese society. They make no mentions of any Russian cult in the country and the ethnic Russian in question even have a Han Chinese wife.[6]

Again, I know the conclusion to the site was that it is generally deemed unreliable, but I don't think past discussions on the website's reliability mentioned stuff like this, and it doesn't appear to be noted in its section for the Perennial Sources page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Clear Looking Glass I think you haven't gotten any response in 4 days because you don't really seem to be asking anything. You say it has been discussed in the past and deemed unreliable. I looked at the source, and I believe you. It's a hobby site by three random religious enthusiasts. Certainly not a reliable source for population data. If you're up for the work I invite you to go ahead and remove this source - as well as the unreliable information in the articles. If you're looking for an explicit consensus to cite during removal, wanting to ward off possible objections, your post wasn't clear on what you were seeking. If you were proposing to add this to the Perennial Sources page, that wasn't clear either. Such a proposal should link a sufficient number of past discussions to warrant space on the perennial list. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Is PopMatters a RS in the following context

Please respond yes or no if the context in the PopMatters article for Exorcise Tape provides sufficient verifiable evidence that the album label was released by The Orchard to satisfy WP:N (music), based entirely on this single review and mention in this FB post in 2013? There is nothing I can find that legitimately verifies The Orchard released that album, or that it is on the record label, except for what appears to be a doctored graphic (album cover with added text) on PopMatters. The Daily Rind blog mentioned it at their FB site as a promotional/marketing style of mention, but the Demon Queen's FB page shows it was released under August 6, 2013 Fec's own Rad Cult label. PopMatters is the only source that even mentions The Orchard, obviously because they were paid to promote it, which is their line of business. I am obligated to mention that I nommed Exorcise Tape for AfD. I am not going to edit war over that statement in WikiVoice in the lead so I brought it here for input. Just trying to cover all the bases and do the right thing because I know how difficult it is to get a stand alone article for bands and albums that are far more notable than this little cult debut album. Atsme 💬 📧 23:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes celebrities section

This has been touched on before, here and (as referred to in that discussion) here. Like Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I don't think that it reaches the standard demanded by WP:DOB. Can we have some further discussion and consensus as to whether RT Celebs can be used for DOB? I don't feel comfortable using it. (One could argue that IMDb is just as reliable as they also have feedback and correction mechanisms, that I have used myself, and they do require some kind of proof - but I agree, it is far from foolproof so not arguing for this.) Would appreciate a ping if anyone responds. Thanks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, i as mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_320#Rotten_Tomatoes_reliable_for_actor_biography_details? by a user. It is also my opinion that BLP artciles should require a higher bar. Although looking at the company's parent company and there correction mechanisms, I feel as though this topic could be a dead end. Interested to see how this plays out though. Melancholyhelper (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Reliable as not user-generated and corrected subject to checks, owned by a major company that has access to reliable databases according to previous discussions Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

But IMDb is also subject to checks, as you can see here - they don't accept Wikipedia, "We are looking for links to public records, printed publications, or official documents" - similar standards to Wikipedia, and I don't know why we would trust their checkers any less on this matter. Do we know if RT owners actually check the DOBs on their celeb pages? Their main business is not biographies, but film criticism. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not suitable for BLP and I would caution about using it for the dead as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Generals.dk website for WW2 generals

Website generals.dk appears to be a self-published website with biographies and statistics about military generals of World War II worldwide, with unclear editorial or peer review procedures. The website is used as a reference in over 1,200 articles at Wikipedia.

The landing page has their "about" info, and the Acknowledgements page has their sources. The website appears to be a labor of love by an individual (Steen Ammentorp) with contributions by two dozen collaborators or contributors. The Acknowledgements page lists the provenance of their materials:

1. sources from "colleagues in various libraries" – seems fine (although I don't see those sources cited on individual bios; see below)
2. "members of various World War II forums and mailing list" – hmm; that would be a "no", afaic, unless published reliably
3. "relatives of the generals who have contacted me with additional information on their family members" – not RS; + COI
4. "like to single out the following individuals..." + list of 28 names.

It seems like the "library sources" are fine, but then, a better source would be whatever source they found in the library. Numbers 2 and 3 seem unreliable to me; #4 is unclear, I don't know anything about these individuals, but it appears that actual bios of generals do not cite the contributor who created or contributed to the page. As a test, I picked one contributor name at random ('Klemen Kocjancic') and he appears nowhere on the website except on he acknowledgement page itself.

This request arises from examining our article Paul-André Doyen, created a week ago by Filiep (talk · contribs) with no inline citations and only a bareurl in the § Sources section which links: this generals.dk page. That page has no citations or indication of sourcing, other than: "Picture source: Courtesy of Anonymous". I'm inclined to move the article to Draft as entirely unsourced, but if generals.dk could be considered reliable, maybe it's enough to just tag it as "more footnotes".

But what about the website more generally, as a source for information including biographies about military generals? Your thoughts appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't consider the site to be useful, because its pages are not comprehensive enough, and generally remove it from articles. Someone has been going around adding it to the external links. In the case of Paul-André Doyen, better sources can be found on the French version of the article at fr:Paul-André Doyen Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As a non-expert WP:SPS it is unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• I concur with the comments above. Clearly unreliable as non-expert SPS. Banks Irk (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I also noticed the 11 refs at the French article, but was concerned here primarily with generals.dk which seems to be used so widely. I'd love to hear more feedback, as a stronger consensus would give more backing if we eventually want to tag or remove citations to generals.dk from other pages, whether going forward or retroactively. Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Reportingradicalism.org

The website "Reporting Radicalism in Ukraine" is used as a reference in Far-right politics in Ukraine and Azov Regiment. I wanted to use it in the Wolfsangel article as it has a section about the use of this symbol by the far right in Ukraine Wolfsangel, and in particular, the section makes the very strong statement that: "Accidental use of this symbol or its use without an understanding of its connotations (for example as a talisman) is rare". However, I can't figure out if this site is really legit (like the Anti-Defamation League, who are used in the Wolfsangel article). I am wary that it is some sort of "front" for Russia, and I can't find out much about the reportingradicalism.org anywhere online? Is this a legitimate source for Wikipedia? 78.18.240.18 (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, it is registered under Freedom House in Washington DC. Suspicious. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I know we're not a reliable source, but Freedom House is a non-profit, majority U.S. government funded organization in Washington, D.C., that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As summarized in the Wikipedia article on Freedom House, it is a long-standing, respected and highly reliable organization. This is clearly a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

At a minimum they're certainly not a front for Russian disinformation, which was OP's primary concern. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Not a fluke either, every page has "The analysis presented on this platform was prepared by independent researchers and analysts in Ukraine in cooperation with Freedom House . Read more about this initiative." at the bottom with a link in the second bit to [7] which goes into detail. TLDR looks reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that and much appreciated for the fast response. 78.18.240.18 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi

There have recently been a lot of problems in the Balkan topic area regarding the use of Albanian author Pellumb Xhufi. While ostensibly an academic, he has been repeatedly criticized for "virulently Anti-Greek positions" [8] and nationalism by various scholars [9] (search for "nationalistischer Ton (Pëllumb Xhufi"). While publications in peer reviewed journals are considered reliable no matter the author, problems arise regarding the use of works by Xhufi that are published by publishers of unknown reliability and journals for which the level of peer-review is unclear. The issue has been festering for a while, and even though I've already posted twice here regarding this author, nothing conclusive was decided. I think the best way to resolve the question is via RfC with the following options.

Option 1. Publications by Xhufi not in international peer-reviewed journals should not used at all on Wikipedia.

Option 2. Publications by Xhufi not in international peer-reviewed journals should only be used to source non-controversial claims and facts.

Option 3. Publications by Xhufi not in international peer-reviewed journals can only be used to source controversial claims and facts with attribution ("According to P. Xhufi...). Non-controversial claims and facts do not need attribution.

Option 4. Publications by Xhufi not in international peer-reviewed journals can be used without attribution.

Please note again that the above applies only to publications by Xhufi not in international peer-reviewed journals. "Controversial" would be anything that is typically controversial (e.g. ethnicity, demographics), especially in relation to other sources. In order to achieve meaningful consensus it would be nice to have buy in from as many non-Balkan editors as possible. Khirurg (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't remove or obstruct the use of any source in Wikipedia which qualifies RS. The starting point is that his publications are reliable sources. In an ongoing discussion I wrote: There are two RSNs about Xhufi which didn't conclude that the source is unreliable, as I have explained to SR already in previous discussions. [10][11] Xhufi is a medievalist who is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Arbërit e Jonit was published by Onufri, a leading academic publishing house which has received many excellence awards and it has been positively reviewed in Studime Historike, Albania's leading historical journal by medievalist Ardian Muhaj. It checks all boxes for RS. We can't just cherry-pick one opinion to disregard someone's work. The quote which was picked is by an author who has even contributed to the same anthology with Xhufi [12]. It's a main source for a Cambridge University Press paper as of 2022[13]. Alltan (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alltan: simply claiming that he qualifies for RS, while scholarship does not agree can't make him RS. In fact scholarship does not hesitate to mark his work as: "aggressively nationalistic", "monoscopic", "stereotypic", "virulent anti-Greek", "one-sided", also "misinterpreting sources", while himself an active politician and quite frequent in nationalistic rhetoric in local TV shows. He is also quite famous for his anti-minority political speeches and also asked for the expulsion of the head of Orthodox Church of Albania. Is that kind of work RS? Definitely not.Alexikoua (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alltan: And you can't derail an RfC with specious excuses like : There are two RSNs about Xhufi which didn't conclude that the source is unreliable. Those two previous threads were inconclusive, hence the need for this thread. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to derail it like the two previous threads. Khirurg (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 & Option 2 I see a lot of problems with P. Xhufi.
• 1. The critiques by Schmitt virulently anti-Greek, [14] (translation here: specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric.), nationalist polemics are particularly searing, but there is much more that is troubling. His work has been criticized by a number of scholars for misuse of sources and nationalistic agenda:

• 2. Doris Kyriazis [15] (translation here: linguistic data is bypassed or used selectively),

• 3. Konstantinos Giakoumis ethnocentric, monoscopic and rather localistic interpretative apparatus, misinterpreted Ottoman registers.

• 4. Here is another, and lengthy and detailed critique by Kyriazis [16] (in Albanian).

• 5. He has also been criticized by Albanian scholars for falsifying primary sources [17].

• 6. Then there is a particularly troubling editorial by Xhufi in a Kosovo newspaper [18]; it is boilerplate Balkan nationalism: Conspiracies, demographic purity, Greeks in Albania are paid agents of the Greek government, etc.

• 7. He has further made wild claims that including ethnicity in the 2011 Albanian census will "turn Albania into another Lebanon" (obviously nothing of the sort has happened) [19], that doing so was selling out to Greek interests, and claimed on live tv that the Greek foreign minister Nikos Dendias is a "secret Albanian", apparently because his last name bears a similarity with an Albanian word [20].

• 8. He has also described internment camps in the People's Republic of Albania in which hundreds of children died as not bad.

In summary, I do not think publications by Xhufi outside of international peer-reviewed journals should be used yo source anything remotely controversial. Khirurg (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Schmitt has been extensively and very harshly criticized in The New German-speaking School of Balkankompetenzen: Knowledge production and truth claims in post-colonial post-communist context, Doja A., 2022: Schmitt’s disregard of the mainstream tradition of historical studies on Skanderbeg and his era is claimed to have led to both methodological and ideological bias (Frasheri, 2009 ¨ ). Actually, almost half of the data cited in Schmitt’s book are taken from the selection of sources by the Serbian historian Jovan Radonic, of whom he himself noted in passim was “a representative of Serbian nationalism” (Schmitt, 2009: 490), The parallel with Gibbon shows the extent to which age-worn stereotypes underpin Schmitt’s explanatory framework, which are shown in his use of forged documents that become crucial for key interpretations. I don't see why Schmitt writing something about Xhufi excludes him as a reliable source. Schmitt hasn't been excluded from RS despite the very harsh criticism about him and Schmitt has even contributed an article in the same volume with Xhufi. Inter-academic criticism between two academics doesn't make one unreliable.

2./3./4. You are misinterpreting the academic discussion, which isn't even evidence which disqualifies a source.

5.This is just an article which is part of a discussion about how certain terms should be translated from medieval Latin. There's nothing here which disqualifies Xhufi in this article and I think Khirurg should stop citing articles from Albanian as he's repeatedly misinterpreting the context of all articles in Albanian.

