Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RfC: Bloody Elbow

What is the reliability of Bloody Elbow pre-2024?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Bloody Elbow)

• Option 3 See previous discussions at RSN:[1] [2] Three of the four editors who weighed in, not counting me, considered it a blog that was generally unreliable. One editor pointed out it had been cited more than 500 times, but did not otherwise weigh in. Please note that I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki.com, hired by ONE Championship which has been covered in Bloody Elbow,

While Bloody Elbow currently seems to be a reliable source under the new ownership, (See their editorial policy, prior to this, Bloody Elbow was a small blog. When GRV bought Bloody Elbow in 2024, [3] it laid off the existing staff and deleted most of its archival content, indicating a lack of confidence in the site’s past work.

Most of the citations to Bloody Elbow on Wikipedia no longer work and can’t be rescued. On the Ultimate Fighting Championship page, for example, of the 35 citations to Bloody Elbow, only five links work - three go to the Ghost Archives, one to the Internet Archive, and only one to Bloody Elbow. I tried to find the 29 sources on the Internet Archives and the Ghost Archives and I could not locate them.

When deciding whether a source is reliable WP:USEBYOTHERS says: “How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.” The media rarely cited to Bloody Elbow over its 16 year history. I found only three reliable sources pre-March 2024 that cite to it, two of which described it as a blog. A story written by a contributor on a site called “Fannation” uses Bloody Elbow as a news source. The two other reliable sources that refer to it as a blog are a small Florida publication and Washington Post sports blog. The Post seems to have used it exclusively to reprint quotes from fighters attributed to the Bloody Elbow blog E.g. [4], [5], [6].

My suggestion is that Bloody Elbow pre-March 2024 be treated as unreliable for statements of fact, but can be used for statements of opinion, if attributed. Regardless, editors are going to need to replace the hundreds of dead links with new citations. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this RFC? The consensus from previous discussions is that it isn't reliable. That is also the case with previous discussions on SBNation blogs in general. Has there been any disagreement with that assessment? If not this seems a waste of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I see there was a discussion of SBNation, in which you participated, but there was no consensus. You argued that these blogs were sometimes reliable, and sometimes not,[7] which would be Option 2 if applied to Bloody Elbow. But there is recent precedent for examining the SBNation blogs individually here at RSN. Here is an extensive discussion from July 2023 of team SBNation team blogs, in which you also participated and argued they should not be used for BLP.[8] Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is still unsettled under WP:RSPCRITERIA. The first discussion had three participants and two agreed that it was unreliable. [9] The most recent one, had three participants, two of whom agreed it was unreliable, but my vote likely shouldn’t count since I am a paid consultant to a company written about by Bloody Elbow. [10]. WP:RSPCRITERIA says that to declare a source unreliable you need significant discussions between at least two qualifying editors about the source's reliability or an uninterrupted RfC. @ActivelyDisinterested: Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be listed, and starting discussion and RFC just to get it listed on RSP is non-productive. This board is for advice for disupted sources, not a place to fulfil thr requirements setout to get listed at RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally unreliable, as its just a blog. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RFC As the RFC was only started to get the source listed at RSP. Blogs are covered by WP:BLOG, and strongly oppose listing this at RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether it was a blog or news source pre-March 2024 is the issue. It was not self-published - it had different owners and employees. Wikipedia editors frequently misuse it as a news source, in my opinion. It has been cited more than 500 times on Wikipedia, such as on the page for Ultimate Fighting Championship more than 35 times, and on ONE Championship. I think most of these uses are incorrect even though they are widespread. A formal decision on an RfC will help prevent further misuse, and also clarify that this does not affect Bloody Elbow post March-2024. This decision will directly impact how I treat the source when making proposals for edits I am planing. That's all I care about, not whether it gets list at RSP. @ActivelyDisinterested:, would you like a few examples of where it is treated like a news source on Wikipedia so you can see what I mean - to establish that there is widespread misuse on Wikipedia, which makes this RfC meaningful. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How it is used on Wikipedia isn't how reliable sources are judged, many unreliable sources are used extensively on Wikipedia. If it wasn't a blog at some point could you provide details? As far as I could see it was always a SBNation source and they are all blogs.
You should make the edit requests and then see if anyone objects. The first part of WP:CONSENSUS is through editing, if someone objects discuss it with them, if you can't come to agreement with them see WP:Dispute resolution (which may include looking for third party input on a noticeboard like this one). You are circumventing the normal editing process. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it was always a blog, which is why I chose Option 3. Also, RSN is commonly used outside of disputes that went though Dispute Resolution, apparently contrary to your claim. On this page alone, RSN is used to determine the reliability of a source outside the context of a specific edit dispute on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is NPR a reliable source?, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of NewsReports, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#profootballarchives.com. As to bringing up the 500+ edits, I only investigated the angle of how widespread usage has been on Wikipedia because User: Schazjmd brought it up during the previous Bloody Elbow discussion,[11]. When you participated in Profootballarchives.com, you did not object to User:Fourthords starting the discussion stating it has been used in 1500 articles, nor did you object when the same editor stated that they could find no other discussion about the reliability of the source (therefore no previous dispute about the source, which you say is necessary before coming to RSN). Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 3. (Former) SB Nation subpages are basically fan blogs with undetermined (or no) oversight by actual editors with actual degrees in journalism. If the only source for some material comes from pre-2024 Bloody Elbow etc. then that material shouldn't be cited. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The Economist, as an acceptable resource.

I was advised to take it here to seek clarification with regard to the use of The Economist as a source. This is not a discussion about the reliability of The Economist as a source, as the community has already decided on that a number of times, the last time at an RFC: [12] My question rather concerns interpretation of the community consensus. According to WP:RSP, The Economist is considered generally reliable. However during our discussion at WP:NPOVN some editors argued that this Economist article is an opinion piece, because WP:RSP also states that "The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline". Referring to this statement some editors consider every Economist article to be an opinion piece, and therefore not suitable for use in Wikipedia. In my opinion, that certainly contradicts the strong community consensus that The Economist is generally reliable, which was reached at the last RFC. I don't see that The Economist article in question is identified as an opinion piece on The Economist website, and blanket dismissal of all Economist articles is in my view against Wikipedia policies and general consensus. Also, in that RFC, I don't see any consensus for the wording about The Economist publishing articles "exclusively" in editorial voice. Checking through history, I see that this wording was introduced by User:SamuelRiv: [13], who presented his rationale here: [14] Previous wording appeared to suggest that The Economist published both regular articles and editorial pieces. The aforementioned edit was made before the RFC, but the RSP text was not updated afterwards to reflect the latest consensus. I have no doubts that this edit was made in good faith, but with due respect to every user's opinion, I tend to think that the RSP wording should be based on a wider community consensus. In particular, the present wording appears to suggest that the Economist is a reliable source, but because it publishes only the opinion pieces, it is not per WP:RSOPINION. That is self-contradictory, and certainly is not what the RFC decided. I tag SamuelRiv and Compassionate727, who closed the last RFC, to discuss possible improvements to RCP wording, and I would appreciate comments from anyone wishing to do so. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• The Economist, while generally reliable, isn't likely to be the best source for material about trans people.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is not the subject of this thread & query. The consensus at the RFC was that the Economist is reliable, including the aforementioned topic, as well as those related to the Transgender community. To change that, we would need another RFC, which is not necessary considering it was already covered multiple times in detail. My query is regarding the ambiguous wording of the RCP that needs fixing in accordance with the community consensus - to remove such ambiguity. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Welcome to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where we discuss the reliability of sources in context. The Economist is the source; trans people is the context. If that isn't the subject of this thread and query, then you've likely posted in the wrong place. What's the outcome you want from this thread?—S Marshall T/C 19:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps it was brought up in not the most suitable Noticeboard. The main reason for my post on this noticeboard is my query, which concerns the ambiguous wording of the RSP entry, as it has become a matter of contestation and ambiguity due to its wording affording divergent interpretations. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  If your only issue is wanting to discuss the wording on the entry at RSP I suggest using WT:RSP, as that's not an issue of reliability.

  Generally just because a source is considered 'generally reliable' doesn't mean that the reliability of specific articles in context can't be questioned, and opinion isn't unreliable - it's opinion and is usually fine with attribution if it's due. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the contribution and opinion. I have absolutely no issues with attribution, we can do that when referring to the Economist article in question. Of course I could take it to another board, if that is a more appropriate venue. Indeed, my only issue or query here is the wording of the RCP entry. Question is, how can it be presumed that every Economist article is an opinion piece? As far as I can see, the latest RFC closing statement makes no mention of that. And RCP entries must contain information that is based on community consensus. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  The RFC linked is about trans people specifically, and an overwhelming majority of users voted that it's generally reliable on trans topics. Hi! (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Asserting all Economist articles to be opinion pieces seems an odd take, possibly based on a misunderstanding of what “editorial voice” means. It means the tone and style is that of the collective publication, not that they are publishing editorials. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was probably the intended meaning of the wording, but "The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice" part links "editorial voice" to WP:RSOPINION, which implies that all the articles are opinion pieces. Which is why I think better wording is needed to fix the ambiguity. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibly that part needs to come out of the RSP summary as the presence or absence of bylines has little bearing on reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• There's some missing context here. The discussion at NPOVN also brought up (that's to say that I brought up) that the claim seems like it would fall under the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Sean Waltz O'Connell thinks it doesn't and argues it's purely about medical ethics, but Loi in the NPOV thread was of the view that the claim does require MEDRS because it falls under information which (if true) would affect or imply conclusions about biomedical information is typically itself treated like biomedical information. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's MEDRS, exactly. The biomedical information isn't in dispute. What's disputed is whether there was an effort to suppress the biomedical information. But I can't believe a newspaper is the best source for that.—S Marshall T/C 19:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Especially only 1 newspaper. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  What medium would you prefer as a source? Hi! (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is a different part of the dispute, concerning not just The Economist, but also the New York Times. The Economist article was initially contested on the grounds that all The Economists publications are opinion pieces based on RSP wording. That is the matter I want to discuss here, to prevent further misunderstanding. Regardless of the outcome of NPOVN discussion, I think the fact that there is such ambiguity warrants a fix to the RSP wording to dispel of any divergent interpretations, and for the sake of any future disagreements. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is where the "within their area of expertise" in GREL comes into play, The Economist is reliable for its areas of expertise (business, finance, trade, economics, international relations, maybe a bit more) but they aren't in general experts in entertainment, social, medical, and scientific areas except as they overlap with the above. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  They are no more or less reliable on economics than they are on science. They have staff science writers who are trained as scientists and science writers, and they have staff international affairs writers and staff econ and finance writers and book writers who are trained similarly. They have high editorial standards, a strong reputation, and strong fact checking, across the board. SamuelRiv (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I pay an exhorbitant fee to subscribe to The Economist... I don't pay that fee for the bloviating polemics on the trans menace or DEI meaning DIE WESTERN MAN DIE. There is no source which does absolutely everything well and MEDRS essentially means that almost all generally reliable have already been ruled as not having a series of topics within their area of expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Their articles all have editorial voice. (Arguably so do those of most newspapers these days, once articles go beyond 400 words or so, but The Economist is very explicit about its voice and position.) Editorial voice in a news article is not the same as being a straight opinion piece, even if we do link to WP:RSOPINION in the description. Nobody in RSP wanted a clarification.

(Fwiw, per this discussion, their stated editorial position makes no prejudicial stance on an issue like transgender politics -- indeed, listening to their podcasts daily for the past 5 years, their stance on the issue actually pretty much flipped after the Cass Review.)

Regarding medical ethics, that's an academic field -- lay reviews are useful, and The Economist can give a lay review of the academic debate (along with the accompanying academic source it cites), or an overview of the political debate surrounding the academic debate, or to some extent the philosophy/discourse debate that's going on among magazine writers (to which The Economist's contribution is questionable without bylines, but is probably still taken quite seriously because of its readership), but it is not the academic debate itself. SamuelRiv (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not about an academic discussion on medical ethics in the abstract; the disputed content, reported first by the Economist and subsequently by several RS, that WPATH tried to (or did?) stop the publication of systematic reviews they commissioned because they didn't get the desired findings. And also that they removed the minimum ages for gender reassignment surgeries at the last minute after being pressured by the US executive administration to do so, for stated (by the DHHS) political purposes. This context is specific, and is neither academic in nature nor biomedical information. 73.2.106.248 (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Then that's called news. It's a newspaper.

Although for WP purposes it may be premature, regardless of reliability. In two months there's been no follow-up by any other publication. Maybe that's an ongoing investigation, or the story is dormant because nobody is commenting, but personally I think we all need to have higher standards for things like WP:NOTNEWS. (On the other hand, it technically meets all standards -- its primary sources are completely verifiable by us, even, and competent editors would have vetted it, so there's not much else to say -- it warrants inclusion far more than a lot of other stuff in the article.) SamuelRiv (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi SamuelRiv , and thank you for joining the discussion and sharing your opinion. The dispute concerns this Economist article. It is paywalled, but the full version was reproduced here: [15] The Economist reported that WPATH leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, and both The Economist and The New York Times report that WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors under pressure from a high-ranking official, who apparently acted on their own initiative, as the US administration denied having anything to do with it. These are the NYT reports: [16] [17] If anyone cannot access them, I can provide quotes. This is not about a medical treatment, but about the decision making process within this organization, which was reported by 2 major, highly respected publications. There were objections to inclusion of this material on several grounds, one of them being that all Economist articles are editorials (which is not correct), as well as WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS. As you can see, this is not biomedical information, but rather an ethical issue, and reliable news outlets could be used to report such information, as WP:MEDPOP states that 'the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article.' The Economist article led to substantial discussion in other mainstream news orgs, as the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Guardian published op-eds discussing the information shared by the Economist.

For example, an op-ed in The Washington Post directly cites the Economist article:

"Last week, The Economist reported that other documents unsealed in the Alabama case suggest something has gone wrong at WPATH itself, which reportedly commissioned evidence reviews from Johns Hopkins University, then tried to meddle with the result. Internal communications suggest that research should be 'thoroughly scrutinized to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.' Now, assuming this is true, I’m sure WPATH sincerely believed it was doing its best for gender-dysphoric kids. But such meddling makes it harder to find out whether the group is right about that." [18]

Similarly, an op-ed from The New York Times notes:

"The World Professional Association for Transgender Health... blocked publication of a Johns Hopkins systematic review it had commissioned that also found scant evidence in favor of the gender-affirming approach. Recently released emails show that WPATH leaders told researchers that their work should 'not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense.'"

[19]

Another op-ed in The Guardian states:

"Evidence has since emerged suggesting that WPATH actually tried to suppress the systematic reviews that it commissioned from Johns Hopkins University because the results undermined its preferred approach... WPATH was pressured by the Biden administration to remove minimum ages for treatment from its 2022 standards of care." [20]

While these op-eds cannot be used for statements of facts, they can be used for statements of opinions, if we choose so, and show that the information from the Economist made an impact. In my opinion, the information reported by The Economist got substantial attention from the mainstream media to warrant the inclusion, and it is not WP:UNDUE. Same is true for the 2 reports (which are not op-eds) by the NYT.. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Sean -- I didn't see (in my few minutes of searching initially) that the NYT re-reported, which means that they independently verified The Economist​'s facts. That plus the major op-ed coverage alleviates probably all of my concerns about lack of traction. (As for NOTNEWS, the cat's long been out of the bag on all these political articles.) SamuelRiv (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Self-edit: Sean, your NYT news articles only support the Levine influence, not The Economist​'s reporting of documents indicating WPATH's influence on clinical trials, which is the absolute meat of what's being discussed (as it would be WPATH's wrongdoing). Also, the contributed opinion articles, even in the NYT, are not significant with respect to the notion of independent fact-checking (with notable cases in which the NYT op-ed editor has made exceptions on this). So we are back to my original comment: no independent verification of The Economist​'s reporting, and no significant traction. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

SamuelRiv Thank you for your considerations. Indeed, there are 2 pieces of information that are being discussed. One is Levine interference, and the other suppression of the Hopkins Uni reviews. As you noted, the information about Levine's influence has also been reported by the New York Times. Moreover, the US administration also reacted to the NYT report denying its involvement, so at the moment it appears to be Levine's personal initiative. In addition, the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services initiated an investigation and requested documents and information about health officials' interactions with WPATH based on the NYT reports. [21] So this is quite a significant coverage and growing controversy reported by 2 major mainstream sources that is getting reactions from the top political circles. As you mentioned, the cat's long been out of the bag, so it is not NOTNEWS. I believe that all the above coverage warrants the inclusion of this information. Do you agree with that?