6. There's nothing problematic in that article and Khirurg's assessment that it's "boiler nationalism" and the attribution of conspiracy theories to Xhufi is in fact a BLP violation.

7.This too is one more link which has nothing to do with WP:RS and misrepresents what Xhufi has said. For most non-academic links it must be noted that they're not a part of what WP:RS is about. Xhufi never said that Dendias is a "secret Albanian" but even if he did, it wouldn't mean anything about Xhufi's reliability as an academic. The Dendias comment by Khirurg becomes egregiously wrong because Dendias himself has posted on his twitter account that his family origins are from Albania [21]. Essentially Khirurg is asking that Xhufi be disqualified as an academic for something which he didn't claim but which is actually true because the person in question (Dendias) has openly said so regardless of Xhufi claiming it or not. None of the above has any connection to how reliable sources are defined which makes this entire argumentation senseless.

8. He has also described internment camps in the People's Republic of Albania in which hundreds of children died as not bad Xhufi has never described them in any such way and never said anything about children. Khirurg has posted before this false claim and he was debunked when user Ahmet Q. posted what Xhufi said [22] in Khirurg's first RSN , which means that Khirurg already knows that his accusation is blatantly false. This is an extreme breach of BLP rules and should have consequences. It's completely unacceptable for someone to repeat a false claim about a living academic for the second time with no repercussions. Alltan (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alltan: the precise part reads: Pellumb Xhufi has angered scholars and the descendant of survivors of an infamous labour camp by claiming the conditions there were ‘not bad.Alexikoua (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to unsourced or poorly sourced material. Everything I have shown is impeccably sourced and addresses Xhufi's work or comments, not Xhufi himself. For instance, I am describing Xhufi's editorial in the Kosovo newspaper as "boilerplate" (not "boiler") nationalism, not Xhufi himself. You can't use BLP to stifle criticism of an individual's work, see WP:CRYBLP. Regarding Dendias, he has stated that his family is from Himara, which is a majority ethnic Greek region, so there's that. And regarding the internment camps, the Balkan Insight source is not only a top notch source but crystal clear for anyone to see, and the link you posted doesn't work anyway. Khirurg (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Himara is a region of Albania, so why would calling Albanian someone from Himara make anyone an unreliable source as an academic? Xhufi hasn't even said what you attributed him, so the entire point is non-sequitur. Xhufi has never described internment camps in the People's Republic of Albania in which hundreds of children died as not bad You know since November 2021 that your false claim isn't true. Either remove this sentence, or else admins should get involved to strike it. This is BLP violation of the worst kind. Alltan (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@You need to stay on topic: none objects that Himara is part of the Albanian state, what's wp:POV is that someone claims that "Himara is and was always inhabited by ethnic Albanians exclusively" and this POV is defended by Xhufi.Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This is very flawed if it is an RFC (read wp:RFC). Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) WP:TROUT everyone involved - between the non-neutral RfC statement and the inaccurate invocation of BLP by Alltan, this is going nowhere fast. I would recommend bringing this to WP:DRN instead, as discussions that involve in-depth analyses of academic sources are rarely a good fit for RfC until all substantive arguments have been identified and clearly presented for uninvolved third-parties to assess. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• TNT this mess and start over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Got it, will go to DRN. Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note I have removed the RfC template and section heading as this isn't formatted like an RFC, being not brief and not neutral and as the initiator has agreed to take it to DRN instead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

RS for Indian flags

Over at Indian Rebellion of 1857 the dispute over Indian state flags has started up again. The additions (to the info box) is unsourced. Over at a users discussion page they have used these sources to say they can be sourced.

http://www.hubert-herald.nl/BhaAwadh.htm

https://www.worldstatesmen.org/India_princes_A-J.html#Jhansi

https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/in-jagdi.html

Do these pass RS? Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The first is self-published, and not reliable. The second has scores of contributors, appears to have an editorial process, and looks to be a reliable, tertiary source. The third is based on user contributions, has apparently no editorial process, and disclaims accuracy of those contributions, so it is definitely unreliable. Banks Irk (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The second source is also a self published source. Accepting contributor inputs is not sufficient, otherwise there is no indication of an editorial process or any apparent qualifications of its author. Note that, it's deprecated and listed on the edit filter as well.

So none of these are reliable sources, being either self published or user generated sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is another

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bnHhL1IxGYYC&pg=PA4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also as to CRW flags "WP:RSP says nothing about CRW flags so sorry if I'm having a difficult time believing you", is the argument being used it is an RS. Do we really need an RFC to put in on RSP? Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No… RSP is only for sources that are perennially discussed (over and over again). The fact that a source is not listed says nothing about how reliable it is. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I know, but it is an illustration of what we are facing over there. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Also they are using this RSN discussion to claim that CRW flags is an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

None of those three appear reliable, and flag use in that infobox strays into MOS:FLAGCRUFT anyway. CMD (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

And another [[23]]. This is getting ridiculas, can others go over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Flags and explain this to them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at this more closely, none of these are reliable sources. So if anyone is hanging their hat on my "maybe" regarding worldstatemen.org, I withdraw my "maybe". I sympathize with your frustration at the article talk page, but I'm not going to toss myself into to that briar patch. Banks Irk (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

T. Abashkina, L. Podymov and other authors in the article "Socionics"

The Socionics article has a big problem with reliable authoritative sources. The article starts like this: "Socionics, in psychology and sociology, is a pseudoscientific theory of information processing and personality types. It incorporates Carl Jung's work on Psychological Types with Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism". A common feature of these sources is that these sources only mention once and without detailed consideration or definition of socionics throughout their text. Their authors are several philosophers (for example, in the article Zhilina V. A.; Nevelev A. B.; Kamaletdinova A. Ya. (2017) there is a record of the dialogue of three philosophers, and in the remark of one philosopher - Zhilina V. A. socionics is mentioned once without explanation or analysis), philologist ( T. Abashkina (2015), a physicist (L. Podymov (2018), a student and teacher of management without a degree (E. Ivashechkina; G. Chedzhemov (2019), who do not claim that socionics is a pseudoscience at all), and even a journalist- geographer (A. Sergeev), who once mentioned socionics in a publicist article about homeopathy (This article is erroneously or intentionally presented as the opinion of the commission on pseudoscience, but this commission made a decision only once - on homeopathy and never - on psychological sciences, including socionics). But none of these authors is a specialist in psychology or sociology. Moreover, 5 out of 10 authors (T. Abashkina (2015), L. Podymov (2018), E. Ivashechkina; G. Chedzhemov (2019), A. Sergeev) of the cited articles do not have a Ph.D. in any field at all. 2. However, in the next sentence, which has now been removed without explanation [24], referring to 20 sources from various countries of Eastern and Western Europe, it is written that socionics is defined as a science: "A number of reference books and textbooks on psychology and social sciences, as well as a number of researchers, define socionics as a science that studies and models the information structure of the psyche, the information interaction of a person with the world and offers an information theory of relations between people. ." First of all, these are encyclopedias and textbooks on psychology, sociology and other related sciences. They were written by independent respected professors and doctors of sciences from different countries. Therefore, the question arises about the reliability of such authors as Abashkina, Podymov, Ivashechkina, Chedzhemov, Sergeev. Jim MacKenna (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend that any interested editors have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk before spending their time on this. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

CU blocked as a sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

Techdirt and Metropolitan News-Enterprise

What is the current view of Techdirt and Metropolitan News-Enterprise http://www.metnews.com/ as reliable sources? They have the only reporting on recent developments regarding the estate of Gene Kelly, so it would be good to be able to use this material in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a 121-year-old legal newspaper, should be fine. Techdirt, a group blog, generally would not be reliable. John M Baker (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Are Salon and Decider RS for film reviews?

Does Salon and Decider, listed on Rotten Tomatoes, indicate that they are reliable for film reviews? This was raised in a discussion with User:Donaldd23 for The Relationtrip. Per WP:RSP, Salon is marginally reliable and Decider from the NY Post is generally unreliable. (There's also another review from Moveable Fest which seems IMO to be self-published.) However, as they are listed on Rotten Tomatoes, should they be reliable and count towards notability in this case? I disagree that they should automatically be considered as generally reliable because they are on RT, as per WP:RSP, Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable, but many thanks for your help! VickKiang 23:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

They are reliable as opinion sources (of which film reviews are) per WP:RSOPINION. Whether they are recognized film review outlets (compared to, say, Variety, NYTimes, etc.) is a different question and likely depends on which film. This is distinct from being marginally reliable or generally unreliable for facts. Masem (t) 23:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As WP:RSOPINION, should they count towards notability? VickKiang 23:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If they are the only sources, that may be a problem. If they are among multiple other sources that are nominally reliable for facts, they probably help a bit. Masem (t) 00:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, they should not count towards N. Atsme 💬 📧 23:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

There are two other reviews that are probably RS (Indiewire and Austin Chronicle), making the article linked above borderline notable. Given that doubts have been expressed for Salon and Decider, I'll assume that these refs don't really count as a full ref to WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, though the former could probably stay as per WP:RSOPINION. VickKiang 00:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• The general tradition is that reviews count towards the notability of books and nothing else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not true, notability can be established for films based on them having 2 RS reviews, see WP:NFO DonaldD23 talk to me 01:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Take another look, those don't establish notability they "generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  You are misinterpreting that. Two reviews by reliable sources are used every day in deletion discussions for films, and if the film has 2 RS reviews it is always kept as notability has been proven. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  To clarify...the 2 reviews ARE the reliable sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  If it is being used that way it is being used in error, it only indicates that the sources are likely to exist but if an exhaustive search can't actually find those reliable then the subject actually isn't notable. Do you care to name the editors who are apparently making this error daily? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, they are reliable sources for film reviews, and for establishing notability of the films being reviewed. Banks Irk (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes reliable for film reviews and as they are used by rotten tomatoes they have a national audience to pass criteria 1 of WP:NFILM which most film editors use as a basis of WP:GNG as full reviews in independent sources are significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither of the critics appear to be "nationally known critics." which is clear requirement of WP:NFILM. Not sure where you're getting "national audience" from as thats not part of the standard. Gary Kramer and Josh Sorokach are not nationally know, they aren't even notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As per this Wiki Film Project discussion here at section 58, nationally known critics does not mean the critics are individually notable which would be rare but it means they have a national audience in a well known publication. Even most NYT critics are not individually notable. Also note that some of the editors in that discussion actually wrote the guideline, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If that really is a consensus then why hasn't the page been changed to match? It currently says "critics' not "publications." Salon has a national audience but its not a newspaper and the people on that talk page are very clear about it applying to newspapers, and NY Post does not have a national audience nor is it a national paper. Nor is the NY Post a reliable source, we already have a consensus about that and there is no carveout for film reviews. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The question in that discussion related to newspapers, if it had been nationally known magazines the answer would have been the same. Its a rough guideline to passing WP:GNG not a strict requirement. The NYP entry says unreliable for factual reporting especially in politics so its debateable whether a film review would be ruled out on that basis, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Despite their early handle they're actually a website and always have been. You seem to have skipped over the part where the NY Post isn't a national paper, NYC has two national papers and neither of them is the NY Post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Qualifying as a "national" paper can be up for debate. In Florida the NY Post is sold on many newsstands there. That is far outside the "New York Metropolitan area" that it says on the list of newspapers Wikipedia article. In addition, while the actual publication might be limited to certain areas, their websites are available anywhere in the world. As for reliability, their "news" isn't considered reliable...but film, TV, book, music, etc reviews are. As for "nationally known critics"...can anyone name a critic today? Siskel and Ebert and Gene Shalit are the only ones I can name and they are either dead or retired. Nationally known is meant to mean the publication it is published in, which, even if it is not published in every state, the NY Post is well known. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Florida is New York South... NYP isn't national, you know better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are nationally known critics, even if they're not named Siskel, Ebert, Reed, Maltin, Crist or Kael.[25][26][27][28]Banks Irk (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Good point, though I'd like to point out being listed on RT doesn't automatically indicate it's nationally well known. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Machine for an AfD with contradicting interpretations, despite my personal POV that it's borderline notable. VickKiang 23:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