Regarding the WPATH's meddling with John Hopkins University reviews, The Economist was the biggest news outlet reporting on this, but other mainstream sources published op-eds discussing this information. While I agree that these are not enough for fact checking, I believe this shows that this information got the attention of those outlets, and they have no reason to question its reliability. The WaPo op-ed even mentions The Economist by name. The Hopkins Uni controversy was reported in a smaller media too, for example The New York Sun also covered the story and linked to The Economist article in its report:

"WPATH wielded a heavy hand after it in 2018 commissioned from evidence-based medicine experts at Johns Hopkins University a series of systematic literature reviews... After some of the Hopkins teams’ findings raised concerns among WPATH leadership that they might 'negatively affect the provision of transgender health care,' WPATH compromised the independence of the Hopkins researchers." [22]

The author is a contributor to many mainstream media outlets.

The Levine story was also reported by The Hill, which is generally reliable according to its RSP entry. So that would be 3 reliable sources reporting on the issue, i.e. The New York Times, The Economist and The Hill [23]

Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The Economist is certainly not reliable in its China coverage. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

In hard copy, The Economist publishes opinion pieces in the front, and news pieces in the rest of the magazine. Online, the opinion pieces carry the heading "Leaders" (or less commonly, "By invitation"); the remaining content is published as news. The magazine's news pages are not perfect but they are surely at least as reliable as other newspapers and magazines that we commonly cite. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Some articles are as mentioned mixed news and opinion/analysis. In that case, only the news is reliable.

It would have been helpful if you explained what passage in the article was being used to support what source. As a rule, a conclusion based on stories that have already been published is not news, hence not reliable.

In this case, it's preferable to use news reporting to report what Dr. Cass found, and the reaction to it, provided it is clear what weight is placed on various reactions.

TFD (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is about WPATH/SOC8, not the Cass Review (relevant NPOV discussion) CambrianCrab (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggested alternative wording:

Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and are written in editorial voice. Within these articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline.

For brevity, I dropped the part about WP:NEWSBLOG because I couldn't see any content this would apply to at a glance across their homepage and it doesn't appear to have been raised in any previous RSN discussions, but obviously it still applies. I dropped the part about podcasts because we don't actually appear to have a specific guideline for podcasts and no other RSP entries mention their sources' podcasts. I hope this wording is clarifying and mutually agreeable. – Teratix ₵ 04:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Loki (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This is very good, thank you. My only concern is about this part: "Within these articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources". I can foresee some arguments about what is what. Maybe we can make it a bit more straightforward? Per Newyorkbrad, maybe we can mention distinction between the news reports and opinion pieces? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The Economist will often have news and opinion in the same article. Luckily, it's well-written enough that it's usually quite clear which is which. CMD (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I can foresee some arguments about what is what. I see this as a feature, not a bug: the whole point is, when it comes to The Economist, because of its style, we do need to put in a little more thinking than we might with other RS with regards to what is straightforward fact and what is attributable editorial perspective.

maybe we can mention distinction between the news reports and opinion pieces Well, that's the effect I've tried to go for with the separate line about "pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces". – Teratix ₵ 03:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Teratix ₵, if being more specific is not advisable, I think we can proceed to implement your proposed version. Thank you for your efforts. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate please on how you see the distinction between factual content and analytical content? I don't think this is something that we normally call out at RSN? What is The Economist doing differently from other newspapers to warrant part of their news content being carved out as something different to factual? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Right now, when I go to the Economist's website, their front page story is Why Sudan’s catastrophic war is the world’s problem, an article which both has significant factual content but also does a great deal of predicting of the future (Beyond Africa, expect a new refugee shock in Europe) and policy argumentation (The other priority is to put pressure on the cynical outside actors fuelling the conflict). Needless to say, this is much more analysis than is typical of a news site.

Other articles on their front page are similar: compare Donald Trump’s dream of mass deportations is a fantasy and The plasma trade is becoming ever-more hypocritical, which both combine significant factual content with analysis and policy argumentation. Loki (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO, the only articles in the print edition that don't try to analyze the future are the obituaries (but that doesn't stop the editor from speculating about what the person was thinking about at some undetermined moment). It should be a given, somewhere within existing guidelines, that editors can determine within a reliable source, those statements which are analytical, those statements which are empirical, and those which are objectively verifiable fact.

For a newspaper to be reliable, we put some credibility in both the fact-checking process for the verifiable facts, and also the trust in field reporters who claim empirical facts (like "he said x" or "I saw x"). SamuelRiv (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I like this proposal. I agree with Teratix that some healthy discussion over what is fact and what is opinion/analysis is a good thing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The part of the Economist article concerning the interference by an official was originally reported by the New York Times, another highly authoritative source. Quotes:

Biden Officials Pushed to Remove Age Limits for Trans Surgery, Documents Show

Health officials in the Biden administration pressed an international group of medical experts to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors, according to newly unsealed court documents. Age minimums, officials feared, could fuel growing political opposition to such treatments. Email excerpts from members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health recount how staff for Adm. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services and herself a transgender woman, urged them to drop the proposed limits from the group’s guidelines and apparently succeeded. [24]

Biden Administration Opposes Surgery for Transgender Minors

The statement followed a report in The Times that a federal health official had urged the removal of age minimums from treatment guidelines for transgender minors. The Biden administration said this week that it opposed gender-affirming surgery for minors, the most explicit statement to date on the subject from a president who has been a staunch supporter of transgender rights. The White House announcement was sent to The New York Times on Wednesday in response to an article reporting that staff in the office of Adm. Rachel Levine, an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, had urged an influential international transgender health organization to remove age minimums for surgery from its treatment guidelines for minors. The draft guidelines would have lowered the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies. The final guidelines, released in 2022, removed the age-based recommendations altogether. “Adm. Levine shared her view with her staff that publishing the proposed lower ages for gender transition surgeries was not supported by science or research, and could lead to an onslaught of attacks on the transgender community,” an H.H.S. spokesman said in a statement on Friday evening. Federal officials did not elaborate further on the administration’s position regarding the scientific research or on Adm.Levine’s role in having the age minimums removed. The administration, which has been supportive of gender-affirming care for transgender youth, expressed opposition only to surgeries for minors, not other treatments. The procedures are usually irreversible, critics have said. [25]

Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Since our discussion has extended beyond my original concern, I would like to ask the involved editors for their guidance on whether the information reported by The Economist and The New York Times should be included in the article about the WPATH. As I mentioned earlier, there were objections to its inclusion on various grounds, but the discussion here demonstrates that many of these objections do not hold up under scrutiny. There is a general consensus that The Economist is a reliable source when it reports facts, so the argument that all Economist articles are opinion pieces cannot be maintained.

Additionally, WP:MEDRS is not applicable in this case, as WP:MEDPOP states that high-quality popular press is a suitable source for social, current-affairs, financial, and historical information within a medical article. The key issue now is determining whether the information reported by these sources meets the criteria of WP:DUE .

The discussion essentially revolves around two pieces of information:

• The Economist reported that WPATH leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. When the findings from these reviews did not support WPATH's preferred approach, they blocked their publication.

• Both The Economist and The New York Times reported that WPATH removed minimum age requirements for the treatment of minors due to pressure from a high-ranking official.

As demonstrated by the quotes I provided earlier, the information from The Economist regarding the Johns Hopkins University reviews sparked substantial discussion in mainstream media, such as the Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Guardian, who published op-eds debating the issue. This indicates that the information did not go unnoticed and had a significant impact. Furthermore, the second piece of information, reported by both the NYT and The Economist—two highly reliable news outlets—prompted a response from the U.S. administration, underscoring its notability. There is also evidence that the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services initiated an investigation and requested documents and information about health officials' interactions with WPATH based on the NYT reports. [26]

I would appreciate hearing your opinions on this matter. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK and walk away from the dead horse.

You asked this question at the article talk page, were told no based on policy (the economist story on WP:NOTNEWS, the NYT on age changes of the SOC8 on the basis that it belongs on the SOC8 article where it already is), then you went to the NPOV Noticeboard where again, you were told no and then decided to continue on your WP:FORUMSHOP trip to come here with the same question, which this noticeboard here is not concerned, it deals with reliability.

And again, the same reasons still apply. Raladic (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I was advised to take it here by an admin. As such, I followed their due advice. That's not forum shopping. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Opinion piece in The Sun, used solely as evidence of its author's views

While still in opposition, John Healey wrote an opinion piece for The Sun outlining some of Labour's policy positions on defence and indicating his support for them: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28262648/labours-triple-lock-keep-britain-safe-john-healey/

Is citing this piece as evidence of Healey's stated views permissible, or does the deprecation of The Sun forbid this?

My own take is that this seems fine as a matter of common sense (the reliability of The Sun's reporting on matters of fact has no direct relevance to this usage, and there's no reason to suspect that they fabricate or modify the substance of opinion pieces by politicians) and also fine as a matter of current guidance - WP:RSOPINION specifically permits this kind of usage. David_Gerard apparently disagrees, though. What do others think? Is there a good reason not to use this source in this way that I am missing? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the Sun is less reliable than, say, a random social media post by this person, and, attributed, using a social media post like that seems like a reasonable WP:ABOUTSELF. Raises due weight concerns, though, looking at that diff I'm not entirely convinced this is a reasonable amount of detail to try to hand off of one opinion piece, but I'd think that regardless of where it was published. Rusalkii (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

But is it significant enough to mention if no independent sources have taken note of it? Schazjmd (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I would want to see a better argument than 'no one else has reported on it' if we are not going to include the secretary of state for defence's views on his own party's policy positions on defence, sourced to himself. In his own biography. Its pretty much as far into ABOUTSELF as you can get before we even start discussing if its relevent *given the job he is currently doing*. Likewise the 'dont use depreciated sources' argument is asinine. If we would use it if he wrote an opinion piece in another paper, we can use it from the sun. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If all that's needed is a primary ABOUTSELF statement then why not us the government statement instead[27], it covers everything apart from specifically mentioning the Dreadnought-class submarines but they are not mentioned in the Sun article either. This seems a better idea than wasting time arguing over using a deprecated source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The statement you link isn't by John Healey, but more importantly it is from after he gained power, not before. Sources by or quoting Healey after he became a minister are inherently less reliable as evidence of his personal views than sources from when he was a shadow minister, because ministers do not have freedom of speech to express their own views once in power; instead they are constitutionally obligated to publicly maintain the appearance of supporting all government policy regardless of their personal beliefs. If we want to use a source to indicate to the reader what Healey personally stands for, it either needs to be from before he was in government or be based on a leak of a private conversation in which he was permitted to speak his own views; any official government source is inherently unreliable for this purpose. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't, we can take that he supports something by his statement while in office. If he says "I support ..." then we can use that to say he supports it, collective responsibility or not. The issue would only be in statements such as "The government / cabinets position is ..." The idea that we couldn't would also mean that any MP's statement while in office couldn't be used, as they are also meant to support the parties policies.

Also no ministers have freedom of speech, in fact their freedom of speech is greater than when not an MP. Statements to parliament are protected by parliamentary privilege, the government could be upset with their statements, force them to resign from their position, or even remove the whip, but it couldn't censor them or force them to speak. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that statements from after he became a minister "couldn't be used". I said they are inherently less reliable as evidence of his personal views than statements made while in opposition.

"any MP's statement while in office couldn't be used, as they are also meant to support the parties policies" - huh? MPs rebelling against their own party is completely ordinary and not generally seen as any kind of constitutional violation or breach of duty. Obviously there are personal career incentives not to do this but it's not the same as the duty of collective responsibility borne by ministers.

Also no ministers have freedom of speech, in fact their freedom of speech is greater than when not an MP. Statements to parliament are protected by parliamentary privilege - which means only that they cannot personally be subjected to criminal or civil punishment for their speech while in Parliament. The lack of those enforcement mechanisms doesn't change the fact that they are traditionally considered to have a duty to speak in a particular way, which ministers generally honour; I cannot remember a case in my lifetime of a minister criticising the policies of their own government without resigning first. If you want to quibble over whether this is properly construed as a restriction on "freedom of speech", feel free, but it doesn't really matter to the assessment of what level of candor we can expect from ministers; what matters is that they do in fact honour this obligation, whether they are in some sense "free" to violate it or not. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If they are free to violate it then they have freedom of speech. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

While I know very little about UK politics, NZ politics shares some similarities. And so I think there is an important point you've missed. While technically there may not be cabinet collective responsibility for shadow ministers and secretaries, in reality the same principle holds. Shadow ministers and secretaries aren't supposed to be going around opposing party policy. They especially aren't supposed to be doing it during an election campaign. If they do it, there's a good chance this won't end well for them. And if anything, it's arguably riskier. In this particular case, the Sun piece seems to have been published before [28] the nomination deadline. I'm fairly sure this means if they wanted to Labour could have nominated someone else to represent them in his electorate. Perhaps Healey has enough personal support that he could still expect to win, and/or felt this was unlikely and/or could have joined some other party and that combined with his existing support in the electorate would be enough. (Noting also while the furore of such a thing might have wider implications that could be risky for Labour, not doing so could likewise have such implications. And if you want to look at the particulars, the evidence AFAIR even at that stage was that losing that seat itself wouldn't have been a dealbreaker for Labour. And indeed losing it to someone else who wasn't Healey might have been preferred.) But still, the idea that shadow secretaries doesn't have the same expectations that they need to publicly support party policy whatever they personally feel unless they can get permission to publicly oppose it (which is incredibly unlikely if it's something that is part of their responsibilities) or get that policy changed or resign is very likely flawed. Again I don't know much about the UK but I'm fairly sure it's not how things work at least for the major parties. Nil Einne (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of what I said at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#JD Vance Couch Hoax reintroduced without consensus Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive362#J.D. Vance Service Medals. While the situation isn't quite so extreme as here and that case also concerned a primary but not ABOUTSELF case, it's still similar. This was an extremely important shadow secretary from the party widely expected to win the election, and who now has won the election and the person concerned is now the secretary. Further it's even about an extreme momentous issue, nuclear weapons. It concerns the UK, which is a fairly large country and has a fairly robust media ecosystem, yes with a bunch of tabloids we exclude, but still several major sources with quite a few reporters. The idea that there's some important policy position of Labour, or some important view of Healey that that no reliable secondary source has thought worth discussing, but we need to is IMO fairly laughable. For those who are going to complain about this being off-topic despite it responding to the points raised, I'll bring it back to the Sun. Perhaps there might be some very rare cases when there is a genuine question of whether we should use Sun for ABOUTSELF or whatever. I suspect one reason why this has never been resolved is because it's so rare it comes up because ABOUTSELF is already very rare. Even in NZ where we're a lot smaller and our media therefore sometimes has problems that arise from that, it's likewise very rare. We could talk hypotheticals, but we need to be clear that the base case is not one where the issue arises. Nil Einne (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 01:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Besides weight concerns, I'm also not sure everything in that diff is even supported by the cited article. The Wikipedia article says Healey committed specifically to building four new Dreadnought-class nuclear subs, but the article merely says four new nuclear subs and doesn't contain the word "Dreadnought". Given those doubts, I'd like to scrutinise and see if everything in that diff is actually supported by the Sun article in conjunction with other cited sources - but that, like the due weight issue, is orthogonal to whether the sources is usable as evidence of Healey's views in the first place. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't. As I stated earlier it doesn't mention the Dreadnought or Vanguard submarines specifically, and the statement about the triple lock is With increasing threats and growing Russian aggression, Labour has announced a new "triple lock" commitment for the UK’s nuclear deterrent. So it's not his personal opinion but a statement of Labour policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The sentence you quote comes at the end of this passage:

It is time for change.

Time to restore Britain’s strength and reputation.

It is only Labour that has the plan for stability, to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

With increasing threats and growing Russian aggression, Labour has announced a new “triple lock” commitment for the UK’s nuclear deterrent, providing protection for both the UK and NATO allies.

This is clearly an endorsement of the policy presented as Healey's own opinion. Yes, the sentence you quote could, in a completely different context, simply be a neutral "statement of Labour policy" along with an argument for it given by Labour, and not indicate any endorsement by the sentence's author. But in the context it actually appears, interpreting it in that way is absurd. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As much of a personal opinion as as any MP stating what their parties policies are, they support the party and so support the policy. The whole statement is "Party slogan", "party slogan", "statement of policy", "statement of policy". You're taking way more from the statement than it actually contains. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation, as opposed to generally unreliable, means that we cannot even know if Healey wrote the piece or if it was tampered with.

Also, people's views should never be taken from what they write. First, if that's the only place a particular view is published, it lacks significance. It's not important to writers of reliable sources, therefore too much information for the article. Second, interpreting people's views based on their writing requires expertise. Fascists support free speech, racists support racial equality and war-mongers support peace in their rhetoric.

Also, articles should not present evidence of anything, bur should report where sources have provided evidence. For example, if an article says that someone likes strawberry jam amd provides a quote in support of it, we can quote what the person said so long as it is attributed to the secondary source and it is clear they are using it as evidence.