They might be, but none of those sources actually says they are... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe occasionally for Salon due to being marginally reliable; generally no for the Post due to being generally unreliable. Per WP:RSOPINION, the basic example for something that is reliable for opinion but not fact are labeled opinions in publications otherwise considered reliable; if a base publication is unreliable for statements of fact then its labeled opinion pieces generally fall short of RSOPINION. RS is, of course, contextual, and an extremely unexceptional statement that is plainly pure opinion along the lines of "X liked / disliked the film" might be usable, but if the Post publishes a review that says eg. "this film is fascist and anyone who enjoys it is a fascist" or "this film is going to cause the downfall of western civilization" or something, we couldn't cite that to them alone even as attributed opinion. RSOPINION isn't intended to be for citing factual or exceptional claims like that to unreliable sources just by adding "according to X..." --Aquillion (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is not what RSOPINION says, it only relies on an example of opinion published in an RS. An opinion published a non RS is an RSOPINION (unless we know the work in question may change opinions like Daily Mail). But that then shifts the question to UNDUE to ask if that opinion is of similar weight to others. For film, this is actually a bit of a difficult task as there are dozens of known film reviewers, and while a small number are known experts, others are hit or miss. But that is really where the question lies (as shown above). Masem (t) 15:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, that interpretation doesn't make sense. By your argument RSOPINION allows essentially any source as long as it is framed as opinion, which is not a reasonable reading of its text - it plainly presents RSOPINION as a specific subcategory of WP:RSes, not as a general statement that all opinion is reliable. As a simple example, we would never cite an opinion to a Reddit post, to a random Youtube channel, or to our own article talk pages. Exactly what falls under RSOPINION is vaguely defined, but it is clearly not "any opinion expressed anywhere by anyone"; as a subcategory of RS, some degree of the basic requirement for editorial controls and the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that all RSes require still necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

New York Post opinions are reliable per WP:NEWSORG. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You're going to have to expand on that one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• This seems to be getting far afield, and outside the scope of RSN. The real question being debated is, are reviews from these two critics at these two sources sufficient to establish notability per Notability Films? Not an issue for RSN. My own take is, if a film is reviewed at both Salon and the Post, it is more than enough to establish notability, regardless of who the reviewers are. These are nationally known and prominent publications..arguments to the contrary are utter nonsense... whose political slants are at opposite ends of the absurdly narrow US spectrum (but I digress). I'd be flabbergasted if these are literally the only reviews for this film (I'm insufficiently motivated to actually check). I'd also point out that the films notability essay is merely a guideline. But, back to my original point, not a question for RSN. Banks Irk (talk)`

So you're saying that the post doesn't count for notability because its generally unreliable except for some reason when it comes to films where it does count for notability despite being generally unreliable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I would tend to consider two RS reviews sufficient. NY Post is GUNREL so presumed UNDUE unless there's good reason a given piece isn't. But one RS and one GUNREL would be borderline for notability - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, film reviews count for notability. Yes, Salon is known for film reviews and I cannot see a reason why it shouldn't be considered reliable for them. Decider is tricker, because I don't know the extent to which it's separate from NY Post. The Post is unreliable for statements of fact regarding a range of subjects, but has anyone done a deep dive into their film coverage (especially via Decider)? I'd be curious. I'd be inclined to say that either would be ok, as two publications known for film reviews, but to exercise caution for any film that veers into their respective political biases. Like, I don't think we should be using NYP in a review of a climate change or criminal justice-related documentary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC for Coin Coin Chapter Three: River Run Thee

There's currently a RfC regrading the use of one of Anthony Fantano review in the article. Feel free to comment on it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement between primary and secondary sources

I'd like to start a discussion on what to do when usually-reliable secondary sources, and primary sources, disagree with each other. My specific question is about Andrew Tate; my arguments are explained at: discussion 1 and discussion 2 if you want to read them in full.

Here is the claim in the Andrew Tate article:

[Tate] detailed how he would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity

Here are the source passages:

1. In one video Mr. Tate recorded while sitting in a bed, he described keeping a machete by his bed and what he would do if a woman accused him of cheating: “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her up by the neck.” [29] (New York Times)
2. “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up bitch,” he says in one video, acting out how he’d attack a woman if she accused him of cheating. [30] (The Guardian)

Putting on our textual analysis hats from the university days: both secondary sources explicitly and plainly claim:

1. that this clip depicts Tate claiming he would react with violence if any woman ever accused him of cheating in real life;
2. that this clip depicts Tate reenacting this violent reaction

I think the primary source material easily disproves both, without requiring any non-obvious interpretation (therefore not violating WP:OR). The original video is titled "TATE ON WOMENS SELF DEFENCE FAILS" [sic]. The video is about Tate's opinion that "female self-defense classes" make money off women by lulling them into a false sense of safety, and that they should run instead of trying to fight. The original video was on YouTube; it's now available at [31]; the Odysee channel is directly owned by Tate, not a "fan copy", making this a primary source; the relevant passage is 0:33 until 2:21. For those who understandably don't want to watch the video, below is a transcript of the relevant passage from the original video linked above. I've only lightly edited it to remove some expletives; I've tried to be authentic to the source:

A lot of people ask me: Andrew, why do you have a machete next to your bed? And my answer's simple: why wouldn't I have a machete next to my bed? [...] What if someone gets in the house, gets fresh? So yeah someone knocks on my door in the middle of the night, I have to go answer the door, instantly pick up my machete. People: "oh yeah, but it's weird." It's really not weird. I think ahead motherfucker, I have a machete next to my bed. In fact, there's at least, depending on the room, between one and three machetes hidden in every single room in my house even bathrooms. Any room I'm in in my house, I can produce a weapon[...]. So some dude, [...] once said to me: "Yeah but if it's next to your bed, what if you like upset a girl and she catches you cheating, and gets the machete?" Bro. There's no female alive, even with a machete, that would stand a chance, against the immense power I possess. Have you ever seen a woman try and do anything competently? [...] If I picked this [machete] up, you ain't fucking with me; I'd have my left hand, I'd still, like, jab, I'd fucking swing low, take your [...] knee out, you ain't gonna see it coming. What would a woman do? [Imitates a woman swinging a machete at him, laughs] Slap the machete, slap her in her face, one hand. Machete, and then backhand. I perfected this in pimp school, when I got my Ph.D., we had to practice if a girl comes at you: [Imitates a woman swinging a machete at him] "You cheated, you cheated!" It's bang out the machete, boom in her face, and grip her up by the neck: "Shut up bitch," [cuts to a clip from the How High (2001) movie].

To me, a very important thing to note is the context behind the clip being commented on by the Guardian and the NYTimes, which most people here may not be aware of: the clip was likely the single most viral Tate clip on TikTok, and in its most viewed versions, it only included: "You cheated, you cheated!" It's bang out the machete, boom in her face, and grip her up by the neck: "Shut up bitch,". I feel that WP:RSBREAKING strongly applies here, since it is quite likely that both the writers of the NYTimes and Guardian articles only saw that version of the clip, and did not see the full YouTube video, which had already been taken down when the articles were written (the Odysee channel was and remains obscure, so it's unlikely either journalist or their editors knew about it). It's therefore quite likely that they only saw the short TikTok version (hence, WP:RSBREAKING), and thought Tate was claiming he would assault any girl who accuses him of cheating; I think the primary source disproves that. This is, plainly and objectively (no matter your opinion on Tate), a comedic mise-en-scene illustrating his view that female self-defense is a scam; it is emphatically not a claim that he will assault any woman who accuses him of cheating. I think this specific claim by the NYTimes and Guardian is not worthy of inclusion. Interested in your thoughts.

I am posting this here following User:Throast's suggestion, who I thank.

Here are some more policy-related arguments I've made previously in the discussions linked at the beginning; which I'm collapsing for length & readability reasons.

These arguments are copied from discussion 1 and discussion 2: This is a topic that Wikipedia guidelines are notoriously ambiguous on. This isn't the same kind of problem as statements of opinion or interpretation made by WP:RS (for example, a comment criticizing MeToo could be described as misogynistic or trivializing in all WP:RS, and that would need to be included even if editors disagree). Here, we have not a statement of opinion but a statement of fact, and I feel it simply doesn't describe the source correctly. I feel WP:VNOT gives editors some leeway in determining if a claim is worthy of inclusion. WP:NPOV states that all viewpoints should be represented according to their due weight in WP:RS. I don't believe "viewpoints" include statements of fact, in the legal sense of that term (for example, if the Guardian bizarrely published that Tate had great hair, we would clearly not include that in the article even if it was the only WP:RS source that described his hair, since we would just attribute it to a mistake or oversight). What if Biden made a joke, and an overwise-reliable source took it out of context and distorted it? I feel like editors would simply not include that (though Biden is a special case, since anything he says would have dozens of sources reporting on it, and we would just cite the good ones and ignore the others). WP:OR only dictates that original research should not be included in the article; it does not mean that if all editors agree that a WP:RS claim is mistaken, it must still be included. And the spirit of WP:OR is to prevent WP from being flooded with editors' personal opinions, and remain encyclopedic; I think the inclusion of this sentence makes the article less encyclopedic, not more. I've seen similar debates around transcripts on Wikipedia, where a full video was available, and secondary sources introduced mistakes in their transcript; there was no official transcript available. The consensus I saw (I wish I remembered which page this was on) was that the correct transcript should be included, and this would not count as WP:OR since it is plainly visible to anyone. Similarly, here, when a claim is plainly incorrect and has not reliably been reported in other WP:RS (and is therefore of dubious notability), shouldn't it be removed, as long as the move is not controversial among editors? WP:BLPGOSSIP also seems to apply. Keep in mind that this question is not just about this passage; I'm also asking how I should approach these issues in equivalent disputes on other BLPs and topics. Though the policies are ambiguous, I'm sure there have been significant precedents.

DFlhb (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear there isn't actually a pimp school at which this person obtained a doctorate? This is an idiom for life experience (aka school of hard knocks), correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a comedic statement equivalent to similar claims by rappers. Tate calls himself a pimp derisively in reference to his webcam modelling business, but has never been documented by any WP:RS source to have been involved in prostitution. Tate himself claims that he never attended university. DFlhb (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So if Pimp School = his lived experience whats the issue here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The "pimp school" comment is not the focus of this discussion; this discussion is about the two WP:RS which explicitly claim that Tate stated that he would react with violence if any woman ever accused him of cheating. Since they are admitting to basing their claims on the primary source I listed above, I think their claim conflict with the primary source, hence the need to decide whether the claim should be included. There's a large difference to me between, let's imagine, If any woman accuses me of cheating, I'll attack her (which would back up the secondary sources), and this clip expressing Tate's view that women "can't fight" (his words) said within the context of a video about female self-defense. I further provide evidence that it's very unlikely that the journalists or their editors managed to see anything other than a very short out-of-context TikTok clip (since the video had been taken down from YouTube by the time the articles were written), which could reasonably explain why the WP:RS misrepresent the primary source. DFlhb (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That is supported by the text, a less charitable reading would be that he was actually claiming to have done it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. The text is quite clear to me that he is talking about defending himself if a woman attacked him with a machete, in an explicitly comedic way (see for example the inclusion of the How High (2001) stoner comedy film immediately after the passage in question). Do you really think that the clip features Tate making a general statement that he will if any woman ever accuses him of cheating? Even an uncharitable reading wouldn't yield that. If Obama made a joke, and Fox News (which was, throughout his presidency, considered a WP:RS) took it out of context, I'd be surprised if anyone would defend using that Fox source in an article. The joks is not even about assaulting women; it is about him defending himself, within the context of a video about female self-defense. DFlhb (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you might be missing the forest for the trees a bit here; I don't think either source is offering the quote as evidence that this is something that the article subject has done or might do, but rather as a data point in a general trend of alleged misogyny. Either way, they strike me as reasonable interpretations, as does yours, though I personally think WP:OR does apply in this situation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think either source is offering the quote as evidence that this is something that the article subject has done or might do Then surely you disagree with Wikipedia stating that Tate would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity? I completely agree that within the context of the NYTimes and Guardian articles, they are highlighting this as part of a trend of alleged misogyny, not claiming that this is something he might actually do. But then it is us who are misusing the secondary sources by making them back up a claim that they do not back up. DFlhb (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the basis for calling it a joke? In the video he appears to at least be acting seriously, he does gives the impression that there actually are machetes in his house. It doesn't appear to be a fictional setup for a joke. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I never said the machete part was a joke. The point (which we keep moving away from) is that he is comedically embellishing his point that "females can't fight" (his view, not mine), not stating that he would assault any women who accuses him of cheating, and the claim should not be in the article per WP:RSBREAKING and secondary-primary source mismatch; that is all.

The current Wikipedia article states that "Tate would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity", which is not true based on the primary source. DFlhb (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So some is a joke and some is serious? He is joking about attacking women who accuse him of infidelity but not about having machetes around his house? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, the video plainly does not show him stating that he would attack women who accuse him of infidelity, either jokingly or not. I just don't see how any reasonable reading of the passage would yield that. I feel like you are misinterpreting what I was referring to by "joke"; his "joke" (whether you find it funny or not) is that "females can't fight", in his words. He simply never claimed he would attack them, not jokingly or non-jokingly. DFlhb (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You realize that an attack in self defense is still an attack right? He is clearly talking about attacking women accuse him of infidelity, you can argue there is more context but you can't argue with the facts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

His point is clearly that he could easily overpower a woman if she attempted to attack him, within the context of a video about female self-defense; I don't see how it has anything to do with what he would do if a woman were to accuse him of cheating. Again, Wikipedia stating in encyclopedic voice that he would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity (note the plural, and the generalization) as the page currently does, is not accurate. Do you dispute that? DFlhb (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Two things: (1) the page does not currently say that; and (2) the last revision has detailed how he would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity and not just would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity which to my mind gives a very different connotation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Great, so the whole premise was presented in bad faith. Thanks for wasting everyone's time DFlhb. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

For a user who has been on Wikipedia for 4 years, and has 40k edits, I would expect far more WP:GOODFAITH from you. See my response above on why I think Dumuzid's comment misrepresents (I think, fully inadvertently) the context of this discussion. DFlhb (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You are right, while I wish you had laid out the context better after reading through everything I do not think that you made any decisions in bad faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fair; I was trying to be WP:SUCCINCT but looking back I should have laid out the context more clearly. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The page did say that, and that is the entire cause for this discussion; it was removed an hour ago by User:Throast as a result of me creating this discussion, pending the results of the discussion; I think you are implying dishonesty on my part, where there simply isn't any.

I also don't believe that there is any difference in connotation between the two phrases you cite. Andrew Tate was edited earlier today to change Tate has described himself as "absolutely a sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist", and has stated that women "belong to the man" and that he would attack women were they to accuse him of infidelity; the sentence was shuffled around to integrate more source material into the Wikipedia article, and "stated" was changed to "describes" without any discussion on the article's talk page; to me, that clearly implies that Throast thought the two sentences were equivalent; I fully agree that they're equivalent. I don't see at all how this changes anything at all, or how I misrepresented anything. DFlhb (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not mean to accuse you of dishonesty, just to make sure we were all working with the same set of facts on the ground. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Cheers, context is important indeed. DFlhb (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

DFlhb, I actually intended to change its meaning after taking a second look at the NYT citation. I chose not to raise the change on the talk page beforehand because I thought it would be uncontroversial. That doesn't change the fact that both NYT and The Guardian are leaving out essential context and hence misrepresenting the primary source. I'm totally in agreement with you there. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, this is a trivial detail that has no bearing on the overall issue. I don't understand why you're hanging yourself up on it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we just cut that part from his bio entirely? The secondary sources are unintentionally misrepresenting the primary source, but no other secondary source have pointed this out so we don't actually have justification to use only the primary source. If we can't repeat the secondary source claims without getting into BLPVIO, but citing the video itself would be UNDUE/violate RS, then the material just shouldn't be in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree, I would never suggest only only a primary source for controversial stuff. If it hasn't been covered reliably, is controversial and is only in WP:RSBREAKING it's likely not worthy of inclusion altogether. DFlhb (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, based on the transcript, the NYT and Guardian are clearly in error here. Contrary to what they said, Andrew Tate wasn't explaining what he would do if a woman accused him of cheating; he was explaining what he would do if a woman accused him of cheating while trying to attack him with a machete. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The question is, do we discard those two articles (NYT and The Guardian) as unreliable on Andrew Tate as a subject matter based on this inaccuracy? Both are currently cited at other points throughout the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think given that this shows a certain editorial failure on those articles (which I am not suggesting is typical of either the NYT or Guardian), I've reviewed the other places we use either piece in the article.

Most of the claims they back up are not contentious. The only claim that might be argued to be contentious is he has stated that he dates women aged 18 and 19 in order to "make an imprint" on them, which is only backed up by the Guardian. I think that too is a misrepresentation. The original video is [32], and the relevant passage (easy to find thanks to YouTube's transcript feature) is 29:15; Tate is claiming that "18-19 year olds" are "more attractive than a 26 year old", not that he dates 18-19 year olds; Tate is mentioning this within the context of his earlier claim that "men find innocence attractive". I'd support removing that sentence since it also seems like a misrepresentation, but keeping both NYT and Guardian in the other places they're currently used. DFlhb (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

How can you be sure that that's the video they are referencing? I can't imagine that they created the "make an imprint" quote out of whole cloth. The quote has been featured in other RS as well, I believe. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't clear enough, that's on me. The video mentions "imprint" specifically, and that's the only video that shows up when searching "Tate imprint" on Google. The full quote is:

In general this is also one of the reasons men find youth attractive. You want to blow up the internet I'll pull up the internet right [expletive] now, the reason 18 and 19 year olds are more attractive than 25 year olds is because they've been through [fewer boyfriends]. I'll say this right here on the [expletive] internet [...]. A 19 year old is more attractive than a 26 year old woman and I'll tell you why: because that 26 year old has talked to more guys, been to the club more times, been more places, been fucked and dumped more times, more arguments, more heartbreak, more [expletive], more mess for me to clean up. Whereas a 19 year old might have had one guy from high school, just broke up, she's fresh and I could [expletive] put my imprint on her, make her a good person and without her having to go through all that detriment to learn.

This is indeed the correct video; it's just misrepresented. DFlhb (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Although not as egregious as the machete quote imo, I do agree that they're misrepresenting him there. This NBC News article seems to stick to his words more closely, stating [Tate claims] that men would rather date 18- and 19-year-olds over women in their mid-20s because the former have had sex with fewer men. Since they’re less experienced in dating, men can “make an imprint” on teenagers Would you be fine with rephrasing the sentence to reflect the NBC News source? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine, though "teenagers" and "young women" shouldn't be used in Wikivoice since they could be taken to imply underage girls (I don't think that's NBC misrepresenting him, they're just trying to avoid repetition). Though "young women" generally implies adults, it's also frequently used by some people as a euphemism for underage women. I think we should explicitly say 18 and 19 year olds. How about changing it to:

Tate has described himself as "absolutely a sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist". He has stated that women "belong in the home", "can't drive", are "given to the man and belong to the man", and that "18- and 19-year olds" are more attractive than older women since they've had sex with fewer men.

We could also directly quote the primary source if you think that's appropriate, and change had sex with fewer men with "been through less dick", which we could then put in quotes. That's up to you; though I have a preference for "had sex with fewer men".

(BTW, I forgot to mention in the previous comment that immediately after the passage I quoted, Tate was repeatedly asked to give a specific age range, and just replied I mean, hot girls are hot girls., implying that his comments were indeed about the general topic of female attractiveness rather than his personal dating life.) DFlhb (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with you on everything there, though I think we should incorporate the "make an imprint" quote somehow since that's what secondary sources chose to highlight. We also don't have to put "18- and 19-year-olds" in quotes. How about and claimed that men prefer dating 18- and 19-year-olds because they can "make an imprint" on them? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

On second look, my proposal doesn't accurately reflect the NBC News source. I'll go ahead and incorporate it the way you suggested it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I did try to find a way to incorporate "imprint", but didn't find a way to do it that didn't distort secondary and primary sources. We in general don't need to include every little detail from every source anyway. Cheers. DFlhb (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• In the original, primary source, Tate is explaining how he would (easily) defend himself if a jealous woman tried attack him with a machete. I have to agree that both the Guardian and NYT have taken the quote out of context, and thus are not reliable in this specific instance. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how the sources are taking this out of context. At least The Guardian is describing what the subject would do in a imaginary situation of their own creation. The issue here appears to be an editor's misinterpretation of the sources. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is pretty clear-cut; Korny O'Near sums it up well above. I'm curious, could you elaborate exactly how the sources have been misinterpreted in your view? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources very clearly describe what the subject says in the video, that, in the hypothetical case of a woman catching him cheating on her and tried coming at him, he would pick up one of his machetes and hit her, which is then used by the sources to add context around this person and why he is sexist. In my view, the editor who added that sentence to the article takes it somewhat out of context, specially by changing "woman" to "women", giving it a different reading. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 22:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be important for The Guardian and NYT to also mention that Tate would react this way in self defense, i.e. not as the aggressor, in his fictional scenario? Without this context, the isolated quote used by The Guardian and NYT has an entirely different connotation. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on two points: the subject says that if a woman came at him with a machete, he would make her drop the machete and overpower her; not that he would pick up the machete to hit her. And the context is not him depicting what he would do if a woman hypothetically caught him cheating, but him simply bragging about his superior physical strength compared to women (in his view), the "cheating" part is not the point, it's the illustration of the point. I think that's clear in context:

There's no female alive, even with a machete, that would stand a chance, against the immense power I possess. Have you ever seen a woman try and do anything competently? [...] What would a woman do? [Imitates a woman swinging a machete at him, laughs] Slap the machete, slap her in her face, one hand. Machete, and then backhand. I perfected this in pimp school, when I got my Ph.D., we had to practice if a girl comes at you: [Imitates a woman swinging a machete at him] "You cheated, you cheated!" It's bang out the machete, boom in her face, and grip her up by the neck: "Shut up bitch

Keep in mind that the entirety of the video is about Tate's view that female self-defense classes are a scam; the first sentence of that quote IMO makes it clear that his point is not about what he would do if he was caught cheating, but about his view that women using self-defense tactics against men is ineffective, and the machete bit seems meant to illustrate that. (I've watched the full video before writing a transcript to see the full context; my transcript was faithful but only covered about 1 minute of the 10 minute video, so it might not have made the video's topic and full context clear) Cheers DFlhb (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Throast and DFlhb: Hmm, I had a whole reply typed out, but I've reread the initial transcription and I see where I got myself turned around. I was taking into consideration the first example given by the subject, when the RS were discussing the second one. I just lumped them together while assessing the situation, but I can see the point of both of you now. It does seem like the quote provided by the RS are missing some context, which gives the whole thing a different meaning. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: It is not a good idea to disobey Reliable Secondary Sources. God of Wikipedia might strike us with a lightening. Humor aside, we should follow secondary sources. My preferred solution would be "According to articles at NYT and the Guardian....p" plus or minus, a note {{efn}}, adding the what we can deduce from the primary source. Truth is not as important as Verifiability. Cinadon36 18:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be overkill imo. If there was any leeway at all in the interpretation of the primary source, I would agree that this is a possible solution, but NYT and The Guardian are grossly misrepresenting the material. Might as well strike the passage at that point. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO attribution ("The Guardian claims that") is desirable when talking about statements of opinion or judgments that do not form consensus (for example, if the Guardian was the only source stating that "X is a misogynist" but no other WP:RS makes that claim), whereas the claim would be instead cited in Wikivoice without attribution if all sources agree that someone is a misogynist.

But I don't think attribution is valuable (or that there's much precedent to it on Wikipedia, actually) when sources are making factual representations that are inaccurate (not statements of opinion or judgments that are subjective). Per WP:RSBREAKING, when secondary sources are wrong, and we know they're wrong, we can just omit the specific wrong claim. Also, WP:VNOT clearly applies: verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; there's tons of other factors that Wikipedia editors must routinely take into account, including WP:POV, etc. Having an {{efn}} would also be thorny since we'd have to agree on an explanation of the context, which would be easily argued to be WP:OR. DFlhb (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: "we should follow secondary sources. My preferred solution would be "According to articles at NYT and the Guardian....p"... Truth is not as important as Verifiability." On the general point: that's taking it too far. I don't think it's required to use a secondary source, even when it's wrong. If a straightforward interpretation of a primary source shows the secondary source made a major error, we should exclude the secondary source as unreliable on that point and not repeat its error. That actually satisfies both truth and verifiability. The bar for excluding content is lower than for including it, especially in a BLP. "Truth is not as important as Verifiability," is more a slogan about what to include (i.e. you can't include something just because it's true, if you don't have a source). GretLomborg (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Blueboar, the primary source in full makes the context clear. There is a big difference between "I would violently attack someone" and "I would violently attack someone who was attacking me with a weapon". I do not think however it was intentionally taken out of context - given the source location and clipped versions available. So neither would be reliable for that particular claim *as fact*. Keep in mind our policies on source use still require editorial judgment to be exercised. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Keep in mind our policies on source use still require editorial judgment to be exercised They really ought to pay us more, eh? ;) DFlhb (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither the NYT nor The Guardian are reliable sources if they lie. I recall we applied this standard to Fox News so that "editorial judgement" now rules on reliability, and now when RSN is confronted with clear evidence that two sources repeatedly spin facts for their own political bias, somehow we're expected not to discuss the reliability of two sources at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard because those two sources are reliable. This is circular reasoning. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: I'd have to agre. IMO the abundance of vandalism incentivizes editors to distrust each other, and to try to minimize editorial judgment as much as possible, but that's misguided. The Murray Gell-Mann effect is real (and that context wasn't even politics, it was science coverage in reputable outlets, a clear editorial rather than ideological issue). I've seen plenty of small instances of it over the years for my industry. Coverage of controversial figures is significantly problematic too: outlets have a reputation to maintain, and substribers to retain, and they're to a large degree forced to pile on when reporting on controversial figures, lest they be dragged into the controversy and "cancelled" too if they dare to defend a subject from false attacks; they could still denounce it, still call it a huge scam, that's perfectly unfalsifiable and within their right, but why go too far and say objectively false things?) This quote from the conservative Times seems relevant: What fascinates me about Tate is how neatly he sits on the fault line of this whole debate. Defending him makes me feel intensely uncomfortable, all dirty and complicit. Socially, professionally, perhaps even morally, it would be so much easier to delight in his downfall. [33] DFlhb (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

New potential issue

I found one last issue in the Wiki article.