TFD (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The description of deprecation doesn't in fact say that anywhere, and paras 2 and 3 here seem to just be a wholesale and general rejection of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RSOPINION with implications well beyond The Sun. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Any ABOUTSELF claim still has to meet WP:DUE. Not every verifiable fact belongs in Wikipedia. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing this. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're going the ABOUTSELF route, we can pretty much put everything else aside. You can pretty much assume anything said during an election campaign or that is part of party or government policy fails the "unduly self-serving" test very badly. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

An "unduly self-serving" policy position? I'm not sure how that works, but even if it did, it wouldn't be relevant to whether the Sun can be considered reliable for ABOUTSELF claims. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no point discussing whether it can be used in this instance, if it can't be used point blank. This wasn't as a hypothetical but whether it can be used for this particular instance. Also it wasn't about "policy position" but instead about personal views. (For clarity the original disputes text was about policy positions, but the question which I responded to was about personal views. Although either way, yes they clearly are unduly self serving. ABOUTSELF isn't intended to allow people to grandstand politically. If no secondary source cared about their grandstanding then neither did we. As a regular at BLPN, I find people often misunderstand ABOUTSELF, there are very, very few cases when it can be used.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:THESUN specifically says that the RfC leading to deprecation "does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions". People have made comments here about whether the content is Wikipedia:DUE, or whether more is being read into the source than actually appears there. These are relevant questions for the underlying content dispute, but not for our discussion here at this noticeboard. The question is whether the Sun's status means you can't use it to cite Healey's description of his own positions/opinions - Is citing this piece as evidence of Healey's stated views permissible, or does the deprecation of The Sun forbid this?

The listing at RSN means that it is permissible - unequivocally. Other questions bearing on the content dispute should appear at the relevant talk page. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree that it's permissible, although I prefer to look at what the RfC closer actually said: "... consensus in favor of the proposal. Accordingly, the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication." -- but the proposal contained "deprecated as a source in the same manner as the Daily Mail (RfC)" (which looks muddled because the closers of that RfC didn't say "deprecated" they said "generally unreliable"). So it looks uncertain whether the Sun closer meant generally-unreliable or meant deprecated. What's certain is (a) WP:RSP's summary is worthless (b) regardless what was meant, opinions are allowed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Being an unreliable source along with shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article and An edit filter should be put in place to warn editors attempting to use the Sun as a reference is deprecation. The Sun RFC was one of the first to consider deprecation after the Daily Mail RFC, which is why the language isn't as formulaic as later discussions.

The start of the close says that there is consensus in favor of the proposal, and the proposal was Should The Sun be deprecated as a source in the same manner as the Daily Mail (RfC)... -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You're quoting what I'd already quoted, except you skipped the fact that the closer said "generally-unreliable". Then you're claiming a request for a warn filter must imply deprecate not generally-unreliable, but it ain't necessarily so since I notice that Edit Filter 1088 is for a generally-unreliable not deprecate item. As for your initial words "Being an unreliable source ..." another editor already suggested that the reliability in this case is irrelevant, and I'll suggest it's reliable in this case, so your premise hasn't been accepted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You've completely skipped over the point that the closer says that there is consensus in favor of the proposal, and the proposal was Should The Sun be deprecated as a source in the same manner as the Daily Mail (RfC)... So The Sun is clearly deprecated by the close.

It might be usable in this case for ABOUTSELF statements (although unnecessarily so as other sources can be used), but in context it's not reliable as it's electioneering not statements of personal opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You've made the 100% false assertion that I "completely skipped over the point", I in fact quoted those items before you came along. I don't believe that you can read the RfC closer's mind to determine what was meant by the contradictory remarks, and further I don't believe you can read Mr Healey's mind to determine he wasn't stating his own opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

But we can read his words where he didn't say his own opinion anywhere. Well um except that he thought that people should vote for Labour, and Labour was the best party etc. But I'm not sure why we're mentioning that, or why we need some random Sun column for it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I was simplying copying your own style, except you skipped the fact that the closer said, should I take that as a false assertion as well? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Per ActivelyDisinterested, I don't understand why on earth we'd assume what the shadow defence secretary said in the middle of an election campaign represents his views. In fact, I'd go so far as to say what he says now arguably has a greater chance of representing his views since while he got be fired could easily be fired, on the whole it matters less when the election is potentially nearly 5 years away. However we should still be wary that any of it represents his views. But also where did Healey even write about his views? I read [29] and it's written like a typical "this is what Labour will do and why etc and why the current government is so bad etc etc etc". While politicians sometimes thrown in some personal flavour of this is what I believe, I didn't actually see any of that in the Sun piece. It just seems to focus on Labour rather that Healey's personal views. (Discounting the obvious stuff Labour is the best party etc.) One would hope that given his position, Healey enthusiastically supports Labour's plans in the area etc, but frankly IMO even that can be questionable depending on the specifics (both due to the nature of politics and collective responsibility) and is still fairly separate from Healey's personal views. That's why we need reliable secondary sources who've analysed his statements from just before the election, after the election and most importantly, from long ago before we start talking about Healey's personal views. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Am I the only one laughing at the notion that anyone, much less a politician, would have some kind of intrinsic deeply-held sancrosanct personal views on British Defense policy vis-a-vis Labour's "triple-lock"?

And even if he'd been in office since The (Great) War, and we could trace his public policy statements every single day since 1900, how would those indicate some view more "personal" on a rather specific political topic than what he says now, this year? (And on something like defense, don't you think a lot has changed in the past one, two, three, or four years, that might cause a minister's policy position, "personal" or no, to completely reverse on some key issues?)

And on the notion of back-analyzing politician's "personal views" in general, am I the only one getting eerie reminders of, for example, attempts to discern Barack Obama's 'actual' religion (the most egregious case of this kind of thing being done endlessly forever)? SamuelRiv (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right on the first point which is why it's even more ridiculous that the OP asked the question which was part of my point. The source clearly doesn't say anything about his personal views, and the idea that the OP and others like Peter Gulutzan have represented that it did is just silly and I have no idea why we're discussing it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The column says "Opinion". I did not say "personal" views as I see no relevance or surprise if Mr Healey shared Labour opinions. WP:CIVIL says "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I should point out that the actual text in question [30] doesn't even talk about the subject's personal views, so I'm even more confused why people are talking about it. I mean the wording isn't the best, but in the context of the paragraph, it seems clear it's much more about Labour's policy rather than about whether Healey is making a personal commitment to it. (Politicans can and do make personal commitments at times of course e.g. I will resign if this policy is abandoned etc. Of course even personal commitment is sort of different from personal views anyway although it's often assumed people make a personal commitment because of personal views. That said, at least in NZ, personal commitments are sometimes made as a sort of redline because the politician feels that it's a very important position for the public, and it can be unclear or sometimes even in doubt whether the politician personally feels that way or would much rather something else but recognises it's not yet the time.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant to the question. The question is whether the source could be used in this way - whether the Sun is reliable for Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF claims. Your point could be validly made on the article talk page, it doesn't have bearing on the question here. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually it does, because the OP asked about using this particular source for using a particular person's views. If the OP, had wanted to ask about a hypothetical about some Sun source that could theoretically exist, but for which they weren't aware of an example of, they were free to do so, but that's not what they did. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I do think Nil (and @ActivelyDisinterested above) has a point here. My framing of wanting to use the article specifically as evidence of Healey's "personal" "views" was probably misguided. If we use it, all we want to be able to say that he expressed the positions in the column, not that he deep in his heart truly believes them (which is speculation, since politicians lie). I do still think it is at least potentially worth noting that he expressed them both on the campaign trail and while in power, since there are various reasons a reader might attach different significance to statements made while campaigning vs while in government. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with with mentioning other issues with the use of the source that might be relevant in this case, but people look at this noticeboard for precedents, so keeping the discussion centered on the noticeboard's topic (and not each content dispute, broadly construed) keeps the discussion usable for the future, and probably for a closer if one is needed. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

On the technical side of this, I would tend to agree that there might be cases where a politician might be writing in the Sun about their personal views and this might be usable for the politician's views in terms of WP:ABOUTSELF. However, this article isn't one of those cases, and such a case is very unlikely to come up when it is a serving member of the shadow cabinet writing an article. Politicians' pieces in the Sun and other tabloids are almost always carefully calculated pieces of electioneering/politicking measured precisely for a target demographic. Aboutself is more likely to come into play with retired politicos writing in that filthy noxious rag for some reason. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Preserved British Steam Locomotives

I have a strong suspicion that Preserved British Steam Locomotives would fall into the category of a self published source - going by the homepage, it would appear to be information compiled by a single person, with no attribution of sources. The site is primarily being used to source the current status and history of steam locomotives, including their current active status and what colour the locomotives are painted. Danners430 (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd expect that you're correct. It's a Wordpress blog without much customization if any and the wording of the about and contact pages both seems to suggest it's a single person (named David), not to mention they're using a gmail email address. Looks very much like someone's person project. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

A brief peruse suggests that the information contained there is accurate but I can't see that it contains anything that couldn't be cited from a more reliable source anyway. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the lack of input since yesterday, I wonder if it would be worth tagging any such sources with {{better source}} for the time being, instead of removing them? I personally would be inclined to start removing this source altogether, given it really does appear to be a personal blog - although accurate, we've no way of verifying the info presented on the site, and it clearly falls under WP:SPS. Danners430 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I would love to know where all these other sources are. I cited PBSL on the Mangapps Railway Museum page, because it was the only place I could find anything about overhaul of a particular loco. Mangapps own webpage does not even mention the loco in their stocklist, and has no information about the overhaul status of any of their vehicles. There is a video of stills from the overhaul on Youtube, but is Youtube a reliable source? Most of it seems to be self-published, if PBSL is. Just saying. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

YouTube is WP:UGC, generally… perhaps we need to review what is on Wikipedia if most of not can only be sourced with unreliable sources. But we’ll wait and see what others have to say about the reliability of PBSL. Danners430 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

YouTube can be a reliable source, but it's self published so the author needs to be an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. So if it's just a random person on YouTube then it won't be reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In the case of the field of cataloguing locomotives, there may be no establishment to grant expertise, and no independent publishers for a book (as is the case with examples I've seen of other cataloguers of esoteric recent history -- books and blogs that go in-depth on all the hat designs of the Soviet armed forces, or how to identify 1890s German-area rifle models, are self-published by what one might call amateurs). (This happens in the reverse in history too -- some independently published expert sources are deemed unreliable for wide swaths of subject matter.) Whether or not such a source (or author) is reliable enough for the articles it is used in is generally left up to the editors who manage those articles, such as the very active WP:TRAINS. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet projects can't form local consensus that departs from policy, and WP:SPS is part of WP:V. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't look RS and we have no evidence the author is an expert exempt from SPS. If it's the only source for something then that something isn't due in the article. We're supposed to be a summary, not an exhaustively-detailed treatise on every topic. JoelleJay (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC: twitchy.com

Am I Racist? is likely to be a... let's call it... frequently-edited article over the next few weeks. As of right now, its only two citations are from twitchy.com. I've seen a few mentions of it in the archives, but mostly in the context of other media properties its parent company owns. Its page Twitchy calls it a "Twitter aggregator and commentary website". That doesn't sound super reliable to me.

Is using Twitchy justified in this case? Snowman304|talk 06:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Twitchy does at least have Editors, but the description ('Twitchy is a ground-breaking social media curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies. We mine Twitter to bring you “who said what” in U.S. & global news, sports, entertainment, media, and breaking news 24/7.') doesn't make it sound particularly reliable. It's also 'founded by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin' then 'sold to Salem Media Group, a conservative Christian broadcasting corporation' so bias may be a concern too.

With that said, it makes me wonder why the page has been approved at all with only two citations and from a potentially iffy source at that. It doesn't sound like it's evidenced a great deal of notability at this time. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There was no approval of the page. It was a redirect, and converted into an article. Doing so skips NPP and AfC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The use in that article is just 'he said, she said'. It could be reliable in a primary attributed way (if the opinion is even due), but for that use you could just use the original social media post. It doesn't appear to add anything beyond the original social media posts, so using it in the way it's used in that article wouldn't be appropriate in WP:RSCONTEXT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That was basically my feeling too. I'm hoping this sparks a conversation that (eventually) leads to it being put on the WP:RSP list. Snowman304|talk 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like it just scrapes content from Twitter with minimal filtering by humans. Not RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Universe Guide

The reliability of Universe Guide is:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• universeguide.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Background

Universe Guide is an amateur blog about astronomy that is cited on many pages about astronomical objects. This website has been discussed at this WT:ASTRO discussion, this WP:RSN discussion, and this WT:AST discussion, and there is general consensus that it is unreliable, and due to persistent usage, it has been suggested to be deprecated or blacklisted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Deprecate per the discussions linked in the background section. I can see this is regularly being added to articles, so deprecation seems warranted here. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4: Deprecate That blog is a self-published site which is not peer-reviewed. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 I've nothing to add from the last time this came up, it's a blog written from what one person researched on the Internet[31]. It doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracyreputation for, if anything it's the opposite as per the discussions at WP:ASTRO. It's self published but not by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, rather I am an amateur space enthusiast of many years as opposed to someone who is academically qualified.[32] Nothing about the source makes it reliable for verification purposes, and if it is still being regularly added to articles for that purpose then deprecation is appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 too: Very clearly an unreliable source, even if it's a nice website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfoogles (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

AntWiki reliability

@YoungForever has mentioned that AntWiki is not a reliable source and should not be used to cite Wikipedia articles due to it being user-generated. However, I believe that it can be used because contrary to Wikipedia which can be edited by everyone, it can only be edited by ant experts confirmed by administrators as stated on its website. See full discussion on User talk:YoungForever. Should it be considered reliable or not? 2003 LN6 16:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

All AntWiki says about editors is that they "are ant experts", without explaining what that means. Assuming that expert is synonymous with established ant scholars, then the wiki still suffers from the issue of not having peer review. If you can cite from a reliable secondary source, there's no need to be citing from here. If this wiki has something that you can't find in a reliable secondary source, then that probably means it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed setting and leads to further questions about what kind of content can be added to this wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Not every known fact is published in a peer-reviewed paper or book (or certainly not one that is easily accessible or findable in the Library of Babel). And not every published book of facts is subject to rigorous peer review, per economics of science publication. That is why even experts find it incumbent upon themselves to make and maintain (multiple) wikis.

From AntWiki:Governance: "Antwiki is currently managed by David Lubertazzi, Gary Alpert and Steve Shattuck. ... Anyone that can provide bona fide evidence of their professional expertise in ant biology will be considered for an editing account."

Given this and citations described below, if you trust the statements of the editors, then AntWiki would be somewhere in an as-yet-un-policy-specified position between WP:EXPERTSPS, WP:TERTIARYUSE, and a very minor professional publication with minimal-but-present peer review (as experts are apparently reviewing and using it). It may be worthwhile to draft an essay on these types of sources that have legit provenance, quality control, and significant citation and use from academics, but would at face value seem to not be acceptable. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Not every known fact is published in a peer-reviewed paper or book (or certainly not one that is easily accessible or findable in the Library of Babel). And not every random factoid that someone on the Internet claims is true needs to be in Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia; our job is to summarize the highest-quality sources, not to try and indiscriminately collect every bit of information that anyone anywhere claims is a "known fact." A random undergraduate student could reasonably pass their "verification"; random nonsense they spew on a wiki still does not belong here and such a wiki cannot be cited here. Also, to clarify, there is no "peer review" and no editorial controls or fact-checking - they say that they perform vaguely-defined verification for new users, but individual edits or versions are not reviewed before publication. This makes it totally unusable as a source outside of WP:EXPERTSPS, which obviously cannot apply to anonymous editors because we have no way of verifying that it was ...produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Note that even Antwiki's vague, handwavy claims of verification do not come anywhere close to even asserting that they reach this standard. tl;dr: It is, by our standards, unusable trash. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with voorts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If we could show that these are all generally recognizable experts in the field, then it would be usable under WP:SPS... except for biographies of living ants. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"The queens can live for up to 30 years, and workers live from 1 to 3 years." That's longer than I thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you that my forthcoming site AuntWiki will have no BLP concerns whatsoever. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is showing that the editors are actually experts, deception does happen - on the internet no-one knows your a dog. It could be reliable, but I'm always sceptical of such sites. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think if we could show appropriate reliable sources relying on Antwiki (and not, as I first read it, Antiwiki, which would be a very different site), it would show that the editor base is expert as a group. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup. We need evidence that Antwiki is being cited in peer-reviewed articles, or similar. Otherwise we are just taking their word for the 'ant expert' thing. We don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I can find articles on ScienceDirect that cite AntWiki as a source. Examples: [33], [34], [35], [36]. 2003 LN6 20:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Searching on Google books gives results from Springer, Cambridge University Press, Wiley, and many more. It gives a strong case for WP:USEBYOTHERS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

its a wiki. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This wiki cannot be edited by everyone, registered users have to be ant experts verified by an administrator. 2003 LN6 18:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think requiring verification for user accounts is enough to escape WP:USERGENERATED, especially since they give no explanation of how this "verification" works. Beyond that, a wiki (even one with a super-special double-secret elite verificaiton process for new editors) doesn't provide any sort of fact-checking or editorial controls; this means that it regardless of everything else, it will never, ever qualify as "published" for Wikipedia purposes, which in turn means that it could only be cited as a self-published source - even the highest-quality verified editor on a highly exclusive wiki would still only be at best an WP:EXPERTSPS. But it can't even reach that low bar, because we don't know the identity of these supposed "experts"; instead, we're being asked to accept the anonymous verification performed by the wiki's editors. And note that EXPERTSPS is a higher bar than the wiki implies they use - 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. In short, every indication is that these could be random undergraduates with no publications to their name spewing anonymous nonsense with no editorial controls. No. This is a remove-on-sight level of source; it's completely unusable on Wikipedia, and should not be cited under any circumstances. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  As mentioned before, it is used by several peer-reviewed and Wikipedia-accepted scientific publications and journals. WP:UBO applies here. In addition, the primary author of the pages, Steven O. Shattuck, has written books featured in the Smithonian Library and Google Books. 2003 LN6 21:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have super strong feelings about this source, but I don't think your assessment of their verification process is entirely fair. On this page they explain that editor accounts are requested by emailing David Lubertazzi or Steve Shattuck, both of which are published and well established experts in ants. The verification is from them, not just other editors. They say on that page and on the governance page that they deny editor accounts to anyone that offers qualifications that do not show clear support for ant-expert status.