Important context: the following is largely copy-pasted from my submission at Talk:Andrew Tate#Follow-up to WP:RSN discussion, though I have improved and fleshed out my arguments here to be more comprehensive; please read my arguments here rather than there, but please also read Throast's arguments on that page. I'm consolidating the discussion here following User:Throast's suggestion; we were the only two participants in that discussion. The follow up starts immediately below this line.

Here's the claim we make in Wikivoice:

Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe.

The primary source for that claim is a video called "Tate on the MeToo Movement", available here: [34] The transcript is unavoidably long, since constantly references previous arguments, so it's as short as I can make it, it should take less than a few minutes to read. Ramblings abbreviated with ellipses, and bolded the parts quoted by media:

"I completely do not believe women should be victims to rape or any kind of sexual assault. But I also don't believe men should be held hostage to the fact that any woman you've ever interacted with in your life, ever, at any point in the future, even 40 years later, can come forward and accuse you of something, and fuck your life up. Cause the problem is, it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but with this sexual assault bullshit, you're guilty until proven innocent. If a girl comes forward and goes: "He raped me back in 1988", you're a rapist. You're a rapist. They have no proof, hasn't gone to court, you haven't been convicted. But you're a rapist in everyone's eyes, until you somehow prove she's lying. How the fuck am I gonna prove a [expletive] is lying, about something that happened in 1988? For the same reason I can't prove it happened, I can't prove it didn't happen. And then you're just stuck with a smear campaign, a bunch of garbage, when you haven't even done anything wrong. I've said this to girls before and they sit there and go: "You know what, if you go through life and you're just really respectful to women, you have nothing to worry about." That's not fucking true. And I'll tell you why. Because what we've done is we've weaponized sexual assault allegations. They've been weaponized. We've given every female in the Western world a weapon, and that weapon, does not have to be used fairly. That weapon can be used completely unfairly. You can go through life, and treat women with respect, and be a really good guy, but what the MeToo era is saying is, you can never piss off, a female, ever. Because if you do, they have a weaponized response.

"So what you're saying to me is not: "You have to go through life and make sure you never assault a woman." What you're saying is you have to make sure you go through life and never make a woman angry, ever, because if you make a woman angry, she might just call the police. Don't ever dump a girlfriend. Not allowed to dump her. Don't ever ignore her texts. Don't ever owe her £200 for a bit too long, cause she'll call up the police, and fuck your whole life up. You lose your job, you'll fucking be on bail, you're looking at all this [expletive] stress and headache, with zero evidence. So what you're saying is we can never ever upset a woman ever. [...] It's insane.

"I'm now at the point now that when I talk to girls in the West, I have to fucking archive my text messages, I got shit fucking archived, so if any girl comes to—I have a bit of money, when you got money, this shit happens. Wait til you make 10 mil, this shit's gonna happen to you. If a girl wanna go to the police about me now, I'll be like alright, wait, wait, wait, open up that folder, here look, proof she's a bimbo. Why do I have to live that way? Isn't that fucking insane? If you're living in the Western world — this is, probably, 40% of the reason I moved to Romania, because in Eastern Europe, none of this garbage flies. If you ever go to the police and say: "He raped me back in 1988", he'll go "well, you should have done something about it [back] then. If you go to the police and say "He raped me yesterday", he'll say: "Okay, have you got physical evidence? Is there CCTV proof? Where'd it happen? Ok, let's go interview him right now." [...] You're fucked in the West. If you have sex with a girl, and you decide not to have sex with her again, and she's upset about it, she can just decide to go: "It's rape now". [...] So, if you live in the Western world, you have to understand that any female you have ever interacted with, ever, at any point in the past or future, if you piss her off, she has the ability to destroy your life. Are you happy to live under those conditions? People say: "Why do you live in Romania?" And I explain, my 5 reasons. One of them is the MeToo era. They go: "Oh you're a rapist!" No I'm not a fucking rapist, but I like the idea of being able to just do what I want, I like being free. I like being able to say to a girl: "Don't want to see you anymore." Done. [...] If you're a man living in England, or Germany, or America, or any of the Western world right now, you've decided to live in a country where any woman, any ex [...] at some point in the future can destroy your life. And you're sitting there going: "Oh, but they won't do it." Some will; some won't but some fucking will. It's not about whether they will, it's about whether they can, because sooner or later if people can, they will."

Again, this is quoted in the Wikipedia article as: Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he was less likely to be investigated for rape allegations in Eastern Europe. (that's the full sentence.)

We cite GQ, out of 4 sources who mention this claim:

The Guardian: In one video explaining his reasons for the move he suggested it was because it would be easier to evade rape charges. This is “probably 40% of the reason” he moved there, he says in one video, adding: “I’m not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free.” [35]

GQ: in a now deleted YouTube video, Tate claimed that “about 40 per cent” of the reason he moved to Romania is that he believed police in Eastern Europe would be less likely to pursue rape allegations [36]

NBC News: Tate said that he’s “not a ... rapist,” but “probably 40% of the reason” he relocated to Romania is because police are less likely to investigate sexual assault cases [37]

Daily Beast: In one video on his YouTube channel, Andrew Tate said “40 percent” of the reason he moved to Romania was because Romanian police were less likely to pursue sexual assault allegations

Here's why I think the secondary sources misrepresent the primary:

• When Guardian/NBC quote I'm not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free., they imply that he "likes" the ability to get away with sexual assault (though not rape). In context, the original quote actually refers to Tate "liking" the idea of being able to make a girlfriend angry with no risk of false allegations.

• When they say: "about 40 per cent" of the reason he moved to Romania is that he believed police in Eastern Europe would be less likely to pursue rape allegations, it could very reasonably be taken to imply willingness to commit a crime, i.e. moving to Romania with the aim of getting away with things he couldn't get away with in Britain. That completely negates the original context, that Tate believes he is "guilty until proven innocent" in Britain and "innocent until proven guilty" in Romania.

• These sources also all disagree on whether we're talking about sexual assault or rape; again, that's a problem given they can be read to imply willingness to commit a crime.

• These sources are all based on a very short, out of context TikTok clip that only contains slightly more than the bold parts, since the original YouTube video had been taken down long before they reported on it (I think it was taken down in 2021). Two of the four media outlets cite a very shortened clip from reddit and Twitter. This poses a WP:RSBREAKING issue, since editors at these newspapers couldn't possibly fact-check to see if the context of the primary source was preserved.

• The primary-secondary source mismatch stems from the fact that he never discusses wanting to evade truthful rape accusations, but wanting to avoid false rape allegations (he is explicitly referring to "being guilty until proven innocent" as his issue). He also justifies his statement by saying that being a millionaire makes false accusations more risky due to a profit motive.

• Even if you believe the reliable sources are factual and there is no primary-secondary source mismatch, I believe that keeping this sentence in the article can very easily be misinterpreted, leading to WP:BLPVIO issues.

I see two solutions: either keep, if people here believe the sentence adds to the article, or remove, if people feel that this sentence would be out-of-context, hard to contextualize without WP:OR, or would have any significant possibility of misinforming readers. Note that the article already brings up many controversial or false claims by the subject, which are reliably sourced, so I don't feel removal would cause any WP:DUE issues whatsoever. DFlhb (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

For me, this one is an easy keep, as it seems straight forwardly true and has garnered quite a bit of attention. While I obviously agree that Tate is not saying he enjoys raping or confessing to any sexual assaults, he is clearly saying that he thinks accusations thereof are a very real possibility. It would absolutely be BLP violation if we said the move was "so he could get away with rape," but that is not how the sentence reads to me. It also strikes me as fairly extraordinary reasoning for a move to Romania, so I would say we should keep it as is, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well argued, though I somewhat disagree. The key to me is the context behind "he thinks accusations thereof are a very real possibility"; to me there's a significant difference between: thinking accusations are a very real possibility because of extremely borderline past behavior towards women (which would be an "admission" of sorts more than a viewpoint), versus thinking accusations are a very real possiblity due to wealth and a "guilty until proven innocent" culture (which is all the primary source states); the current claim in Wikivoice is quite ambiguous as to which of these two contexts the quote was said in, which risks misleading readers. Given public coverage and controversy surrounding Tate, IMO it's quite likely readers would assume the first context, which may well be true in the abstract but isn't true for this specific claim. Keep in mind that likely no one reading the Wikipedia article will see the primary source, or context. Also, where do you stand on using "rape" vs "sexual assault" in Wikivoice? Even if the sentence is unchanged, we're forced to make an editorial decision here since sources disagree. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure there's a real substantive distinction between "rape" and "sexual assault" as the sentence is composed, and I take your point, to some degree. Perhaps the best way forward would be to keep the existing sentence, but add “I’m not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want." from the Guardian source already cited? I think that would address your concerns, but feel free to tell me I am wrong! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that addition would make it far worse actually, since context would similarly be missing from being able to do what I want (i.e. what does he want to do, that he can't already?) leading to similar context issues: readers could reasonably assume it means "being able to do what I want with women", i.e. sexually assault them with impunity, while what he's explicitly saying in context is being able to dump or upset a girlfriend without her retaliating with a false accusation (whether we think such an accusation would be likely is besides the point, since that is the explicit context for that quote). To me, adding that would even more strongly imply a tacit admission of guilt.

Including his denial "I'm not a rapist, but" doesn't address this, since WP:MANDY applies, and people are used to rolling their eyes at any "I'm not a X, but..." claims and to assume the thing being denied is in fact true. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'd like to sit back for a moment and see if there are other opinions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't we generally defer to the broader category? In this case that would be sexual assault as all rape is sexual assault but not all sexual assault is rape. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That's my inclination too; it's reasonable to be more conservative with claims when sources disagree. Note that I don't feel this addresses my main point; I'm just voicing my support for changing to "sexual assault" in case the consensus here is to keep unaltered. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, when it comes to BLP we should always be small c conservative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging users who participated in the previous discussion. JoelleJay, Korny_O%27Near, Blueboar, Isabelle_Belato, Cinadon36, Only_in_death. I'm loath to ping people unnecesarily but since this discussion is connected to the previous one, I feel it's appropriate. Please let me know if I missed anyone; I've double-checked. DFlhb (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually missed Throast, though I've already linked him to this before; just want to ping him again publicly to make sure there's no ambiguity. DFlhb (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems to me very similar to the "machetes" dispute: a variety of sources have poorly paraphrased/quoted Tate to make it sound like he's saying something rather different (and quite a bit more unflattering) than what he's actually saying. The longer quote indicates that he's concerned only about false charges of rape and sexual assault. I would instead paraphrase the quote as something like: Tate stated that he decided to move to Romania in part because he felt that, with the rise of the MeToo movement in North America and Western Europe, any woman who bore a grudge against him could falsely accuse him of rape, and thus destroy his life, "with zero evidence". Korny O'Near (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that would count as "interpreting" a primary source under WP:PRIMARY, so I think this would pretty clearly break WP:OR. I haven't seen any WP:RS mention MeToo in the same passage as this quote (if I missed any, please feel free to post it), so I don't feel there are choices other than retaining or deleting per WP:VNOT. DFlhb (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Korny O'Near meant this to be included in the Wikipedia article; to me it reads like their suggestion of how secondary sources should have reported on Tate's commentary. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a competent paraphrase as a "suggestion of how secondary sources should have reported on Tate's commentary" so thats doubtful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I did mean it as wording for the Wikipedia article. I don't think paraphrasing someone's quote, about himself, counts as original research - paraphrasing is done all the time on Wikipedia - but maybe that's a matter of opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, definitely undue in that case. We don't include this type of material based on primary sources only. Self-published sources as sources on themselves (by themselves) should be reserved for uncontroversial claims like DOBs or POBs. Using the primary source alone as a citation in this case (to illustrate Tate's controversial rhetoric) would constitute heavy editorializing. Article content should remain within the bounds of what secondary sources deem notable. This is basic stuff. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah you can't do that, we call that WP:OR because you're drawing conclusions that aren't actually in the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, they're arguing it's not OR, so I thought I'd lay it out in a bit more detail for them. :) Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I was responding to Korny O'Near not you, see how the comment is on the same level as yours? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A response to Korny O'Near? Alright, not particularly insightful considering DFlhb already laid out the whole OR issue above, but piling on helps too I guess. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

IndieWire

I searched IndieWire in the search box, most of the comments about other sources imply IndieWire is reliable. Its not listed as a Reliable Source. Also the story is linked to from Yahoo News original content, which is listed as Reliable Source. Is the IndieWire content getting "washed" through its use in Yahoo News? Scranton (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beautiful_Girls_(film) https://web.archive.org/web/20210213215126/https://www.yahoo.com/now/beautiful-girls-natalie-portman-lolita-character-sexualization-underage-character-013033893.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20210214011351/https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/natalie-portman-sexualized-young-age-made-me-afraid-1234604433/

Also Portman's comment was made on Dax Shepard Armchair Expert podcast (and originally appeared in People), so there is that issue as well Scranton (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources regarding castes of India

1)Are the these two books reliable sources regarding castes (tribes) of India/Subcontinent.

a)Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: 900 B.C.-1947 A.D.

b)The Rajputs: History, Clans, Culture, and Nobility MrHyperForEver (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Who are the authors and who are the publishers? Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

a) Bakhshish Singh Nijjar

b)Rānā Muḥammad Sarvar K̲h̲ān̲

b)Muḥammad Sarvar K̲h̲ān̲ MrHyperForEver (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• As Blueboard said, it would be helpful to provide the author and publisher. That said, the first is a reliable source, it is published by a reliable publisher and the author has appropriate academic credentials. The second is not; it is self published and the author has no other publications in the field.Banks Irk (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Dot and politics

There have been discussions before about The Daily Dot's reliability, like this one, and their (generally left-wing) political bias has been noted. But beyond just a simple bias, The Daily Dot has an unfortunate tendency to take cheap shots at their perceived political opponents that are either misleading or even outright falsehoods. Here are some examples I've found of what I would consider their misleading or incorrect reporting:

1. Journalist Jesse Singal says he ‘goofed’ on interpreting trans study—and activists are infuriated (March 29, 2018)

   Quote: Among those 127 patients with gender dysphoria, 80 adolescents did not return to the center for treatment. Therefore, the study concluded that those 80 patients with gender dysphoria “desisted” and “no longer had a desire for gender reassignment.” In a July 2016 piece, Singal made that exact claim, saying the children “now identified as cisgender.” But that isn’t exactly true, and it’s led him to correct the error.

   The article is about Jesse Singal, who admitted to making a mistake in a 2016 analysis of a study on trans-identifying children. But in this Substack post, Singal says that the Daily Dot's explanation of his mistake is completely false (and that the corrected analysis actually means that probably more children desisted, rather than fewer).

2. Why is a journalist who has misreported trans issues allowed to propagate more transphobia? (June 29, 2018)

   Quote: Journalist Jesse Singal, noted for being extremely misguided on transgender issues and bad to trans people, is back at it again with a piece for the Atlantic that plays into largely unfounded fears about trans children.

   Another Jesse Singal one. To show that Singal is "bad to trans people", the article links to this (since-deleted) December 2017 Twitter thread by Katelyn Burns, in which Burns describes being harassed by Singal in various ways. But Singal wrote a blog post, several months later (and several months before the Daily Dot article), stating that most of what Burns wrote was false. Regardless of whom you believe (and Singal's version seems more plausible, since it has quotes and screenshots), it was extremely irresponsible for the Daily Dot not to acknowledge the dispute there.

   [I didn't realize before that this one is labelled as an opinion piece. Nevertheless, the assertion here, that Singal is harasser, is treated as a statement of fact, and seems irresponsible regardless of the context.]

3. Conservatives are livid the New York Times is writing articles about slavery (August 19, 2019)

   Quote: Many conservatives are upset that the New York Times isn’t keeping the story of Black Americans secondary.

   Article about conservative criticism of The New York Times' The 1619 Project. Many historians have similarly criticized it, and the NYT later removed the most incendiary parts of it, but you wouldn't know any of that from this article, which simply treats all the criticism as motivated by racism. (The article then strangely ends by seemingly calling for revolution in the U.S.)

   [This one I also didn't realize was labelled as an opinion piece, and since it deals entirely in opinion, it seems to be fine, from an RS perspective.]

4. Say hello to ‘antira,’ the far-right’s answer to antifa (August 22, 2019)

   Quote: But in the wake of President Donald Trump facing accusations of racism and anti-Semitism this month, far-right figureheads think they’ve found a solution. By forming antira.

   Reading through this article, it becomes obvious that there is no "antira" - it's just a few jokey tweets by cartoonist Scott Adams. (Who is not far-right, and not multiple people.)

5. ‘Hillbilly Elegy’ author links daylight saving to fertility in dog-whistle tweet (November 2, 2020)

   Quote: But Vance, a Yale-educated lawyer who claims a preternatural comprehension of the psyche of red-state citizens, knows his tweet is laced with codewords and signifiers that steer him to out-and-out racism in a tweet about, again, how the clocks fuck his cum up.

   J. D. Vance wrote a semi-humorous tweet about how daylight savings time makes people tired, thus reducing America's already-too-low fertility rate. To the Daily Dot, it's "out-and-out racism" to worry that Americans are not having enough children. (Also, they say he's talking about low semen, when he's obviously just talking about fatigue.)

6. Conservatives throwing tantrum after Fauci says to still behave responsibly after getting vaccine (February 24, 2021)

   Quote: “So there are things, even if you’re vaccinated, that you’re not going to be able to do in society: for example, indoor dining, theaters, places where people congregate,” Dr. Fauci said. He added that once the nation achieves herd immunity, estimated at when 70-80% of the population is vaccinated, or scientists are certain those who have taken the vaccine can’t spread the virus, it will be safe for them to resume normal activities.

   I believe this is simply factually incorrect. A scan of the transcript of that February 2021 press conference seems to show that Fauci never talked about herd immunity or resuming normal activities, before or after he made this quote. Maybe he implied it when he talked about current death rates, but he didn't say it (and that was before this quote, not after it).

7. Conspiracy theories emailed to Fauci are being touted by conspiracy theorists—as proof of conspiracy (June 3, 2021)

   Quote: The claim [Anthony Fauci] believes masks don’t work is based on an email Fauci sent in February 2020 in which he said common (non-medical grade) cloth masks “are not really effective” at keeping coronavirus out because the virus particles are too small. Those pointing to this as evidence neglect to mention that at the time conditions were far different and scientists didn’t know if masks worked. They present it as if he said this yesterday, not well over a year ago, when experts weren’t recommending masks, and community transmission hadn’t yet been found in the United States. Weeks later, Dr. Fauci recommended a medical grade mask to decrease the likelihood of transmitting COVID-19. None of those pillorying him about masks seem inclined to mention this fact, however. The false claim about masks is far from the worst thing being said...

   This article attempts to debunk various claims made as a result of a June 2021 release of Anthony Fauci's emails. There's a variety of faulty logic in the article, but the strangest attempted debunking, in my opinion, is this one - which, unlike the others, doesn't include any examples of people making the claim, on Twitter or elsewhere. The article says that none of Fauci's critics made the distinction between cloth masks and medical-grade masks, which seems extremely doubtful. It also doesn't answer the obvious questions: did Fauci actually change his mind about cloth masks? And if so, why?

8. Joe Rogan tests positive for COVID-19 and of course he claims horse dewormer cured him (September 1, 2021)

   Quote: Rogan, who has repeatedly shared false claims about the pandemic, claims to also have taken monoclonal antibodies, Z-Pak, Prednisone, and several vitamin IV drips.

   Leaving aside the misleading headline (since headlines are irrelevant): to show that Joe Rogan has made "false claims" about COVID-19, the article links to this CNN article, in which Rogan says that healthy 21-year-olds who exercise regularly have no need for vaccination. This is hardly an outrageous statement, and even CNN doesn't call it false; the Daily Dot does, though.

9. ‘Balding nerd dysphoria’: Elon Musk’s alleged hair plugs resurface as he wonders why people get gender-affirming care (June 14, 2022)

   Quote: People quickly pointed out that many cisgender people regularly receive gender-affirming surgical procedures and medical care—including (allegedly) Elon Musk.

   Not a big deal, but it's bizarre to call male hair transplant "gender-affirming", since it's generally only men that go bald. (If anything, it's gender-denying.)

10. Republican who ousted Liz Cheney immediately pivots to QAnon conspiracies (August 18, 2022)

    Quote: [Harriet Hageman] recently repeated a talking point popular with QAnon conspiracy theorists who are convinced that elite, Satanic liberal pedophiles run the world and Trump is or was fighting a secret war against them.

    The article includes a clip of Harriet Hageman saying "Joe Biden is the largest or the most destructive human trafficker in our history." As the article briefly notes, this was part of an interview where she was talking about human trafficking on the U.S.-Mexico border resulting from Biden's immigration policies. But most of the article instead talks about QAnon, and tries to hint that Hageman has bought into conspiracy theories, all based on that single sentence.

11. Dirty Delete: Facts aren’t this Oklahoma Republican Senate candidate’s friend (September 23, 2022)

    Quote: During the 2020 election [Markwayne Mullin] shared the inane conspiracy theory that Vice President Kamala Harris was actually going to be commander-in-chief.

    This article/column is about Senate candidate Markwayne Mullin, and the sentence in question links to this tweet, in which Mullin wrote, "If you vote for Joe Biden, you know who you’re really electing for President, right? #KamalaHarris #Frightening #TrickNoTreat". This presumably is a reference to the possibility that, if elected, Joe Biden would, as the oldest-ever U.S. President, either die of old age in office or be declared mentally unfit, in either case making Kamala Harris the President. Unlikely? Maybe. But not a conspiracy theory.