  You said every indication is that these could be random undergraduates with no publications to their name spewing anonymous nonsense with no editorial controls but they do explicitly say Undergraduate students working in the laboratory of an ant biologist or a graduate student studying ants under the guidance of a non-ant biologist, for example, could be considered for a contributor account. (emphasis added). Contributor accounts cannot edit anything other than talk pages.

  It's not entirely anonymous either as All account names are created using the first initial and the surname of the account holder.

  If your argument is that they might not follow all of that, that's fair, though I think WP:UBO lends some credence to their policies being respected. I don't think it's a best source, and I certainly wouldn't use it for anything controversial, but remove-on-sight seems excessive CambrianCrab (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  So what is the final conclusion of this discussion, as no comments have been added in the last five days? 2003 LN6 05:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  From an RSN standard point probably no consensus, although that's in no way a formal statement. Good points have been made for its reliability, but several editors stand unconvinced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple historical sources

These are the sources i wish to be added into Kuči (tribe), these articles and books go against the current POV of four active editors there, so naturally they claim that none of these are RS or usable in the article (claiming that even if they are RS, it's goes against "scholarly consensus" which is real only in the talk pages with them afaik). In my opinion, these articles state that origin of the tribe we are discussing is mixed, and i wanted to check whether they are valid and reliable sources or not, and whether claims i got from those articles and books are ok:

1. Bojka Đukanović - Historical Dictionary of Montenegro, page 190: According to their ethnic origins, the Kuči tribe is a mixture of Slavic and Albanian population. [37](screenshot of a page section)

2. Stanoje Stanojević - Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenac̆ka - Page 554: K. are an old Serb tribe. It was formed by Serb brotherhoods that moved from Zeta valley, where it was first living, and then spread to territory of K. They found two Vlach tribes Bukumiri and Mataguži, who were pushed away and then partly assimilated. In record from 1455. when Kuči are first mentioned as a tribe, it's said that they are of orthodox faith. Kuči celebrate Nikoljdan. Only the name Kuči is not of Serb origin. It's either obtained from population that here before, or they got it from Albanian label, which in their language means great, unsurpassed. From 15. century, running away from the Turks, many families from surrounding countries arrive, first Serbs and Albanians, and later only Serbs who were running away from Albanians. Out of 22 families who moved between 15th and 17th century to Kuči, only 4 are known to be of Albanian origin.[38](screenshot of a page section)

3. Predrag Petrovic - Vojvoda Radonja Petrović, Guvernadur Brda, page 30: Kuči, as one of key tribal societies in Brda region, have their own specific traits in comparison to other tribes from the ethnic standpoint. Core of the tribe which is formed around middle of XV century, or maybe even few decades before, are native brotherhoods who are not connected, but are of Slavic-Serb origin, and populate region of castle Medun and a couple of Vlach lineages in mountainous and region around it, who were mixing with each other before arrival of Mrnjavčevići. Later, after Turkish occupation and formation of Kuči nahia, in territorial and administrative region, was included a couple of Albanian, catholic brotherhoods in Trieshi, who joined tribal community of Kuči, and so that created a heterogeneous ethnic composition of Kuči, which was also religiously heterogeneous. [39](screenshot of a page section)

4. Andrey N. Sobolev - Southeastern European Languages and Cultures in Contact: Between Separation and Symbiosis (Language Contact and Bilingualism) - Page 96: Compare with the Kuči who had been an Orthodox Serbian tribe until the 15th century. Through the 15th to 17th century several Albanian (Catholic) and Serbian (Orthodox and Catolic) groups from other areas settled in their tribal territory. The population in the region had been a long time bilingual, but shifted to monolingualism due to the gradual Slavicization of Albanians. A bilingual situation now exists only in the small area of Koći/Koje, which is inhabited by Albanians and Albanized Serbs.[40](screenshot of a page section)

5. Rašović Marko - Kuči Tribe: Ethnographic-Historical Overview - describing period before 15th century and formation of a tribal society, page 30 And so the Serbs somewhere started living among Vlachs, and in other places pushed them further into the mountains. In todays region of Kuči, we can find proof that it was the second case.[41](screenshot of a page section)

describing period of tribe formation, 15th century, page 35 By the end of XV and during the XVI century begins big change in the composition of the population of Kuči. New brotherhoods and families are moving into Kuči, many of noble blood, running away from Turks. Poem from Petar Petrović Njegoš These newcomers were Serbs and Albanians, brave and energetic people, champions of uncompromised battle against the Turks. Almost all of them came here as well established brotherhoods, who forcibly take their place amongst the old Kuči, and then later, they spread and forced older families to move. Many of those who left Kuči later accepted Islam out of spite or as a revenge to those who exiled them from Kuči. As it was the case with most Serb tribes, the newcomers showed much more life than the old population and they grew bigger and spread even beyond the border of old Kuči territory. They pushed old Kuči into the shade, and pushed themselves as "real Kuči", carrying and defending that name with the same pride as their predecessors, old Kuči. By the mid XVIII century they already spread the territory of Kuči to their current borders, as it can be seen under the title "borders" Image on the other page. That's how new age of Kuči history had two events: New arrivals and spread.

From the first half of XV century to the end of XVII century, 23 brotherhoods moved to Kuči, out of which only one brotherhood, Čigomani, moved out. Out of other 22 brotherhoods, 4 are of Albanian origin: Geg, Koći, Boneći, Nuculovići.[42](screenshot of a page section)

6. Karl Kaser, Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden - Bei der Aufspaltung seines umfangreichen Katuns grenzten sich zuerst wahrscheinlich die Sommersiedlungen ab. Es scheint, als ob im Jahr 1455 der Territorialisierungsprozeß der abgespalteten Gemeinschaften abgeschlossen gewesen wäre. Die Gemeinschaft der Mataguži, die zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts noch existiert hatte, ging später unter. Die Hoti-Gemeinschaft hatte zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts bereits einige Katune vereinigt. Im Jahr 1485 wurden in den vereinigten Katunen 8 Dörfer und 134 Häuser gezählt. Der unmittelbare Urahne der Kuči sollte ein Grča Nenadin gewesen sein. Der ursprünglich nicht sehr umfangreiche Katun expandierte durch serbische Zusiedler im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert rasch. Die Zusiedler (unter ihnen die Dobroäani, tigomani, Deljani, Bulatoviei, Miloviei usw.) intergrierten sich rasch und nahmen auch den Namen der Kuči an. Im Jahr 1485 waren die Kuči 8 Dörfer mit 253 Häuser; 1497 waren es bereits um 150 Häuser mehr, und aus den 8 Dörfern waren 9 Katune und 2 Dörferentstanden.

Karl actually confirms same thing, that the tribe is formed in the later part of 15th century, and that not very big katun expended rapidly due to Serbian settlers. He also claims, like some other scholars, that the supposed ancestor of Kuci is Grca Nenadin, who is not written down as part of Nenads family in 1416. and there are no written records of him.

Setxkbmap (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It would have been far easier for others, if you included full bibliographical informations about these sources. Eg. source 2 (Stanoje Stanojević - Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenac̆ka) seems to be 100 years old, which makes it next to useless for an article concerning ethno/history of the Balkans. If there is a disagreement among reliable sources, both views should be presented in the article (weighting due weight of both views - fringe opinion should not be on the same level as a mainstream scholarly opinion). Pavlor (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It would have been far easier for others, if you included full bibliographical informations about these sources. Eg. source 2 (Stanoje Stanojević - Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenac̆ka) seems to be 100 years old, which makes it next to useless for an article concerning ethno/history of the Balkans.

Sorry, this is basically copy paste from the RfC that is being held on Talk:Kuči (tribe).

Bojka Djukanovic - Historical Dictionary of Montenegro, is from 2023.

Predrag Petrovic - Vojvoda Radonja Petrović, is from 2019.

Andrey N. Sobolev - Southeastern European Languages and Cultures in Contact: Between Separation and Symbiosis - is from 2021. or 2022.

Rašović Marko - Kuči Tribe: Ethnographic-Historical Overview - is from 1963.

Karl Kaser, Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden - is from 1992.

This is my first time looking for validity of sources, so sorry. Out of all of these autors.

If there is a disagreement among reliable sources, both views should be presented in the article (weighting due weight of both views - fringe opinion should not be on the same level as a mainstream scholarly opinion)

You can check what is currently being there and what is cited, and you are free to weigh in the RfC that is on the [Talk:Kuči (tribe)]].

Even the 100 years old source is used only because there are other 100 years old sources still in the article, or secondary sources that quote those same 100 year old documents incorrectly. So my bad. Feel free to join the discussion :) Setxkbmap (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems this is a redirect to the RFC that is already there in the Talk:Kuči (tribe). It is confusing to start and RFC there and then to come to this noticeboard to create another discussion. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Editors there didn't agree on the validity of the sources based on the fact that it's not confirming their POV. I asked whether i should ask here, and while they told me that i can ask if the sources are valid, that they would never change opinions and approve changes to the article.

So at least i am doing my best to provide reliable sources, and do what is in my power to not spew misinformation. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It may help if you provide some context like publisher information. Usually this helps evaluate if a source is a RS per wikipedia's guidelines. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Bojka Đukanović - Historical Dictionary of Montenegro (Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield, 2023)

2. Stanoje Stanojević - Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenac̆ka (1925) - too old,

3. Predrag Petrovic - Vojvoda Radonja Petrović, Guvernadur Brda (Publisher: Fond za razvoj Kuc̆a, 2019)

4. Andrey N. Sobolev - Southeastern European Languages and Cultures in Contact (Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton, 2021)

5. Rašović Marko - Kuči Tribe: Ethnographic-Historical Overview (Publisher: Stamp. zavod za izradu novcanica NB, 1963)

6. Karl Kaser, Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden (Böhlau Wien, 1992) Setxkbmap (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Each source should be looked at and analysed separately. In regard to Predrag Petrović (2019), I cannot see how this source can be considered RS by any stretch. Firstly Petrović has no specialisation or qualification in history or related humanities, he is an engineer. Secondly, a number of ahistorical claims are made in his book, such as references to the Mrnjavčevići which cannot be taken seriously. Thirdly, other books published by Petrović are rife with nationalistic claims such as the Albanian national hero, Skanderbeg, being a Serb. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Each source should be looked at and analysed separately. In regard to Predrag Petrović (2019), I cannot see how this source can be considered RS by any stretch. Firstly Petrović has no specialisation or qualification in history or related humanities, he is an engineer.

While i see what you are basing your opinion on, you must say that he is an author of 6 books about the tribe, and he worked on plans for reconstruction of the Medun fortress. Some of his works was published by the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts. The book that is in question here, has been written in collaboration with 4 professors.

Secondly, a number of ahistorical claims are made in his book, such as references to the Mrnjavčevići which cannot be taken seriously.

Name "Mrnjavčević" has no meaning in the tribe itself, only in oral tradition. Editors use that to make a distinction between old populations of the tribe and the ones that arrived in 15th century. Most of the times, both of these groups are called "Old Kuči", but when talking about 15th century arrivals some editors may use "Mrnjavčevići" as a name.

Thirdly, other books published by Petrović are rife with nationalistic claims such as the Albanian national hero, Skanderbeg, being a Serb.

Sorry, we are discussing books that are not self-published and edited by univeristy professors. Setxkbmap (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The point stands that Petrović has no specialisation in the field, he can write over 100 books on the matter but that is of little consequence if he is not qualified to write on the matter (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP).

Regarding the Mrnjavčevići, the quote is as follows:

This provides much stronger arguments that the origin of the name Kuči comes from a Vlach regional name or from toponymy, which was brought over by the settlement of the Mrnjavčević family.

It is clear that Petrović considers a part of the Kuči as descendants of the Mrnjavčevići, an ahistorical position based on fabricated oral traditions.

Can you provide evidence that the book ВОЈВОДА РАДОЊА ПЕТРОВИЋ — ГУВЕРАДУРСТВО БРДА has been co-published and edited by academics (as well as the qualifications of said academics)? Per his own website, Petrović appears as the sole author: https://predragrpetrovic.com/knjige/vojvoda-radonja-petrovic-guveradurstvo-brda/. In regard to Skanderbeg, this simply reflects the fact that the author has nationalistic biases and has published books in contradiction with mainstream academia and history. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The point stands that Petrović has no specialisation in the field, he can write over 100 books on the matter but that is of little consequence if he is not qualified to write on the matter (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP).

I don's see anything that stops Petrović from being an expert in the field, i've seen WP:SCHOLARSHIP

It is clear that Petrović considers a part of the Kuči as descendants of the Mrnjavčevići, an ahistorical position based on fabricated oral traditions.

While i can see what you are saying, saying that oral tradition is fabricated is a bit too far. Even the quote itself has nothing to do with the origin of anything, the author is supporting the claim that name Kuči is of Vlach origin. In his other books, he even states in other books that the Gojko Mrnjavčević is a made up person, from epic poems and stories, which is also the consensus of every single writer and historian, and is not denied by anyone.

So, again, "Mrnjavčevići" is always used to describe brotherhoods that moved to region of Kuči in 15th century.

Can you provide evidence that the book ВОЈВОДА РАДОЊА ПЕТРОВИЋ — ГУВЕРАДУРСТВО БРДА has been co-published and edited by academics (as well as the qualifications of said academics)?

He is the main editor, but, Radomir Prelevic PhD was also editing and prepared book for publishing.

Proofreading and editing was done by Dušanka Lučić, translations from Latin and old Italian by Olga Kapetanić and interpretations of old Slavic archaic texts were provided by Milutin Savković. Setxkbmap (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP mentions:

Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

In this case, the book itself does not appear to have been published in an academic context. It is published in a local publishing house. The author, as mentioned prior, does not have an academic background in the subject either. As for the editors, can you please share a link or extract mentioning them? From what I can see, the book was solely authored by Petrović and no editors are mentioned. Consulting individuals for translation purposes do not count. As such, the book does not appear to be a co-authored and co-edited academic source.

Radomir Prelević from what I can see had a background as a lawyer. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

the book itself does not appear to have been published in an academic context.

Of course not, it was never published in any peer-reviewed journals, books, conference proceedings, or other scholarly media, just like majority of the sources used in the article we discussed are not.

Book is a part of 6 books, published by some major Montenegrin publishers, and NGO that finance the tribe and tribesmen (financing research, books, art galleries, museums etc)

Radomir Prelević from what I can see had a background as a lawyer.

Yes, he was. He was also a historian, and is known for that, as well as being the president of "Foundation for growth of Kuči tribe". His PhD is in law tho.

He died 3 years ago, summary of him can be found here (Vijesti.me link) Setxkbmap (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course not, it was never published in any peer-reviewed journals, books, conference proceedings, or other scholarly media... - doesn't seem very reliable at all in that case. Botushali (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Too bad it's like one of 6 authors that wrote about Kuči extensively.

The topic is not really interesting to other writers, except for ones that come from the tribe itself. While we have snippets and opinions about the tribe from different books, sometimes even paragraphs, there are no books written about the tribe, except for a few written by people from the tribe.

But, if you think that citing Predrag is problematic, i can look for the sources he cites and use them, if they are of academic origin. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Academic sources are the only thing that should be used on articles such as this. Anything that is self-published or non-academic shouldn’t be used. Botushali (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Is adding a citation of a Daily Mail column by Richard Littlejohn as evidence permissible?

Private Eye has reported on his £50 fine for "bloody affray" and includes an admission quote from Littlejohn (Private Eye, August 30, No. 1631, p.10). It is relevant to the Eye story because Littlejohn is writing about the "milksop" modern teenagers in contrast to his own early years and how they should not expect "safe spaces" and does not mention his conviction for violence as a young man.

I think his Daily Mail article should be cited for reference of his words and can be said to reliable in this context, but the citation tool has lots of warnings on it about this. I am an inexperienced editor and I am not sure how to verify best practice here, so I am asking for guidance.

It would also help more generally to know if this has been answered somewhere, or whether it is simple a case-by-case justification for inclusion of unreliable sources. I can see there are several discussions where the view of some is that either unreliable and deprecated sources cannot be said to represent the views of the apparent author and can see the reasoning for that.

ITellComputerYes (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DAILYMAIL it's deprecated. WP will probably physically stop you if you try and add it is a reference. Even if you are able to edit it into an article you shouldn't because they literally publish fake news. TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I maybe didn't make myself clear enough. I am publishing something included in an article in Private Eye that refers to Littlejohn's article. What he says and doesn't say in his articles is the story. ITellComputerYes (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• The Mail is deprecated and Littlejohn is well known for being economical with the truth, even by Mail standards, anyway. But regardless, if you are trying to make a point that Littlejohn didn't mention something in a column, you are approaching original research if you are trying to make a point that he left it out deliberately. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's not original research, it's in the Private Eye article. Apologies if this wasn't clear enough. ITellComputerYes (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Then just cite the Private Eye article. Cortador (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  The Private Eye article lacks some of the information from the Daily Mail column. If the context is carefully given, surely Wikipedia is improved by having the source material? ITellComputerYes (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• We report what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know what RS is. ITellComputerYes (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ITellComputerYes: RS means reliable sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @QuicoleJR ITellComputerYes (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI - The discussion you're looking at on Talk:Richard Littlejohn is eleven years old, it should have been archived years ago. As well as what others have said about the Daily Mail the Private Eye is a gossip/satire magazine, and is best avoided in articles for living people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but that Talk is eleven years old, that is why I asked the question here as well.

Is it Wikipedia's view that Private Eye is gossip/satire magazine? Is it considered an unreliable source? I haven't seen that, is there is list somewhere, I have looked. I would argue Private Eye is one of the most serious, independent and rigorous news sources in the UK. But don't take my word for it, it's work on the British Post Office scandal, to name of hundreds of its long-running investigations, is well-documented here and elsewhere. ITellComputerYes (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

As I have a subscription to Private Eye I wouldn't need to take your word for it. Part of my point was that if other editors felt it was necessary it might have been acted on sometimes in the last decade. The fact they didn't points towards it not being important enough to include. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Argument of Silence? Richard Littlejohn gets barely 25 edits per year (which admittedly is unfortunately better than some tier-1 history articles) -- maybe the article itself is not important enough that editors have thoroughly included all information (and unlike tier-1 history, nobody is gonna be a motivated biographer)?

And whether or not Private Eye is largely gossip/satire, that does not preclude it being a green-listed RS. To give another argument of silence, the fact that it's not had an RSP RfC suggests it's only been used appropriately here so far. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's used with attribution maybe. Where is it listed?

My point about inclusion is that the Private Eye using a decade old column to wag it's finger at someone is very Private Eye, but that doesn't mean it needs inclusion in the article. Content requires verification, but that it can be verified isn't always a reason for inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The column is from a couple of weeks ago.

Great that you have a Private Eye subscription. ITellComputerYes (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know that, although I couldn't see it on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I might be missing it, or is there another list? ITellComputerYes (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to Mr LittleJohn's 2014 column in the DailyMail? As you can see it's possible to cite it here and what he does say about himself is permissible. But you want to cite for what he does not say, eh? That sounds odd. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to a recent column. So, you can cite a column as a link in the text? But not as a reference? What someone doesn't say in a narrative about their lives to make a social/political point, can be more revealing than what they do say, which is the essential point of the Private Eye article. ITellComputerYes (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If the Private Eye article references the Daily Mail piece, then you can make a dual internal-external citation of the format: "Private Eye, citing Daily Mail" (using two separate citation templates in a single footnote). That is always permissible and preferred. However, Private Eye must be referencing the Mail in the manner you describe, in the manner you wish to use it in your article text, which is that what they don't say matters. (In that case your main citation, the one you need to worry about, is to Private Eye; if someone gets completely anal about the internal citation to the Mail then whatever.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there past discussion (or better yet, some guidance) that establishes this is permissible?

I've never seen this done, but it would be a perfect solution to situations I've come across in the past where an officially "reliable" source reports on something but makes clear that it is simply trusting and regurgitating the reporting of the (officially unreliable/deprecated) Daily Mail. It seems wrong and harmful to the reader not to cite the original source, but creates a policy dispute to cite it directly; if what you describe is indeed agreed to be allowed, then it solves the problem. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is how you cite things, and how they teach it in universities. (APA blog on indirect secondary citations.) I don't know where I added it in the mountainscape of P&G and how-to essays on citing sources, but it was noncontroversial -- that's how to properly cite sources which internally cite sources. (And in turn, it's also how you can give a more detailed citation of primary sources, when information is at its root coming from one or two documents, interpreted through an expert.)

Also, to not do an internal citation in this manner, when you are actually intent on citing the information quoted or interpreted from the cited internal source, is considered plagiarism by most interpretations I've seen. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is covered under WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, which gives the same advice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The form of citation is covered there but the circumstances for using it are different. SAYWHEREYOUREADIT is about how to cite in a scenario where you were only able to read source A which claims source B says something, but couldn't read source B yourself to verify it. That's different to the scenario discussed here. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me of the merits of the style; as I said, I think it's great. What I want to know is whether there is clear, documented consensus that doing this with a deprecated inner source is acceptable, that I can point to when using it inevitably gets me into trouble with the reliable sources brigade and I need to defend myself against a block for it. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I will say (out of context of whatever future event, but in general because I'm not very responsive to RfCs or whatever, so you can at least quote me on this), deprecated or not, to not cite the inner source when it is the substance of the inner source which you are using is imo plagiarism.

(IMO, as opposed to by general consensus, because I've seen it disputed by online sources whether rigorous use of indirect citations is or isn't plagiarism, but only because it hardly ever comes up in academic cases, since nowadays one can almost always find and cite the primary citation either separately from or in place of the secondary, if it is only that material or a comparison that one is interested in. Only in Wikipedia do we have this unique notion of deprecated and blacklisted sources, where we have to indirectly cite-not-cite them (if not linking to them in a template, mentioning or alluding to them by name in the text), but then to give a citation we have to cite the secondary even if it were the case that our only material of interest is the primary.)

We don't need every specific scenario added to the policy of WP:Plagiarism, but maybe an explanatory essay with examples of all the different citation styles and use cases would be helpful to work on. (Of course it reminds me of the notion: today we have 12 disjoint P&G pages on citing sources, so we should create one page that nicely summarizes all the P&G; ... and so tomorrow we have 13 disjoint P&G pages on citing sources.) SamuelRiv (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks @SamuelRiv that seems like an elegant solution for this and other occasions. Much appreciated. ITellComputerYes (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv could I ask for help in how you write a dual internal-external citation? The edit is in my sandbox and I can't work out how to get both citations into format. ITellComputerYes (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A very similar situation came up recently at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom#Another_Daily_Mail_dilemma. There, The Times (reliable, per the perennial sources list) rereported things published by the Mail (deprecated) as fact, citing the Mail, and presumably without any additional investigation of its own. The question of whether to trust those claims, and if so which source(s) to cite for them, wasn't resolved on the Talk page.

I suspect similar situations - where a source that RSN has deemed reliable openly trusts and republishes the claims of a source that RSN has deemed unreliable - must occur often! It would be good to know what has been decided in the past about such situations. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends on how the source handles it. Aggregators such as MSN or Yahoo that just republish articles from other sources don't change how the source is handled, so if they repost a Daily Mail story it's still deprecated.
A reliable source citing an unreliable source is fine as it's expected that the reliable source is validating what they publish, so if the Times cites the Daily Mail as the source for it's article then it's taken on trust that the Times has double checked the details before publishing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There is another aspect to this: how much Weight should we give to Private Eye’s analysis? A lot? A little? None at all? I assume this is being discussed in relation to a BLP… if so, we need to tread carefully. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Re "what has been decided in the past" -- maybe see Newsweek reports on exclusive reporting from The Daily Mail. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Alas, that discussion (with IMO some lengthy tangents of dubious relevance) didn't really reach a clear conclusion. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me (as I said above) we quote the RS, not the unreliable source. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Are news sources reliable for articles on history?

I have been working on the Yasuke article. It is a topic which has received a lot more coverage in the popular press than in academic sources. However, it keeps coming up in every discussion that there are news sources that cover the topic, and that if anything goes against them, it goes against the majority view. This has conflicted with my attempt to replace news sources with more academic sources, like Britannica. I point out that there are major errors in the CNN Travel article, but that isn’t accepted by another editor, who insists that because CNN is reliable, then the specific article is reliable. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html The main expert interviewed in the article wrote a book on Yasuke as well as the Britannica article. The expert’s ideas are not without controversy, but the CNN article conflicts with what the expert has said about Nobunga, and in one case says the wrong source. There is so little literature on Yasuke that one can easily trace most ideas about him and all the primary sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

we've already talked about lockley here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability of Thomas Lockley

Was a mess, did not pay attention to it all, no clue what the consensus was at the end.

generally, unless if you can prove otherwise, news articles are generally assumed to be useful secondary sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

... i guess this was the closest RFC about lockley Talk:Yasuke/Archive_3#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

TLDR; until someone else has a secondary sourcing about Yasuke, can't really do much else... best you can do if someone hates lockley is attribute a statement to lockley? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

News articles are not generally reliable secondary sourcing for history -- see WP:HISTRS for overview. (Contemporary news articles are primary sources, while features are the equivalent of pop science, even when written by an expert, as noted in the discussion you linked, as they do not cite sources for controversial claims, which is exactly what is at issue.)

The linked discussion links to a review of Lockley's book (from which the CNN article seems to mostly be excerpted), in which it is made clear that the lack of citations are in the book as well, and it is intended as a pop history for casual reading.

This is not particularly complicated. Secondary scholarly/rigorous work supercedes non-secondary and/or non-scholarly/rigorous work in WP generally. It's not that Lockley's book is not a RS generally; it's that it would seem that anything in there that isn't verifiable in the scholarship generally is his speculation in a non-rigorous work, and so must at best be given with attribution. (The more history-topic-inclined editors may decide some statements should be discarded entirely as non-encyclopedic.) SamuelRiv (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t about Lockley, it is about CNN. I think a few quotes explains the situation well.

CNN: "When feudal Japan’s most powerful warlord Nobunaga Oda met Yasuke, a black slave-turned-retainer, in 1581, he believed the man was a god"

Britannica: "The researcher Thomas Lockley (the author of this article) speculates that they may have seen him as a form of divine visitor due to the fact that the Buddha and other holy figures were often portrayed as black-skinned in Japan at this time."

I couldn’t find the quote from the book African Samurai, but Lockley believes that Nobunaga was an atheist or at least not very devout, which I understand is in line with other scholarship. The connection between buddha statues and black skin is Lockley´s opinion, no other scholar says this. In this case, CNN Travel is not even correctly portraying what Lockley says. There are other errors, and the general tone of the article is non-academic. Every time I remove the citation, it is added to some uncontested claim in order to add weight. Other more academic sources have been removed in order to insert news sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

See wp:or, we do not get to judge RS unless we can show they make stuff up, not just disagree with one (not all) expert. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS applies here. (And see pretty much every guideline on RS -- we absolutely do judge RS -- it's not a binary.) SamuelRiv (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That is an essay, and does not trump policy. Yes we can judge a source where is (for example) goes against widely accepted consensus (see wp:fringe, which is a policy), or where it contradicts itself, or where it flat out tells an obvious falsehood (such as the sky is not blue). What we do not do is use our own knowledge rather than referring to RS that contest a claim) to dismiss a source. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy that all RS on their face are equal, or that we cannot use multiple factors to judge the suitability RS in context. Per the intro overview of WP:RS: Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. That's pretty much 95% of what's done on RSN (or else we're resolving technical points in a larger contextual comparison of RS in context that goes on in an article's Talk page). And while we ideally try not to turn essays into P&G unnecessarily, the pandemic forced us to make WP:MEDRS into a guideline -- fwiw a roughly similar hierarchy for publications exists in most academic fields. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this an RS or not? Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What do I say to an editor that ignores all arguments about context? The editor that disagrees with me has a similar interpretation wikipolicy as Slatersteven. I would say, more extreme. Suggesting only in cases of fraud or CoI can a source be questioned. In this case, it isn’t about a particular claim, because the citations have been moved from one claim to another, and ended up attached to a non-contested claim that at one point had four inline citations. Does the fact that it is in CNN Travel matter? I think it would be considered Human interest and therefore less reliable? Also, the article appears 90 % based on Lockley, who had just written a book at the time. So does that count as churnalism? Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh good lord are we still doing this? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that the question here isn't whether this is a reliable source per se, more whether this particular claim is due for a particular article. If it is an exceptional claim, it may be published in an otherwise reputable source and still not be due for the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is plenty of free-form discussion on the talk page of Yasuke about what is and isn't due. Best to let questions of due and undue happen there. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion always stops on the argument on the quality of sources. At least one editor believes that sources that are listed as RS can’t be questioned. All the sources that agree should be counted, and that forms the majority opinion. This comes up in every discussion topic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that if multiple news sources make a similar claim then those can be used if not other better sources exist. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

There are better sources, but the other editor keeps replacing the better sources with news sources because of weight. When I point out that the news sources aren’t as good, I am called a [[truthfinder]] and accused of violating NPOV. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding from the article discussion threads is that it goes back to its previous RfC (linked earlier), which was a rather complicated discussion about what is a very tiny amount of actual usable sources (exactly 2 scholars that investigate the topic directly, iirc). You're correct that almost every English-language news article is essentially recycling Lockley, which is academically sourced to his one book. The result of the RfC afaik of the pertinent questions is that "it's more complicated than a simple yes/no" (regarding implying a particular definition of 'samurai' across several centuries in particular, wrt what seems the most controversial issue here) and that one or two academics summarizing it is fine because only one or two academics have ever studied it in detail, and their assessments (not their separate speculations) were not particularly controversial, even if quoted from a pop book or their (expert-written) CNN article instead of/in parallel with their academic papers. Either way, if the source SamuelRiv (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, but I don’t understand it. You didn’t finish your last sentence. Also, I don’t think this has to do with Yasuke´s status as a samurai. The CNN article not only states speculation as fact, it contradicts Lockley´s book and the article he wrote for Britannica. It also seems to cite the "historical fiction" part of Lockley´s book as fact. The problem is not so much that the article recycles Lockley, but that it falsely represents his ideas. This is shown by comparison of the CNN article with other works by Lockley. Tinynanorobots (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's book is the one with any semblance of academic review (by the publisher and in academic publications after the fact), while the CNN article has none. I love citing a pop sci journalist who writes a good lay summary of an academic source (in addition to the original source), but they can sometimes get things wrong, or extract grossly nonrepresentative quotes from the author. Since we have Lockley's book (and plenty of other lay sources summarizing Lockley), and the CNN article cites only Lockley, I agree it would be ridiculous to cite the CNN article if it misrepresents the source at all. Citing a lay summary (in parallel) is only worthwhile if it's (1) free and (2) good. (For my previous post I probably meant to erase that final sentence that was cut off.) SamuelRiv (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

can you provide a concrete example, as in a diff? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have happened in stages. The CNN article was used to support the claim about Yasuke being given a stipend, a house, and servants. I replaced it with a citation of the Britannica article that had been newly rewritten. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1238887725 At some point, the in text citation was moved to the end of the paragraph. After that the CNN citation was restored. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1241316774 There have been a lot of edits in the lead, and the citations moved around, often as part of other edits. The claim about the stipend etc. later received a citation to an academic source, but then was replaced with CNN. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1243549402 The CNN article is not in the lead any more, but it is still used to support the claim about the stipend.

One error the CNN article contains, is that it attributes the stipend, house and servants to Jesuit sources. This is not true. All other secondary sources that mention it, point to Japanese sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of these edits did more then just remove the source, they also removed claims solely sourced to that source. Also "that it attributes the stipend, house and servants to Jesuit sources", yes as that is where all those other sources get the claim, they are talking about the primary sources. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The diffs that I linked to? I don’t see that. There are a lot of changes to the lead, but I can’t keep track of that, especially as a lot of them aren’t discussed on talk.