I don't know much about The Daily Dot's non-political reporting, but it seems to me that they should be downgraded as a reliable source on political topics. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears that you disagree with a good deal of what the Daily Dot publishes, but I'm not seeing "misleading or even outright falsehoods" here. For example Joe Rogan#Remarks on COVID-19 has made false claims about COVID-19, thats 100% true even if you disagree with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean yeah, so far he's making it look pretty usable, more usable than I'd have considered the Daily Dot previously - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to be glib but that was my reaction as well... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The DD is a terrible source. Very click bait articles. I suspect the only reason we don't have sources critical of them is no one takes them seriously to begin with. Springee (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

DD is generally showcasing the extreme problems generated by accountability journalism, they want to point out the flaws and missteps of those they don't see as on their ideological side (DD being a more liberal publication). This leads to sloppy reporting that is better covered by other sources, at least for political statements of fact. Masem (t) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've found DD not to be a great indicator of notability - they cover a lot of frankly trivial matters. But they're not liars or dissemblers - and Korny Near's collection of examples shows them to be fully capable of excellent work - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which of these do you think are excellent work? Or is it all of them? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You made a detailed summary showing that DD had accurately summarised and analysed each case, and that you didn't like the way they did it. The first and second parts are what RSN cares about, and the third seems to be your own problem rather than a case for RSN - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think KON has shown that DD's summary of facts shouldn't be trusted to be accurate. It appears to be a mix of exaggerated claims or taking source material out of context. Not surprising given the click bait nature of the source and how much of their home page content focuses on viral videos and memes. Even when they get something right I can't see why we would give this source any weight. Springee (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at all of these, and none seems to be a case of inaccuracy. At worst, they're guilty of sensationalism, and clearly there is bias. With the two Segal pieces, the only evidence for inaccuracy is his own SPS, so I'm not convinced, especially as they provide quite compelling detail. in relation to "antira", it's not one tweeter, but tweets by multiple people, one of whom is a notable figure on the far right, Jack Posobiec. Most of these pieces seem to cover fairly marginal (non-noteworthy material), so unlike more solid RSs I agree coverage by DD is a poor indictor of notability, but where we are looking for facts about some incidents that precisely lack more mainstream coverage, I don't see unreliability here. So at worst I'd say attribute when the topic is controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I am very much with BobFromBrockley above. Clickbait-y headlines, no doubt, and something of a pronounced point of view, but I do not see the kind inaccuracies that would make me call it "unreliable." Certainly not a top-tier source, but usable, especially with attribution. That said, reasonable minds may certainly differ on the matter. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• I am increasingly of the opinion that we should have a CAUTION on ALL media outlets covering politics - Even the best should be considered “Reliable for opinion with in-text attribution”, but less than reliable for statements of fact in WP’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really about this specific source but you speak the truth about there being a larger problem with how people use media sources for politics. IMO people often only attribute things they disagree with and put the things they agree with in wikivoice, this is much less problematic in a hard field like chemistry or physics where there is more or less a correlation between what a reasonable and knowledgable observer believes and what is fact. Politics is 95% opinions with very very few hard facts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. WP definitely needs reforms on coverage of politics. Putting a caution on all media outlets covering politics and taking the popular press with a grain of salt could be a good start, but if we ever want to see any potential reforms come to fruition, there would need to be a discussion at the village pump. X-Editor (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed. I feel that the use of Wikivoice for contentious claims was made with cases like Hitler in mind, so that he could be labelled a "fascist" without violating Wikipedia policy (which he obviously should).

I think the distinction should be fact vs opinion. Encyclopedias should contain facts:

1. Universal or near-universal scholarly consensus merits inclusion as Wikivoice
2. No-consensus opinions from scholars merit attribution
3. Universal media opinions or contentious claims ("X is a white nationalist"), that are not backed up by scholars, merit attribution to the media as a whole (i.e. "widely described by journalists/media as X")
4. Non-consensus media opinions or contentious claims merit individual attribution.

Rationale for #3: if a contentious claim is notable, it'll have been covered by scholars. If not, it's not notable enough for Wikivoice. We're an encyclopedia, not "society's mouthpiece."

We should probably make exceptions for specialist publications, and limit #3 to politics.

I think this would be perfectly workable, and would avoid giving too much credence to journalists that work under tight deadlines, are rarely true subject matter experts who would merit their opinions being elevated above all others, and exhibit a little too much groupthink for my taste and a certain laziness towards subjects deemed unworthy of proper journalistic standards. DFlhb (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• The main potential issues are misrepresentations of fact, and contentious labels (since if we consider this a reliable source, then it counts towards the inclusio of any contentious label in Wikipedia). Let's take a look:

• I have high standards for factual representations by media, as I think anyone should; they have editorial processes, there's no excuse to make uncorrected factual mistakes.

• article 1 definitely falls in this category, though it's on a minor fact

• Then let's look at contentious labels. If enough reliable sources include them, we have to include in Wikivoice, so for this source to be WP:RS it needs to be attentive with its labels.

• article 5 is egregious on this. It would be perfectly reasonable in an opinion piece; but this is a news article, and frames a joke in a tweet (a tweet, seriously?) as an admission of adherence to white nationalism. Simply not journalism; those accusations can lead to assassination attempts so should be thrown around carefully, especially in news articles.
• article 8: Rogan, who has repeatedly shared false claims links to an article that IMO doesn't contain any false claims, nor does CNN claim it does. My opinion is necessarily subjective here; but I would oppose this contentious label being includable on Wikipedia.
• article 10 is both a misrepresentation of fact, and a mislabel; they misrepresenting a bombastic statement of opinion as if it were a conspiracy or allegation of crime on Biden's part. If we reversed the political bend, the claim being critiques would be on par with a claim that climate change deniers are "genociders". It's simply defensible opinion; not a "baseless accusation".

• We can also try to get hints at the level of editorial control at the Daily Dot. I think their editorial control is questionable:

• article 2 links to potentially libellous content without tempering or contextualizing it.
• article 4 should clearly be an opinion piece rather than a news piece; it's not written in proper "newsvoice" and simply reads more lika blog post or WP:SPS. Not acceptable for a WP:RS
• article 6 is a tabloid-style article that should be opinion, but is in the news section; it entirely consists of "reporting on tweets", several of which had 4 "likes". Misclassifying opinion articles as news nullifies it as WP:RS material, since a huge part of WP:RS relies on outlets making that distinction properly.
• article 9 stands between tabloid and opinion; yet is labelled as news. Ouch.
• article 11 promotes itself as a "column" when encouraging newsletter signups, yet is within the News section. The NYT would never make that mistake in a million years. Also, same issues as article 10, though that's forgivable in an opinion column.

Article 3 is an opinion piece, so I don't care about it.

Article 7 seems fine to me; it quotes primary sources at length to back up its arguments and allow readers to verify that its factual representations are true, which is something more media should do; it's the bare minimum IMO. Perfectly good piece, but doesn't detract from the other failings above; journalistic standards are a "minimum", not a median. If a journalistic outlet repeatedly goes below the line of journalistic standards, it's not a journalistic outlet, no matter if there's a good article in the heap.

The factual misrepresentations are minor, which is good. The contentious labels are pretty egregious in my view though; and the clear signs of editorial deficiencies are the most concerning part of this.

Overall opinion:

• definitely not WP:RS; their contentious labels should simply not be treated equivalently to those from the NYT for example
• contentious labels should be used very carefully, case-by-case basis, and with attribution if used. Editors here should loook at proper WP:RS to see if a label truly deserves inclusion
• should never be used for contentious labels in BLPs
• I'd say it seems quite usable for statements of fact.

I strongly think it should be downgraded to the same rank as the Daily Beast: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons., in yellow on the perennial sources list, if not lower. I frankly don't see how anyone can think the Daily Dot is better than Daily Beast; to me, the Dot seems far more clickbaity and less journalistic than Beast. Anything notable would be covered in other sources, any non-obvious facts would be covered in other sources, so I don't oppose assigning them Red either.

Note: I've seen other responders here group misstatements of facts and false contentious labels as one thing, and say that that the Daily Dot was unusable on facts. I don't disagree with them at all, I just define "facts" more specifically. I fully agree with a few commenters above that they're not usable on contentious claims or BLP-related stuff.

DFlhb (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this detailed analysis. I didn't notice before that #3 was labelled as "Opinion" - if I had seen that, I probably wouldn't have included it. It's interesting that we have different critiques of some of the same items - most notably #6, the Fauci press conference one. Definitely the problems you point out, of a tabloid-style voice and embedding random tweets in lieu of actual reporting, are a lot more prevalent than the misstatements of fact, which are only occasional. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm glad it was helpful since I took some time writing it. Best, DFlhb (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, personal analysis of why you feel that a particular source got something right or wrong isn't a strong WP:RSN argument - WP:RS is based on whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not "does Korny O'Near personally feel they have adequate fact-checking and accuracy." The Daily Dot does have significant WP:USEBYOTHERS. See eg. [38][39][40]. The first two particularly stand out because the authors relied on the Daily Dot for part of their classification scheme, ie. its reputation for accuracy was central to their research. That's (generally) the way we'd expect academic papers to treat a WP:RS. Obviously it's possible for a non-WP:RS to get cited, but I think that to argue that, you'd need secondary sources describing it in ways that show it has a bad reputation - not just a bunch of things you personally take issue with. We judge sources based on what other sources say about them, not our own WP:OR into whether we think they got things right or wrong - and, after all, if you're correct that they got all these things wrong, there should be reasonably high-quality, reasonably unbiased secondary coverage saying as much. Without that it remains a WP:RS based on usage by others - obviously other WP:RSes aren't seeing things the way you are, so you can't reasonably argue that it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Your examples seem to show the Daily Dot as more reliable, not less?

1) The Daily Dot article is completely accurate on what Singal said. Him making a separate blog post later has...no relevance to the original article. What argument are you trying to make here?

2) This is an Opinion piece, clearly labeled. You also seem to just be pushing your politics here in your support for Singal.

4) The article clearly points out Adams came up with the term and that others are now using it. Also, Adams very much is far right, not sure what you're arguing here.

5) This seems to be you adding your own opinion into things, since this: "(Also, they say he's talking about low semen, when he's obviously just talking about fatigue.)" is you interpreting as well. Particularly since daylight savings in the fall is "fall back", meaning you gain an extra hour. How would an extra hour of sleep give you more fatigue?

6) I fully agree that the implied part for that is before the quote. Specifically here:

One relates to you, yourself, being vaccinated, and the other relates to the number of people and the relative percentage of people in society that will be vaccinated, because there will be things that you will not be able to do because the burden of virus in society will be very high, which it is right now. "

In that when the societal burden is lower (which is more or less an equivalence to discussing herd immunity), it will be less of a concern. I don't really see a problem with the DD article being more explicit on them in their terminology.

7) And? This seems to be again an example of your opinion and dislike of what was stated in the article. That doesn't make it wrong and that doesn't make you right either.

8) That...is an outrageous statement. Perfectly healthy people still need vaccinations. It is entirely a false statement to claim healthy people don't need vaccinations and can't be infected by diseases.

9)I'm sorry you disagree on the term "gender-affirming" here. Do you have a point or do you just dislike the usage of the term?

10) The article seems quite clear in explaining the details of how the "human trafficking" claims are a part of the broader Qanon conspiracy beliefs. I don't see the problem here. The article directly describes the connection.

11) I presume you're not aware of the common conspiracy theory in Qanon circles that Kamala was picked precisely in order to get her in office without her being the Presidential candidate? It is a conspiracy claim that exists and was fairly commonly pushed among conspiracy theorists at the time. This doesn't indicate anything incorrect in the DD article.

In short, your issues with the Daily Dot appear to be that they make political statements you disagree with and state facts that you disagree with. And you want their reliability downgraded because of that. Silverseren^C 03:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Silver seren - thank you for putting together this list of objections, which I think helps to crystallize the disputes some people have had with this listing. Below are my responses - I don't want to get in an endless back-and-forth, so I probably won't respond further on this particular thread, but I wanted to lay out my defenses.

1) It's true that the quote I picked is not contradicted by Jesse Singal's blog post. I wanted to find a quote that was indeed contradicted, but it seemed like I had to basically quote the whole article in order to do that. But it does appear that the Daily Dot's analysis in error. Certainly Singal seems to think so - he called it a "severe fuckup".

2) Yes, this is an opinion piece, but it's making a statement of fact - "Jesse Singal is bad to trans people" - that I think is irresponsible, in any context.

4) The article says "antira" is not a term, but an organization/affiliation, which it's not.

5) I think you're wrong about the fatigue thing, but obviously the key part here is not that but imputing racism to someone they dislike, with no evidence.

6) If you read the Daily Dot quote, it implies Fauci said a number of specific things ("herd immunity", "70-80% of the population") that he didn't say. We Wikipedia editors would call that, at the very least, "synthesis".

7) I believe their sentence "None of those pillorying him about masks seem inclined to mention this fact, however" is simply incorrect. (Also irrelevant, but the incorrectness is more critical here.)

8) I suppose this is indeed a matter of opinion, along the lines of "should you worry about getting struck by lightning?".

9) I don't know why this particular one has gotten so much controversy, since it seems so straightforward. But I'd love to hear how getting more hair added to one's head is a way to affirm that one is a man and not a woman.

10) This seems like a classic logical fallacy: "QAnon talk about human trafficking, Hageman talks about human trafficking, therefore Hageman is probably QAnon". I would expect more from a reliable source than hanging an article on this kind of flimsy thread.