I am not sure what your point is about the Jesuit sources, of course it is supposed to be the primary sources. There are not that many primary sources about Yasuke, so it is easy to keep track of them. Some are written by Jesuits, but Lockley cites Ōta Gyūich as the source for the statement about the stipend, house and servants. Ōta Gyūich wasn’t a Jesuit. There are other sources that mention a stipend, but they are also Japanese. A Jesuit source mentions Yasuke receiving money, but I don’t think any expert has suggested that was a stipend. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Addition (or changes to) text, not just adding or removing sources "who served as a samurai ", I really need to go no further. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Travel guides and travel articles in newspapers are notoriously unreliable for history and should not be used. Not only that, but typically the writer has taken information from random places including Wikipedia. One of the most common errors is to uncritically report traditions as facts. Historical events that are mentioned in passing in newspaper articles are also not reliable. The only times that history in a newspaper should be considered reliable are (1) an article written by a historian or known expert, (2) an article by a journalist who directly quotes a historian or known expert. I've seen too many cases of historical errors being introduced from newspapers to suggest a weaker criterion. Zero^talk 13:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That seems overly restrictive... Unless you start with a very restrictive definition of history (something other than history being the past). A newspaper writing about something that happened last week is writing about history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone defines last week as history in this context. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a very helpful comment unless you offer your own definition of history in this context. For the record I define it that way, history is anything which is not currently happening (call it breaking news in this context). In practical terms I guess one could argue that true history begins whenever someone publishes the first academic paper... But for wikipedia's purposes history would appear to start when the first reliable non-primary source is published. If by history you just mean that news sources will be less reliable about older stuff, well duh... Thats already baked into our preferance for academic sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I am reminded of the Isaac Asimov story “The Dead Past,” which lets you only see "historical" events, as in 1 second in the past. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I was reminded of the adage that news is the first rough draft of history (or something like that) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Pukekohe

After some discussion, @Traumnovelle: has removed content relating to the medical sociologist Robert Bartholomew's book No Maori Allowed book due to its self-published status. I am aware of WP:SPS which discourages the use of self-published sources especially if the book is outside of the author's expertise. Bartholomew's training as a medical sociologist and that is reflected in the book, which is a local history of Pukekohe. The author freely admits that his sympathies lie with Māori, which made it hard for him to find a publisher. Still, the book follows the conventions of academic books including rigour and citations of primary and secondary sources. While Traumnovelle regards the book as unreliable, he said that I could ask about the reliability of a follow-up TVNZ documentary that deals with Bartholomew's research. The documentary has received coverage from several New Zealand mainstream media sources including RNZ and The New Zealand Herald. As the original contributor, I just wanted to get feedback from other Wikipedians. Andykatib (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Bartholomew may meet the part of SPS which says "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". He has academic papers published in reputable journals. However, of his other books, are there any which have been published by a significant publishing house? I've spot checked a few of the more recent ones, and they seem to be published by self-publishing or niche publishing companies.-Gadfium (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I did a search for "bartholomew "no maori allowed"" on google scholar to get a sense of where it's been referenced by other scholars, which is important to getting a sense of the scholarly assessment of a niche or self-published academic work. Only 17 hits, with only a couple of them seeming to be really relevant academic stuff, but none of them taking the book as anything other than serious. (However, that still seems like a small number of hits after three years for something that the discussions here would indicate was so provocative.) (T&F on the Wikipedia Library, nor my other ready access, does not allow access to the two book chapters that cite it: [43] and [44].) Also the works citing Bartholomew seem somewhat scattered (at least those indexed by Scholar) -- I'm not familiar with modern anthro or sociology literature at all, but again I'd assume that a provocative work by anyone, especially an established scholar (especially one claiming that they could not get a NZ publisher), would get other scholars at least writing a book review. Am I not searching in the right place? Is anyone else having better luck finding reviews? SamuelRiv (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see how the number of hits compares to other books in the field...maybe the publication rate is just on the lower-end for this specific sub-category of New Zealand sociology? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Gadfium: and @SamuelRiv:. I don't presently have full access to university databases because I am no longer a student. Will be good to check if Bartholomew's book has been referenced by other scholars. I am just a bit upset because I did put a lot of effort into writing that Pukekohe history section but understand that it had to be removed if it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy. I read the book and thought it was a valuable albeit partisan local history. I hope @Traumnovelle: is just following the rules and not being motivated by malice. He did reverse some of my edits to the Shane Jones article on the grounds of WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS issues. I understand but was wondering if they have it out for me or am i just being paranoid?Andykatib 00:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You're being paranoid. I removed the content before looking into who wrote it. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for my outburst earlier. It was unfair of me to accuse @Traumnovelle: of having it out for me. I allowed my emotions to get the better of me. It can be hard letting go of things which I poured a lot of work into. Best to let the community find a solution. I think should recuse myself from the Pukekohe article for a while and instead focus on other things since I am emotionally compromised. Andykatib (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gadfium:, @SamuelRiv: and @Traumnovelle:. I found some references to Pukekohe in two books: Jenny Carlyon and Diana Morrow's Changing Times: New Zealand Since 1945 and Malcolm McKinnon's The Broken Decade. Both books are published by academic publishers Auckland and Otago University respectively. Pg 36 of Carlyon and Morrow (2013) talks about the Māori Women's Welfare League undertaking a survey of living conditions of Māori in central Auckland and Pukekohe, where Māori worked on the market gardens and lived in substandard shacks provided by their employers. "A report chronicling this suation was presented to the Auckland City Council, the Department of Māori Affairs and the State Advances Corporation. Despite obvious need and constant League pressure on government, change was slow with Māori continuing to live in crowded, substandard conditions in the inner cities and having to wait inordinately long times for state rental homes." Pg 113 mentions that Pukekohe along with Auckland, Wellington and Warkworth hosted US military personnel between 1942 and 1944. Templeton (2016) talks about the majority of Waikato Māori being farm labourers, including on the Pukekohe gardens. Templeton then goes on to talk about an unsuccessful attempt by Pukekohe locals in 1932 to petition Parliament to repatriate local Chinese and Indians, who were seen as taking jobs off Pakeha and Māori. Parliament dismissed the petition two years later on the grounds that the "allegations set out in the petition... have not been proven." These two books touch upon some of the issues upon Bartholomew's book. I'm no expert on Pukekohe's history but I suspect that it may be the first seminal work to focus on the history of Māori in Pukekohe. Would it be safe for me to add content from these two books into the Pukekohe article? Andykatib (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I did a Google search. Besides Bartholomew's book and the TVNZ documentary made on it, I came across this E-Tangata article by Dale Husband and this Newsroom article by Aaron Smale. Dale Husband's article consists of an interview with Māori woman Phyllis Bhana who lived in Pukekohe during the 1950s. It talks about her experiences with discrimination and racism. Smale's Newsroom article doesn't focus primarily on Pukekohe but rather on the Māori rural-to-urban drift. The Urbanisation section briefly talks about efforts to improve Māori housing conditions in Pukekohe during the 1940s and 1950s, and Māori experiencing discrimination and abuse when accessing services and businesses in the town. The section mainly focuses on discrimination faced by Māori moving into then-predomoinantly European urban areas following World War II. Andykatib (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Both of those books are fine sources and content from them would be fine to include. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will add in the Carlyon and Morrow book. I see that the Pukekohe article already has the McKinnon book. Andykatib (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It's good you all found more sourcing, which hopefully can reinforce or significantly improve most of your original writing. To append what I said above: it appears to me that Bartholomew would be a RS worth citing for at least some small bit of information in this article (and other applicable articles). I wanted to confirm above whether citing Bartholomew's single source (with problems discussed) for so much content as you had is WP:Due (especially when the substance can be unsettling-to-controversial to some kiwis, from what I'm understanding), which I know can be very frustrating after you write a lot of good content (I've had it happen to me, and I'm sure most editors here have seen a large chunk of their writing have to be shredded at one point as well). Backing up significant statements by Bartholomew with other books confirming the key info and basic interpretation should be sufficient. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SamuelRiv:, thanks very much for your advice. I will use Bartholomew's book for citing the non-controversial parts of the article. For the more controversial content in Bartholomew's book, it will be good for me to back it up with other books. Will see what is available in the libraries.

Andykatib (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Pat on back

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

---

Interesting source here:

• "Can You Trust Dr. Wikipedia?". Office for Science and Society. 6 September 2024. Retrieved 7 September 2024.

Money quote:

Even on pseudoscientific topics, which invite controversy and strong emotions, the encyclopedia is surprisingly good. This is in part due to the work done by Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, ensuring that these pages fall on the side of the evidence and not wishful thinking. (In the interest of full disclosure, their off-Wikipedia organizing has been the subject of criticism.)

This noticeboard comes in for some stick, but it is reassuring to have some external validation of the Project's approach to pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems worth noting that although OSS uses as its hook two Wikipedia hoaxes in history (about the invention of the toaster and the assassination of John F. Kennedy), the article pivots to focusing on Wikipedia’s accuracy on scientific issues and on health science pages on Wikipedia. The accuracy of coverage on topics in the humanities and social sciences goes unaddressed by the piece—as well it should, I suppose, since I don't think one could praise the state of Wikipedia on those topics nearly as glowingly. Obfuscations and errors in history topics on Wikipedia remain major issues, from the underrepresentation of women in biographies to the softpedaling of slavery in U. S. history pages.

Something else interesting is that OSS praises the participation of college students on Wikipedia: Since at least 2013, health science pages on Wikipedia have additionally benefitted from the organized participation of a particular subset of people: students. Some universities are offering elective courses that train health science students on how to make edits on Wikipedia. I presume this refers to WikiEdu? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Just realised I posted this to the wrong NB! Was meant to be a FTN (where it has some relevance). Will re-post there. Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

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

informational report: BBC according to Telegraph

Offering this for everyone's edification. Just one datapoint, and unlikely to affect the BBC's reliability, but goes toward bias, and we should consider the impact of this and keep an eye on this report if it is corroborated or criticized: Telegraph: "BBC breached its own editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times" It may factor into considerations of NPOV and due weight and balance, though I'm not proposing any specific action, just wanted to bring this up to folks' attention. Consensus is AFAIK that both BBC and Telegraph are generally reliable for everything. Andre🚐 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The RSPS entry for the Telegraph notes that there's some consensus that it may be politically biased, and the accuracy of the BBC (or lack thereof) is definitely a political issue in the UK. Indeed, the report discussed but not linked to from the article appears to be heavily supported by pro-Israel and conservative groups. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm interested to know whether the BBC actually breached its own guidelines 1500 times (or even more than a few times). WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG tell us that those guidelines and the publishing of corrections are signals of a reputable org that can be trusted for reporting of facts and considered generally reliable. I haven't previously seen a lot of discussion that BBC may be not following its own guidelines, so that seems like a relevant fact if it turns out to be true. Not much purpose in having such guidelines if they aren't actually followed. Andre🚐 22:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines would probably suggest that we wait for comment from further sources before proclaiming the BBC biased on the say-so of a single report. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I said I wasn't proposing any specific action. Andre🚐 22:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that this isn't a report by The Telegraph, this is them reporting on a report by Michael Ellis, who very much is not a neutral source on the subject matter. So I don't see how much, if any, weight should be given to the claims in his report. Silverseren^C 22:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the research? The link in the sentence Researchers identified a total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, which included impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest. leads me to another Telegraph article that doesn't mention any such research (I'm looking at an archive version so it could be a bug). The first thought I had was whether this is BBC News or the whole BBC, the two tend to get conflated on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). The BBC makes a lot of content and not all of it is equally reliable. Travel docutainment for an example tends to contains information that makes a fun story but that maybe isn't be the academic majority view. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I've looked around a bit and I'm not seeing any actual links to the claimed report. Since it's not actual research done by a credited group, but by a bunch of people specifically getting together to make it, I don't think they've published it anywhere. As for the contents, funny enough, the Daily Mail lays it out more clearly.

The Asserson report looked at BBC output across television, radio, online news, podcasts and social media during a four-month period beginning October 7 last year. The research was carried out by a team of 20 lawyers and 20 data scientists who used artificial intelligence to analyse nine million words of BBC coverage. A total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC's guidelines were identified, including impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest.

The report read: 'The findings reveal a deeply worrying pattern of bias and multiple breaches by the BBC of its own editorial guidelines on impartiality, fairness and establishing the truth.' The BBC's Arabic Channel was singled out in the report as one of the 'most-biased' media outlets in its coverage of the war. In total, it was found that the broadcaster's output associated Israel with war crimes four times more than Hamas, with genocide 14 times more and with breaching international law six times more.

It also raised concerns about the number of journalists at the corporation who have previously shown sympathy with the terrorist organisation. The report found 11 cases where the coverage was done by reporters who allegedly had made public statements in support of Hamas.

Though this doesn't seem like it gives much more credibility to the report, if one of their main complaints is that the BBC has more news reports specifically about war crimes and breaching international law regarding Israel than Hamas. Wouldn't that be true of most news organizations covering the war in the past year? There's been more to talk about with Israel than Hamas in many cases, particularly with the ICC and ICJ investigations. None of this sounds particularly noteworthy. Silverseren^C 23:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The BBC's Arabic Channel was singled out this goes to my point about the scale of BBC output. Search shows 207 uses of BBC Arabic news[45] in comparison to 50,000+ use of the English news channel[46]. Is there a big difference between the output of the different language version? I couldn't say, I doubt it's ever been discussed or looked into given it's so rarely used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There appears to have been prior Asserson reports one from 2002 can be found here[47]. It includes every instance where the BBC called the lands occupied by Israel in 1967 the 'occupied Palestinian territories', and every time Israel settlements in those territories where called 'illegal'. I have a feeling Asserson is not the most neutral on the issues involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

more detailed BBC response rather than the Israel supporting round robin, it's an AI based "study", "We have serious questions about the methodology of this report, particularly its heavy reliance on AI to analyse impartiality, and its interpretation of the BBC’s editorial guidelines. We don’t think coverage can be assessed solely by counting particular words divorced from context."

Here's an argument in the other direction, don't think we need to rush to judgement here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I honestly think this specific Telegraph article says more about the reliability of the Telegraph than the BBC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"by counting particular words divorced from context." In other words, quote mining. Dimadick (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The actual pdf report is here [48] Andre🚐 05:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

*facepalm* Thanks for finding that, but it's even worse than I thought. They not only used ChatGPT for their analysis, but they even used it to determine the bias claims itself by having ChatGPT make a "sympathy report". Silverseren^C 05:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd disregard anything ChatGPT-related, but I'm interested to see any fact checks or any substantive claims of bias or selective reportage, etc. I haven't looked at it yet. Andre🚐 06:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've read a good chunk of it by now. The "sympathy report" is a massive amount of it, where they used ChatGPT to determine whether articles were "sympathetic" to Israel or Palestine. It's an incredibly vague criteria. The rest of the report is mostly whining about wording and things, such as complaining that the BBC didn't use the word "terrorist" in every article that mentioned Hamas or that they used war crimes to describe the ICC and ICJ investigations, but look at all this terrible stuff Hamas did. In short, a lot of the report is whataboutism, just as was expected before you found a copy of it. The coverage of the report in the news media, as I quoted above with the Daily Mail, is pretty accurate toward how petty and inconsequential much of the report is. Silverseren^C 06:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

A report by an well-known pro-Israel activist finds bias against Israel! Who'd have thunk it? Zero^talk 07:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• The story has now been picked up by Variety, [49], who found this the most noteworthy part of the report: In a random sample of 253 interviews conducted by the BBC’s Arabic service, the report also found that over a quarter “were connected to Hamas or another terrorist group or had posted extreme antisemitic views online.” However these facts were not disclosed to the audience alongside the interviews. There's also an editorial from Labour MP Ian Austin[50]now. Andre🚐 08:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just to note Austin isn't an MP anymore, he was made a life peer by Boris Johnson for his work for Theresa May's government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  As a dumb American I don't know what a life peer is, but it sounds kinda silly and Britishy :-) Andre🚐 09:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Life peer Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• I notice at the very end of the Daily Telegraph article it has that a survey found 17% thought the BBC was biased towards Israel and 15$ towards the Palestinians. Which leaves a lot not thinking it is biased one way or the other, or perhaps not caring. I guess now thay can say it is therefore a researched story rather than a hit piece. In opinion and editorial articles the Daily Telegraph leans very heavily towards Israel and promotes Israeli misinformation. For instance [51] is them promoting a story about the Gaza Health Ministry that didn't get off the starting blocks with reputable newspapers even ones that leaned towards Israel. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

worlddata.info

Is this website a reliable source? I've come across the article for Pariah states and the list of current and former so called "pariah states" are almost entirely and solely citing the website's list of said states.
The map on the article also clearly derives from the map on the site as well. Worlddata also states Uzbekistan of all places as one of it's current "pariah states" though that information is not reflected in the article. Zinderboff(talk) 05:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This does not appear to be reliable. It's a database maintained by a web development company and their about us page doesn't say if they even have a fact checking process. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The about page also lists Wikipedia as one of the sources for their information, making the site unreliable per WP:CIRCULAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to depreciate said source? A quick search shows that it is used in numerous articles. Zinderboff(talk) 13:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

About 140 by this search[52]. It might seem like a lot, but it's tiny in comparison to other sources. Deprecation is a heavy handed approach meant for only the worst cases, it's not something that should be applied to every unreliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. What are some other ways which unreliable sources such as this get tags and/or removed? Zinderboff(talk) 18:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to search for the links and then either tag with {{rs?|certain=yes|reason=Self-published source. See Special:PermanentLink/1244711437#worlddata.info}} or replace them with reliable references yourself. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks a lot! Zinderboff(talk) 18:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The Nordic Times

Currently, a discussion over the inclusion of information on the page Concord (video game) is ongoing here, and the user who started it tried to reinstate their edits with new sources, one of them being from The Nordic Times.

With that in mind, what the hell is this website? The article that was sourced (link) only mentions the Editorial Staff as the writer, and there's nothing on its about page that backs up its verifiability. It states that it "strives for accuracy, balance, and fairness in all [its] coverage", but I'm not sure if that's proven. The sourced article also only has user-generated posts on third-party social medias to back its claims up, which does not paint the website in a good light in terms of verifiability. Can someone with more experience than me dig deeper into this? Jurta ^talk/_he/they 14:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

A user who presents his pronouns together with his name should not have a say in questioning an article that criticizes the use of pronouns as political agenda. You have a conflict of interest, which shows in your animosity against the website. Someeditor7 (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

My pronouns have nothing to do with this matter. If you read my points, you'd know what I'm talking about. Do not pull this trick on me. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 15:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the proper place to make comments about other editors, discussion should focus on the reliability of sources. If you have any complaints against another editor they should be directed to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we can get a pretty good idea of the validity of the 'Nordic Times' as a source from a quick look at their page entitled 'Topic: Cultural revolution in the West'. [53] Articles linked include 'The war on children: Liberal elites’ child sexualization agenda exposed in documentary', 'Gender-neutral toy aisles now a legal requirement in California', 'American professor: “Academia a cancer on society”' etc, etc. The website is clearly pushing an agenda, and absolutely nothing about it suggests that it has any recognised expertise on the topic of video games. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The Nordic Times is a covert English language version of Nya Dagbladet, a far-right Swedish paper known for its conspiracy theories, pro-Russian POV, ties to Neo-Nazis, etc. For example, see this article on Nya Dagbladet and this identical article on Nordic Times. Woodroar (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I thought the toy aisles thing meant this is a satire or satire-blend site, but nope, CNN's headline "Gender-neutral toy aisles are now law in California". Of course toys, toy aisles, and children are known to the state of California to cause cancer.

Looking at some articles, they certainly are selective in what they cover and how they cover it, and they seem to be a WP:Newsblog in that they don't seem to do any original reporting. It does not look like they fabricate facts, and I can't find blatant willful omissions/distortions in the couple articles I checked (both world and "local" ("Nordic countries", but they do no actual local reporting, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have no contributors on location)) as opposed to what one would honestly expect from novice newswriters writing from an enormous ideological bias.

It's unsuitable on its face for WP because all their reporting is taken from other sources (which to their credit they cite), and their commentary and editorializing is not citable either because they have no named bylines and as a source they have no reputation or notability (equivalent to "Some nobody on the internet opined X"). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

which to their credit they cite I'm not sure they do, certainly the example Woodroar doesn't credit Nya Dagbladet. Instead they are passing it off as their own reporting, either copyvio (unlikely) or a deliberate attempt to hide it's origin. If they are just reposting articles from other sources then the reliability is based on the original source. If they are not disclosing the original source then that's not possible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see Woodroar's post when I posted -- I was intending to reply to AndyTheGrump. (Though looking at the time stamps I should have see it; maybe I didn't refresh?) Also I want to clarify my statement above as the grammar construction could be misread:

I didn't find any ommisions/distortions that I could positively characterize as willful or blatantly deceptive. That as opposed to those omissions and distortions that I did find everywhere, but which I would honestly expect from novice newswriters on an enormous ideological bias. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, they're definitely run by the same people: both part of Aeon Media Group, EIC of Nya Dagbladet Markus Andersson while the "editorial" author at Nordic Times is "Per Andersson" (probably a pseudonym). While not a reliable source, this Medium post goes into detail on both sites and mentions more duplication of articles. Woodroar (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely interesting. Made in 2022, plus those things you noted. Going through the articles on the front page, I'm seeing a common blatant slant with everything. This appears to be Russian propaganda? Which in light of recent revelatory news about Russia's efforts in that regard are extra interesting. Though I suppose it could instead just be made by some neo-Nazi group? There's a couple outlets, especially in the Nordics, that have been formed in the past few years with that background. Silverseren^C 17:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I should have read Woodroar's comment above first. Looks like I was right on multiple fronts. Silverseren^C 17:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Rastislav Petrović

Hello, some of the editors on Kuči article disagree whether this author is viable for citations. He wrote a book called "Pleme Kuči 1684-1796", which is what was being cited in the article for the longest time, but because of one quote some editors started to remove him, claiming that he is not RS.

About the author: Rastislav Petrović is a historian, and has a PhD in the field. His PhD dissertation was on Kuči tribe. The book that we are discussing was formed out of that dissertation. It was published in 1981. but it was republished in 2001.

Citation that was used and deemed problematic is: It cannot be said that the Kuči existed as a nahija or tribe on September 6, 1455, when, together with others from Upper Zeta, they swore allegiance to the Venetian Republic in the Monastery of St. Nicholas in Vranjina. In the defter from 1485, the Kuči are listed as a nahija consisting of eight villages, based on which it can be conclusively determined that, with the arrival of the Turks in these areas in the second half of the 15th century, precisely at the time when, according to tradition, Đurađ Pantin was elected as the first vojvoda (duke), they became a nahija. This eventually allowed them, over time, through the merging of villages and katuns (temporary settlements), and katuns turning into permanent settlements, to form a tribe composed of various brotherhoods, which intermingled through mixed marriages, regardless of religious affiliation..

This citation was used to claim this: Up until the end of the 15th century, the Kuči had not formed as a tribe.

This claim was also supported by another source that is acceptable by their terms, but the whole claim was still removed as editors feel that it's contradictory to the idea that Petar Kuč, who was mentioned in 14th century is a possible leader of Kuči brotherhood.

But, even the article which was written by them years ago, claims this when talking about first census of the nahiya of Kuči:

These formed Old Kuči (Serbian: Starokuči), who were a community of diverse brotherhoods (clans),

Claiming, as it can be seen, that Old Kuči, which were first "edition" of the tribe. formed out of many brotherhoods instead of one.

What do you say? Setxkbmap (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Have there been any references presented from other historians arguing otherwise that would be a reason to doubt this author's claims or at least represent the claim as disputed? Silverseren^C 20:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

No. As i've said, the statement is supported by another RS, who even other editors agree with.

They provided no alternative info, other than their own claim that because there is a possible leader of brotherhood (keep in mind, that is not a tribe, as a tribe is composed of multiple brotherhoods and is even stated in the article itself), this information can't be true.

Other editors didn't provide any alternative, they just removed the claim (even though another source was cited too). I think the issue is that since the topic is not that well researched, and can be a hot topic when discussing origin for example and i assume authors are scared that i will use him as a way of going against their POV (keep in mind, there is no consensus on that, some Albanian scholars claim one thing while some other will claim another, and common sense will tell you that if population was mixed in the period of tribe creation, tribe is mixed in origin, but that is another topic completely and has RfC on the talk page) Setxkbmap (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Maleschreiber, can you explain your claim on the article talk page that Petrović is not a reliable source? I see you claim it's not an academic publication, but it does appear to be properly published and is a monograph, both of which means they meet both regular reliable source book requirements and academic ones. Based on other statements I'm seeing in the talk page situation regarding claims about Albanian and Serbian nationalism, I see that this is likely falling into another of the contentious topics fights that Arbcom set up restrictions on. Please actually back up your claim of the source not being reliable with actual other reliable sources presenting as such, not just your opinion on the matter. (Also, I think this article needs to be put under 1RR sanctions.) Silverseren^C 21:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry about reverts, it's been like this for the past 2 days only. It's also pretty hard to keep RS in the article, when they are a group of editors that have been editing together for a while, so all the rules we have can be easily circumvented. I reverted things back because i think that removing stuff without providing a valid reason is not ok and is a kind of vandalism Setxkbmap (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Just to note I've removed the RFC options to avoid confusion, as this isn't setup as an RFC. If you want to setup an RFC I suggest reading WP:RFCOPEN and WP:RFCNEUTRAL first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Cool Setxkbmap (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Silver seren The sentence which Setxkbmap reinstated in the article based on Petrovic (1981) was originally written by me 4 years ago [54]: Up until the end of the 15th century, the Kuči had not formed as a tribe.. I'm posting this piece of information as an explanation that I'm against the use of Petrovic (1981) not because in the context of a "nationalist dispute" but because I genuinely don't think that the source is reliable and I don't consider what I myself wrote 4 years as valid any longer. As a compromise version, I re-wrote the sentence as According to Djurdjev, up until the end of the second half of the 15th century, the Kuči had not formed as a tribe. The content dispute itself could have been easily solved and I wrote a compromise version which included the same statement with attribution to another, more reliable source. There is no content dispute in itself in this case. Setxbmap wants to keep in the article's bibliography this particular author for reasons which don't concern the content itself as the source doesn't impact the article in any way possible. Rastislav Petrovic's works belong in the nationalist discourse of 1980s and 1990s Yugoslavia and the author was heavily involved in nationalist projects. Historians from Belgrade, nationalist Serbian political ideologies Dr. Veselin Đuretić (originally from Zeta) and Dr. Rastislav Petrović (originally from Kuč), who supported the NS in the election campaign and shared its ideological discourse, also spoke at the rally of the people in Bijelo Polje. [55] and In the early 1990s individuals in the SPC also publicly started exhibiting readiness for war. In September 1991 the future bishop of Mileševo, Filaret, had his picture taken with a machine gun in hand, near the Komogovine monastery in Croatia (between Glina and Kostajnica). In the picture that circled the globe, standing beside Father Filaret was one of the Serbian academicians, Rastislav Petrović, proving metaphorically that the Serbian Church and Serbian Academy together set out on the state-building adventure that would cost the Serbs dearly.(Tomanić 2001) I can provide more citations and evidence as to why Rastislav Petrović is not a reliable source but I think that the fact that this author was engaging in nationalist propaganda and taking part in photo ops with machine guns in nationalist rallies just before the Yugoslav Wars is enough evidence. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • This is the image of Bishop Filaret and Rastislav Petrovic [56] in 1991 in Croatia. Silver seren Do you think that any author with such credentials can be used as a reliable source anywhere in wikipedia as if they are just another source?--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

    Book was written in 1981. PhD dissertation earlier than that. While i don't condone his war activities during the 90s, he was a WW2 war veteran so it's really not surprising.

    But, just because you don't like what he did in later stages of his life, doesn't really answer questions about the book. What's wrong with it? You didn't state any of these when we were discussing it, so this is just a lame attempt to discredit earlier work based on him siding with his country in Yugoslav wars. Our discussions can be seen on the talk pages of the article.

    Whatever you feel like Rastislav did during the 90s in Croatia (has nothing to do with the topic or a region we are discussing), doesn't change the fact that he wrote one of the most comprehensive books about the tribe to this day, and that's the only thing that should be cited. Not his opinions on Yugoslav wars, not his other books, but his PhD dissertation. It would be same as me asking for people to remove Xhufi Pellumb because he was relativizing child death camps in Albania, and stating it's "not too bad", or because he claims that national union of all Albanians is inevitable (basically calling for Greater Albania). It just doesn't have anything to do with the source we are citing, his opinions outside of the topic are irrelevant to me. So i kinda don't see how one of them is terrifying to you, while another isn't. But this has nothing to do with that, Rastislav's opinions on Yugoslav wars have nothing to do with his translations of old Catholic records (Just like Xhufi's work on Albanian and Montenegrin tribes doesn't have anything to do with his other personal views), nor his conclusion that the tribe was formed in the second part of XV century. It 's just that you don't personally like what authors such as Petrović or Đurđev have to say about the tribe, so you've spent hours searching for anything on Rastislav, otherwise Xhufi would not be in an article as well. Setxkbmap (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

    Also, just wanted to add, that Rastislav's claim is supported by another 3 authors, and Historical institute of University of Montenegro, which i can prove (and many more that, while they are experts in the field, are not historians and Maleschreiber and other editors deem those not reliable). I added more sources to Kuči page, but if those get removed because you don't like it i will post them here for visibility, if @Silverseren deems it necessary. Setxkbmap (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

    Aaaaaaaaaaand they got removed. Proving once again, that it's not about the source but the POV that is being currently pushed. Even though claim was supported by Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Art, even though there were other academics who came to the same conclusion, claim was pushed down, citations removed and now it states "according to Đurđev", stating it like it's not a fact but an opinion of 1 man that stands alone, and not the fact proven by the scientific community. Setxkbmap (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

    • The accusations Setxbmap has written about Xhufi above are defamatory and don't correspond in any way possible to reality. They should be deleted and WP:WHATABOUT doesn't constitute a reply.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

      I am not saying "WHAT ABOUT HIM", i am actually saying that opinions outside his scope of work are irrelevant to me. As you can see, i never removed any of his sources. It's not defamatory, as all of that is stated on his wikipedia.

      https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%ABllumb_Xhufi

      These are well sourced, and i trust people from Albanian wiki that they are doing a good job. Setxkbmap (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

      Rastislav Petroviç is fringe. Petroviç is a proponent of idea that 1 million Serbs killed in Croatia, this is a gross over represent to make Serbs look like greater victims. Petroviç Should be taken with a pinch of salt as he goes against mainstream idea about Kuçi KustrimiAbdu (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

      No, but he did support Serb people in Croatia.

      Btw, your opinion is irrelevant, as you are claiming you are coming from "Greater Albania" Setxkbmap (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The newly created account "KushtrimAbdu" is most likely a single purpose account created for the sole purpose of derailing the discussion in the opposite direction it supposedly supports. This is not an account created by someone who is Albanian as it claims on its userpage. Even the spelling of the username is wrong in Albanian. The account should be reported at SPI as most likely this is not a new editor but someone who wants to create the perception that "Albanian nationalist" SPAs are targeting the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I already reported him at admin noticeboard, and told them that he might be sock.

  Feel free to file more reports if you feel they are needed. Setxkbmap (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

whybuy.com.au

Can https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog be considered a reliable source when it writes about a company whose products it sells?

The blog looks like a content farm, to me. The entries are all anonymous, often use AI-generated images, and have a strong smell of AI-generated text (eg. sentences like This guide will delve into the essential considerations for choosing a fridge that you won't regret buying, with AI detection tool spot checks coming back as 80-100% AI-generated).

User:7336jeremy, the editor who used the blog as a source on the Fisher & Paykel article and readded it when it was removed, believes the blog to be reliable enough to remain in place "until a substitute can be found". Belbury (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some of the content on https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog is likely AI generated. I disagree it is a content farm. I disagree that content that is AI generated is necesarilly spam. Almost every website of all reputations is likely to now contain AI generated content and if when adjudging a source to be reliable or not, the test is whether there is any AI content anywhere on the domain, then I believe the Wikipedia project may be dead.

Most of the content on https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog comes back as being generated by human. The only article on the domain that @Belbury pointed out to me as being AI generated spam in User talk:Belbury - for example - came back as almost certainly human (https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog/what-number-is-the-coldest-setting-on-a-fridge/)

The domain appears to be an appliance rental business which somewhat specialises in renting out Fisher & Paykel products. The information cited is historical information, it's not controversial in any way. One might expect an appliance rental business specialising in Fisher and Paykel to be one of the few organisations capable of generating reliable content on the matter.

In WP:BLOGS: "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."

This rule requires that if the information in question is suitable for inclusion it should be with caution, unless a higher quality source is available, which there probably is. The use of caution, to my mind, signals that an editor ought to conduct a thorough check for the information elsewhere before settling on a blog page as a source.