11) No, I'm not aware of such a conspiracy theory. And I still don't see how this is a conspiracy at all: a VP's main task, after all, is indeed to serve as a backup in case something happens to the president. There's nothing secret about it. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible RfC on The Daily Dot

I would like to start an RfC on The Daily Dot, because I think its coverage of politics is lacking. On the other hand, I haven't seen any problems with its coverage of so-called internet culture, which I think it's better known for (and which WP:RSP says it's especially reliable for). Should the RfC be specifically for The Daily Dot on politics, or just The Daily Dot in general, and let editors weigh in on the specifics? I don't believe there has been an RfC for The Daily Dot before, for what it's worth. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I know that the Daily Dot has been discussed on multiple occasions, but I believe you are correct that there has never been an RfC (having said that, the odds are someone will prove me wrong). It would be helpful, however, if you could either describe your concerns, or, ideally, point to something at the source that embodies them? For what it's worth, I know almost nothing of the publication and could use some educating. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I have various examples of what I consider bad politics reporting from The Daily Dot, but I was planning to put them directly in the RfC, in an "Evidence added by ..." section, as was done for the most recent Fox News RfC. Although if there's a more standard way to do it, that would be good to know too. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have various examples than share them, I hope by "planning to put them directly in the RfC" you don't mean the request itself which must be neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Was the Fox News RfC handled incorrectly, with all its "Evidence" sections? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we are asking if you provide some of the evidence you think calls for an RFC for the Daily Dot so that you can get an idea here if a full RFC is required. You concern may be legit but we have seen editors wanting to start reliability RFC on one bad example. Masem (t) 15:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No offense, but I wasn't actually asking whether an RfC is warranted - I think it is. (And yes, I have more than one example, thankfully.) I just wanted to know if it's better to do a general RfC, or a politics-specific one, given that I think it makes sense to downgrade The Daily Dot's reliability on politics specifically. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Which discussion would you point to as evidence of a proper WP:RFCBEFORE? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair question. WP:RSP lists 11 previous discussion about The Daily Dot; I haven't read through all of them, but the ones I've read seem fairly scattered, with a lot of differing opinions covering different subject areas, so it seemed like The Daily Dot was overdue for some kind of official RfC. If, on the other hand, it's better to just present my opinions and evidence in a non-RfC section, I can do that too. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the most recent discussion was in 2016, so I'd definitely think it's better to hold a regular discussion first. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• As I pointed out in the Fox RFC, arguments based on "here is some stuff I, personally, think they got wrong" is a very weak argument for WP:RS purposes - by that line of reasoning, people could disqualify any source they personally disagree with and end up with articles that say whatever they want. I would suggest looking for secondary sources (ideally high-quality ones) that summarize and characterize the Daily Dot's coverage, since what matters is the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The simple fact that you think something is wrong doesn't make it wrong. Even if you present primary examples of something that is incontrovertibly wrong, that is still a weak argument because you have to demonstrate that it impacted the source's reputation (ie., more broadly, that it matters.) See my post in the Fox RFC for examples. Based on the results of past RFCs I don't think that that sort of high-quality criticism of the Daily Dot exists... while there is significant WP:USEBYOTHERS which you would need that sort of secondary coverage to overcome. --Aquillion (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that it would be nice to be able to refer to some paper like "An Analysis of The Daily Dot" in the Journal of Reliability Studies, but in the absence of something so comprehensive, I do think we can rely on our intuition and knowledge to determine whether a source is reliable. Certainly previous RfCs and discussions here (including the Fox News one) seem to have always ended up in discussions about individual facts, whether that's weak argumentation or not. As for the use by scholars that you've found: it's interesting, but I don't think it's overwhelming evidence of reliability, at least not for political topics - as far as I can tell, the only political article they've been referenced for is their list of fake news sites. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

BARC TRP Ratings Source

The source of TRP report is being added in many pages, ( example : Anupamaa, Ravivaar With Star Parivaar ) is it considered reliable. Already the case of TRP scam is present in the court, [41] its result has not come yet. Hence the TRP report is not reliable. ( Be discussed once on this sourse. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PravinGanechari (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It isn't quite clear what you are trying to say. Do you mean to say that Broadcast Audience Research Council's "TRP ratings" shouldn't be included in articles? If that's what this is about, sure then go ahead and remove them. BARC doesn't measure viewership but gives a subjective rating for advertisers (higher income households are weighted, lower ones aren't and its all fairly arbitrary) so I don't know what encyclopedic value that would have, more of a WP:DUE issue at that point, and it has been facing criticism for its methodology even before the alleged scam up. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the context of TRP not being a valid indicator of ratings/target demo success? If the channels themselves are making business decisions off of that very number, I would find that a valid indicator for inclusion as a matter of circumstance. What are the alternatives? There has to be some context other than a scandal that suggests TRP is no longer the industry standard.

To that end, I encourage that someone take over and flesh out the Target_rating_point page with usage history, how it fell out of favor, and competitors. Thanks. MJHTrailsolid (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi , If you claim that TRP rating is reliable, then you tell me why BARC stopped giving TRP rating information for 18 months.[42] PravinGanechari (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Point taken, I knew there was a scandal but not how deep the issue was and the back and forth. What are alternative options at this time for data replacement where TRP is being blanked? MJHTrailsolid (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a means of promotional. And there is no alternative option at all. And I would not support BARC's source at all. BARC is not reliable at all. But it also discriminates against people (TV Show /Channel ). There are 892 channels [43] in the country, but TRP issues the rating list of only 10 or 20 people [44] (Show /Channel ) . You have the answer as to why it makes such discrimination. PravinGanechari (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I have one question. I known there is a case going on and its result has yet not declared. But how can we say that the TRP report is not reliable. It its unreliable, govt. won't allow them to issue it. And the trp report has been used in various article in a table or para form since a long period.

Thank you!!

Jha09 Talk:Jha09 11:44, 1 October 2022

Hi Jha09 , You have to give Evidence /Source of the TRP rating being reliable here. Otherwise, do not add TRP related sources to any page till the results of the court are out. At present there are cases going on 4 channels in court. [45] The Former CEO of BARC was arrested.[46] So does not claim to be reliable at all.- PravinGanechari (talk • contribs) 1:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi PravinGanechari, If we have the reliable sources like Times Of India, Times Now, etc. publishing the trps, it seems they are sourced and reliable too. Also, trp are valid if we give reliable sources??

Please clear. Thank you!! Jha09 08:15, 2 October 2022

Hi Jha09 , The Wire and Newslaundry are the TRP sources of both these news, then you add source I will support them. At present, only these two news channels can give reliable sources about TRP rating. Both these news channels do not run any news without investigation. I know you don't have any reliable source to support TRP rating. Still, if you are talking about Times Group, then see this : The Times of India#Paid news. PravinGanechari (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Waymarking

Is this page at waymarking.com a reliable source for the municipal flag of St. Augustine, Florida? Donald Albury 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No it is not, its WP:UGC Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a fairly easy answer. I suppose the only real question now is finding one that's reliable by Wikipedia standards. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Archived closure

Just dropping a notice that I have closed Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#Sky News Australia. The short version is that additional considerations apply to the news content and the opinion content is all unreliable. You can read the details by following the link. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: I hope this isn't challenged again by other editors, however, your closure IMHO is nuanced, detailed, and accurate, so many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Haberaksaray

Electragod77 added several paragraphs about the origin of the name of Mount Hasan using this source. I don't know anything about Turkish, is that an appropriate source for toponymy? Ignoring the bad source formatting, at the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary Authors

Is Contemporary Authors reliable? here is wipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Authors

here is 2 snippets from it: Contemporary Authors does not have selective inclusion criteria and bases much of its biographical data on information provided by the writer. In 1985, American Library Association named Contemporary Authors one of the "most distinguished reference titles" of the preceding 25 years.

the particular article, Alex Beam, has many references: tlanta Journal-Constitution, January 27, 2002, Rodger Brown, review of Gracefully Insane: The Rise and Fall of America's Premier Mental Hospital, p. D4. Author, January, 2009, Kevin Lauderdale, review of A Great Idea at the Time: The Rise, Fall, and Curious Afterlife of the Great Books. Behavioral Healthcare Tomorrow, August, 2002, Linda Watts Jackim, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 50. Book, January-February, 2002, Beth Kephart, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 73. Booklist, March 1, 2014, Vanessa Bush, review of American Crucifixion: The Murder of Joseph Smith and the Fate of the Mormon Church, p. 4. Boston, September, 1991, Katherine A. Powers, review of The Americans Are Coming!, p. 78; January, 2002, Welling Savo, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 131. Boston Globe, November 16, 2008, Michael Washburn, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Brooklyn Rail, November 20, 2008, Ian Crouch, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Change, May-June, 2009, Mary Taylor Huber, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Chicago Tribune, November 15, 2008, Wendy Smith, review of A Great Idea at the Time, p. 2. Choice, October, 2002, G. Eknoyan, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 308. Christian Science Monitor, October 23, 1987, review of Fellow Travelers, p. 20. City Journal, January 16, 2009, Brendan Boyle, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Cleveland Plain Dealer, December 15, 2008, Margo Hammond, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Guardian (London, England), November 17, 2001, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 4. Irish Times (Dublin, Ireland), March 25, 2009, Alan O'Riordan, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Isis, March, 2004, Timothy W. Kneeland, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 144. Kirkus Reviews, August 15, 1987, review of Fellow Travelers, p. 1175; May 1, 1991, review of The Americans Are Coming!, p. 550; November 15, 2001, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 1589; October 1, 2008, review of A Great Idea at the Time; March 1, 2014, review of American Crucifixion. Library Journal, June 15, 1991, Robert H. Donahugh, review of The Americans Are Coming!, p. 102; January, 2002, Antoinette M. Brinkman, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 131; November 15, 2008, Susan McClellan, review of A Great Idea at the Time, p. 70; March 15, 2014, David Azzolina, review of American Crucifixion, p. 124. Locus, October, 1991, review of The Americans Are Coming!, p. 44. Los Angeles Times, August 11, 1991, review of The Americans Are Coming!, p. 3; January 20, 2002, Andrew Scull, review of Gracefully Insane, p. R7; April 18, 2014, Scott Martelle, review of American Crucifixion. Los Angeles Times Book Review, November 15, 1987, review of Fellow Travelers, p. 4. McLean's, January 14, 2002, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 47; December 15, 2008, Brian Bethune, review of A Great Idea at the Time, p. 37; April 28, 2014, Brian Bethune, review of American Crucifixion, p. 61. New England Journal of Medicine, September 26, 2002, Miles F. Shore, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 1047. New England Quarterly, June, 2004, Matthew Warner Osborn, review of Gracefully Insane, pp. 315-319. New Scientist, July 27, 2002, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 64. New Yorker, January 21, 2002, Dana Goodyear, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 11; December 22, 2008, review of A Great Idea at the Time. New York Times Book Review, February 24, 2002, Holly Brubach, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 8; January 12, 2003, Scott Veale, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 20; November 16, 2008, James Campbell, review of A Great Idea at the Time, p. 18. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 23, 2008, Margo Hammond, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Publishers Weekly, September 18, 1987, Sybil Steinberg, review of Fellow Travelers, p. 159; May 3, 1991, Sybil Steinberg, review of The Americans Are Coming!, p. 65; December 10, 2001, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 61. Ruminator Review, spring, 2002, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 34. SciTech Book News, June, 2002, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 122. Seattle Times, November 20, 2008, Ellen Emry Heltzel, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ), November 22, 2008, Arthur T. Vanderbilt II, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Telegraph (London, England), February 19, 2009, Kasia Boddy, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Utne Reader, March, 2002, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 87. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition, November 10, 2008, Robert K. Landers, review of A Great Idea at the Time, p. A17. Washington Monthly, November 1, 2008, Kevin Carey, review of A Great Idea at the Time, p. 54. Washington Post Book World, January 19, 2003, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 12. Washington Times, January 11, 2009, Robert Ganz, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Weekly Standard, December 22, 2008, Christine Rosen, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Wilson Library Bulletin, March, 1988, Charlotte Fox Zabusky, review of Fellow Travelers, p. 91. Yankee, April, 2002, Geoffrey Elan, review of Gracefully Insane, p. 28. ONLINE Alex Beam Home Page, http://alexbeam.net (June 26, 2014). Atlantic Online, http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/ (September 5, 2002), Sage Stossel, "The Asylum on the Hill." Boston International Antiquarian Book Fair Web site, http://www.bostonbookfair.com/ (November 16, 2008), review of A Great Idea at the Time. Identity Theory, http://www.identitytheory.com/ (March 12, 2002), Robert Birnbaum, author interview. Internet Review of Books, http://internetreviewofbooks.com/ (December 31, 2008), Carter Jefferson, review of A Great Idea at the Time. Wall Street Journal Online, http://online.wsj.com/ (April 22, 2014), Barton Swaim review of American Crucifixion. Scranton (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the information is provided by the subject, non-controversial information should be usable under the WP:ABOUTSELF guidelines. It may be too inclusive to support notability, although that should not be an issue for Alex Beam. John M Baker (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)