The information is suitable for inclusion, and as far as I can tell someone else has not published it in a higher order independent source that I can retrieve. I have done a thorough search for a higher quality source, but came up empty. If a higher quality source can be found to replace the citation I would support that, but in the absence of such a source it is my view that the https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog is a reliable enough source for the information it is supporting, though it would be better if there was a higher quality source for it. 7336jeremy (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't point you to that coldest-fridge-setting blog entry as an example of AI-generation, but as the kind of SEO content that you'd tend to find in a blog content farm, irrespective of how it was written. Belbury (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm a Kiwi and I find it fairly ridiculous to think you cannot find a source elsewhere for the claim Fisher & Paykel started as an importer of domestic refrigerators. Especially since if this really is AI content, then it either came from somewhere; or it's some bullshit the AI made up. And sure enough my second Google search ('fisher paykel importer refrigerators') found [57] which okay doesn't quite cover the domestic bit although then again the blog doesn't seem that clear on that either. (My first was just to look and see if Te Ara had an entry for Fisher and Paykel.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry I didn't look properly at the diff and didn't realise how much is being sourced to that blog. Still it's a terrible source and I'm certain anything it covers can easily be sources elsewhere. I'll post at Wikiproject NZ asking for help. Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've updated what I could from the article you provided, but there are many more citations that need a higher quality source. It would be great if there was someone really committed to that page who spent time on it as it is an incomplete mess. If someone can get a hold of "Pioneering Spirit: A History of Fisher and Paykel" ISBN 0473204630, 9780473204631 available it seems in only 2 university libraries in NZ, I think this would be an excellent source for all of the historical dates. 7336jeremy (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A quick search on Trade Me brings up a couple of listings for a book "Defying Gravity: The Fisher & Paykel Story" by Keith Davies (journalist and author who has written books about NZ companies) published by David Ling Publishing (a small independent publisher but I don't think it's a vanity press) which could possibly be of use? Daveosaurus (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus looks like a good source but would need a Kiwi if its coming from a library as all copies seem to ne in NZ https://search.worldcat.org/title/156738567 115.70.87.152 (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Trade Me is an on-line auction site where the book is for sale. Search the site and then ask the sellers whether they ship overseas. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience that David Ling Publishing definitely acts like a vanity press, for at least some of their products. Don’t take my word for it though, see the copyright for that book, which is declared to Fisher and Paykel (the same colophon also describes it as “commission”). But that isn’t to say it would be a bad source; I’d rather an WP:ABOUTSELF than a blog like the one being discussed. If anyone plans to work on the article and wants me to go scan some of it (within fair use) send me a message—ideally at my talk, as I won’t stick around here. — HTGS (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

From the page history the timeline details were previously being sourced to the now-dead businesshistory.auckland.ac.nz/fisher_paykel/timeline.html. User:7336jeremy replaced that source with whybuy.com.au without making any changes to the text.

archive.org suggests that the whybuy.com.au blog entry was created in November 2023, so it (whether it was written by an AI or a company blogger) may have gotten its information from the Wikipedia article, which hasn't otherwise changed much since 2011. Belbury (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury I did remove that source and replace it because it has no listed author or publication date, was a dead link albeit an archived one, the link subjectively looked spammy to me, it claimed to be associated with a university but anyone can make that claim, and it doesnt support all of the citations on the page. For example "The company entered the European market in 1992, and by 1994 was exporting to over 80 countries" - this is the very first citation on the Fisher & Paykel page. It's not supported in its entirety by the original citation, only that "the company entered the European market in 1992". The citation that "by 1994 was exporting to over 80 countries" I could only find here https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog/celebrating-history-fisher-paykels-fascinating-timeline/. Remember I didn't change the text, I only fixed the citations, the text was already there. The whybuy.com.au page has additional information about how Fisher and Paytkel entered the European market which is lacking in the previous source "Launch of Fisher & Paykel brand in the European market at Domo-technica Appliance Trade Fair, Cologne, Germany." Perhaps I should have kept the original as a source to the citations it did support, but to my mind. its at par or worse as a source than whybuy.com.au and less in depth. Additionally the whybuy.com.au article has a lot more timeline information than is included on the Wikipedia page so it seems unlikely to me its a circular source. 7336jeremy (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If whybuy.com.au was sufficient as a source until a better source can be found, the wikipedia article could be significantly expanded from it to include a much more in depth history. Once better citations are found replace the whybuy.com.au ones for sure, but I think losing the whybuy.com.au citations and leaving it with no citations does a disservice to the page. At least leaving whybuy.com.au there provides a starting point for a better article and someone can find a better quality source later so the Fisher & Paykel page is better than the poor quality not much more than a stub of an article that it is now. 7336jeremy (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If we're weighing up an anonymous timeline from a University of Auckland website against an anonymous semi-AI blog from a washing machine rental service, the former is certainly the more reliable source of the two.

The washing machine rental blog isn't a better one for having additional information in it; we don't know who wrote it or where they took that information from. If the blog includes a detail about 1994 exports which was present in the Wikipedia article but not the University of Auckland timeline, it's possible that the blog writer or AI was simply repeating the line from the Wikipedia article. It may be incorrect. Belbury (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury I agree. But we're weighing up an archived dead link of a webpage now hosted on a different website that claims to be affiiliated with the University of Auckland which did not support the full citation, and a washing machine service company live blog which does support the full citation. I'm just telling you what informed my decision making at the time. Maybe it really associated with the University of Auckland but the subjectively spammy nature of the link and my own limitations in intelligence and time on verifying whether it really was or was not the University of Auckland informed my decision to change the link. If you can confidently verify that link for me, fantastic, some of the links can be cited back to that link, but either the text in the Fisher & Paykel page will need to be reduced to what is supported by the Univrsity of Auckland link, or we still find ourselves needing whybuy.com.au as a source, and the question remains is whether it is reliable enough in the absence of a better source or should we delete the assertions from Fisher & Paykel that relies on whybuy.com.au.

I also don't know why you have it in for AI writing either and use it is a derogatory slur - sure it can be used to produce spam, but its also an excellent tool to write with and improve readability. Like anything it can be - and often is - abused. But I don't think its fair to just throw around buzzwords like "AI" and "content farm" and draw on negative perceptions in the Wiki community with a presumption that AI assisted writing is spam to help make your point. The content should be judged on its merit, not whether there is content that has been written with AI assistance anywhere else on the domain.

The content on whybuy.com.au is more in depth that the dead previous source, and more in depth than Fisher & Paykel. If all whybuy.com.au's information coming from Fisher & Paykel in a circular way, why does it have so much more information than either of the sources? It doesn't make sense. 7336jeremy (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury Also if "the blog writer or AI was simply repeating the line from the Wikipedia article" and using m example citation I gave earlier, how would whybuy.com.au have additional information about the launch of Fisher and Paykel into the European market being that it was "at Domo-technica Appliance Trade Fair, Cologne, Germany." If it was circular, surely that detail would not be present in the whybuy.com.au source as it could not be sourced from Fisher & Paykel. 7336jeremy (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The University of Auckland timeline is here. It's not merely "claiming" to be part of the university, it's on the auckland.ac.nz domain.

I'm not saying all the information in the whybuy blog is circular. Where information appears in the blog but not in Wikipedia or the University of Auckland timeline, we have no idea where that information came from. The anonymous blogger may have copied it from a textbook, or from a web forum thread, or written it from memory, or misremembered it, or asked an AI to write it for them. We can't be confident about the quality of the information, because the blog has no author byline or editorial oversight. It is not a reliable source of information. Belbury (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury as I said I thought subjectively the link looked spammy. I am known to be wrong on occassion as I have already said.

"we have no idea where that information came from. The anonymous blogger may have copied it from a textbook, or from a web forum thread, or written it from memory, or misremembered it, or asked an AI to write it for them. We can't be confident about the quality of the information, because the blog has no author byline or editorial oversight." - All of this also applies to the dead link, it just has a better pedigree.

I think we're off track anyway, I'd be happy enough for citations to be attributed back to the dead link if you are more comfortable with that, but as I said we still need the whybuy.com.au citation for some of the attributions as the dead link does not support the claims in Fisher & Paykel in full. I thought we were trying to determine if we were deleting the unattributable citations and removing whybuy.com.au as a source, or whether we can consider it reliable enough until a higher quality source can be found. 7336jeremy (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We're just trying to determine whether the anonymous washing machine rental blog is a reliable source for Wikipedia.

If there's a consensus that it's not, it should be removed from the article and any statements which cannot be sourced elsewhere marked as {{citation needed}} or removed. Belbury (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury I don't think you initially presented your request to the community in a neutral way when asking for contributions as to whether whybuy.com.au could be a reliable source. You made an argument that it wasn't a reliable source and used derogatory and emotive language ike "content farm" and "AI generated" which carry negative connotations in the wikipedia community. You didn't link back to the cited article on whybuy.com.au but rather the blog page to paint a picture that suited your agenda. You poisoned the well so to speak, and on balance I don't think there is consensus regardless. 7336jeremy (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There's millions of sources that don't have any AI involvement. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it a blog by recognized experts in the field? Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I don't think it can be said that they're an expert since theres no named author and no secondary sources published. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources 7336jeremy (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Then wp:sps applies, its not an RS as it is a blog. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree and this therefore appliues -

In WP:BLOGS: "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."

This rule requires that if the information in question is suitable for inclusion it should be with caution, unless a higher quality source is available, which there probably is. The use of caution, to my mind, signals that an editor ought to conduct a thorough check for the information elsewhere before settling on a blog page as a source.

7336jeremy (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The line before this one makes it clear this is referring to self-published expert sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to read the whole section as Slatersteven has said. The line your quoting can't be read separately from the line before "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." Your quote only applies if these requirements are already met. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You do need to read the whole section, I agree, and as such disagree with your assessment that its only in reference to self published expert material. The sentence in question is referring to the rest of the paragraph evidenced by an earlier sentence in the same para "self-published material such as...blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources"..."exercise caution when using such sources". To my mind if the author of that rule had intended that only a blog post made by a subject matter expert were the only example of a blog post being used as an appropriate citation, that would have been expressly and explicitly stated.

The rule doesn't state that blog posts are 100% unacceptable as sources everytime even if it means deleting most of a Wikipedia article when there is no other source to take its place. It says blog posts are largely unacceptable. Which requires that sometimes a blog post is acceptable as a citation on Wikipedia. So is this one of those times? I would suggest it is, with the alternative being a substantially diminished Wikipedia article.

It's a historical timeline, theres not a huge amount of room for opinion and interpretation - its a low quality source, yes, but its also a low risk citation, no extraordinary claims are being made and its hard to see where the benefit comes from fabrication to the publisher, notwithstanding the obvious issues around reputation for fact checking and accuracy. 7336jeremy (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

notwithstanding the obvious issues around reputation for fact checking and accuracy The requirement for a reputation for fact checking and accuracy comes from WP:Verification#What counts as a reliable source it isn't something that can be cast aside. Without it you source is no good. Even without issue of self publishing this wouldn't be a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

A blog post will always have issues around reputation and accuracy since "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert". Yet some self published sources, though less reliable, are in some cases suitable as a citation since "self-published material such as...blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources". The question isn't whether any blog post is unsuitable as a citation, the question is when is a blog post suitable, and whether this is one of those times. I'm not proposing the use of this source while surrounded by several better quality sources. I'm proposing it to prevent the deletion of a significant portion of a wikipedia page. 7336jeremy (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear at this point that you are the only one who thinks this particular blog post is suitable. If content can't be properly verified then Wikipedia is better of without it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I very much doubt it. Just because someone published something to the internet doesn't make it a viable source for verify purposes. There's nothing to show that this should be considered a reliable source.

To the question in context I don't see why the old link was replaced, it appears dead but archives are available at the wayback machine. The old link was much more suitable for the purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This just seems to be a blog with the main purpose of promoting their business, AI-generated or not. There's no evidence to suggest they verify anything they put out. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 17:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we going to need an RFC on this, really? Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Consensus building

Is this an RS

Yes

• Yes in WP:BLOGS "Self-published material such as...blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources""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." If a better quality citation is unavailable a blog post as a source, if used with caution, is better than deleting content from the Wikipedia entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 7336jeremy (talk • contribs) 13:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No

• No is a blog, an anonymous blog (thus it violates wp:sps). Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• No Precisely no evidence has been offered that this website has 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy', as required by WP:RS policy. Whether it is 'a blog' or not is actually irrelevant, since it doesn't meet requirements either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• No, it's self-published and written anonymously, on a site with no apparent editorial oversight. --Belbury (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• No For all the reason given above. It has no reputation for fact checking or accuracy and matches none of the requirements for any RS policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Undoubtably a no from me. I've already made my point above, so I won't repeat myself. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 17:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. This is simply a LLM blog, with absolutely no indication of authorship, fact-checking or oversight, published on a promotional platform. I won't even get into the WP:COI. I'm not sure why people are even engaging on this - it's just a complete non-starter. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• No per all the other No !votes. At least two books have been published on the history of the company so there is no need to use a blog/LLM/SEO/whatever site as a source. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So do we have a snow close yet? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the OP should really find another subject to write about for a while. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a formal close, the result is very obvious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Theoretical Mathematics & Applications [TMA]

I need the assistance of a neutral, official Wikipedia editor to decide if TMA is a reliable scientific journal and the cited paper is a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia.  A commenter is blocking the entry of disclosure from the cited paper published by TMA into the page on the “Collatz Conjecture.”

Wikipedia defines a “reliable source” has being “published” [yes], peer-reviewed [yes], and not a predatory journal [yes].

Extended content

Objective Evidence Supporting Journal and Cited Paper As Reliable Sources. TMA has all the characteristics of a reliable source and none of a predatory or vanity publication (as defined by Wikipedia). TMA is peer-reviewed, published in both print and online format Has ISSN numbers 1792-9687 (print) and 1792-9709 (online) Detailed instructions for authors Indexed & abstracted by 7 services (AMS Digital Mathematics Registry of the American Mathematical Society, Genamics JournalSeek, Google Scholar, JournalTOCs, Norway’s National Scientific Database, Sherpa/Romeo, TOC Premier) Deposited with the National Librarian of the National Library of New Zealand International editorial board with affiliations - 18 mathematicians from 13 different countries [Canada, China, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain, USA] Modest publication fee (US$200) Outlined publication ethics Norway’s National Scientific Database Theoretical Mathematics and Applications Publisher: Scienpress Ltd Minimum Criteria ✅ Scientific editorial board ✅ Peer reviewed ✅ International authorship ✅ Approved ISSN Scientific level placements Year   Scientific Level 2024             1 2023             1 2022             1 2021             1 2020             1 2019             1 2018             1 2017             1 2016             1 2015             1 2014             1 Level 1 are publication channels considered to satisfy the minimum requirement to be counted as scientific (external peer review, scientific editorial board and minimum national authorship). Stop Predatory Journals website – TMA not listed on website Cited paper [Hahn, Kirk O., 2024, Analysis Of Collatz Conjecture Rules, Theoretical Mathematics & Applications, Volume 14 Issue 1, 1 – 76] is “self-verifiable.”  The paper includes all equations and raw data so any reader can verify all calculations and raw data to confirm the disclosed results. Subjective Evidence Cited By A Commenter Alleging TMA Is Not A Reliable Source TMA not indexed by MathSciNet TMA not indexed by zbMATH Publisher Scienpress Ltd on Beall’s List TMA is predatory publisher TMA is vanity publisher Arguments Against Significance Of Alleged Subjective Evidence The need for a journal to be indexed by either MathSciNet or zbMATH is not a requirement to be a “reliable source”.  The significance of TMA not being indexed by either of these online search engines is unknown.  There can be many reasons why a specific journal is not indexed.  Neither searched engine states “only reliable sources are indexed” or “all reliable sources are indexed”.  It is known that zbMATH indexes some non-reliable sources (“Since 2024 preprints from a subset of the arXiv are displayed on zbMATH Open” – zbMATH website).  Although TMA is not indexed by MathSciNet, it is listed on AMS Digital Mathematics Registry of the American Mathematical Society, which is the same organization that runs MathSciNet. Beall’s List has been discredited as being inaccurate and biased ("That means that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five.”)[see WP page - Beall’s List] The Norwegian Scientific Index and the website “Stop Predatory Journals” (see above under objective evidence) have been suggested as better evaluators of predatory publishers (see WP page on Beall's List- Successors) TMA does not exhibit any of the characteristics of a predatory publisher (WP page of predatory publishing – “It is characterized by misleading information, deviates from the standard peer review process, is highly non-transparent, and often utilizes aggressive solicitation practices. TMA does not exhibit any of the characteristics of a vanity publisher. The submission/peer-review/publication process of TMA is identical to all other scientific publishers.  In fact, the page charges of TMA are very low (US$200) compared to other journals (US$3,370 – Journal of Number Theory).

In conclusion, the subjective evidence cited by the commenter is not persuasive and does not out-weigh the objective evidence showing TMA and the cited paper are reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia. 45.50.231.56 (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You have been told no by several people, TMA is published by Scienpress, a well-known predatory publisher. The journal have also been pulled from Zbl for quality reasons, and was never indexed in MathSciNet which any legitimate math journal would be indexed by. Also @David Eppstein, Uwappa, XOR'easter, and JayBeeEll: since they were involved here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The paper is likely not a reliable source for the information, because of the nature of the content. Wikipedia isn't the place for new ideas, but rather commonly accepted knowledge. Your new ideas would need to gain some level of acceptance before being added to Wikipedia. From the discussion on Talk:Collatz conjecture it's clear that isn't the case yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is at: Talk:Collatz_conjecture#I_am_proposing_a_major_edit_to_this_page. Uwappa (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

At this point, all you are doing is calling attention to the fact that Theoretical Mathematics and Applications is not, in fact, worth a damn thing. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABOUTYOU. Uwappa (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"I have proved the Collatz Conjecture" is surely a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and we should expect indisputably reliable sources to report on it. Even accepting for the sake of argument that TMA meets the fairly low bar set out for Wikipedia to accept it as a reliable source, we wouldn't accept it as the only source for the claim that the Collatz Conjecture has been solved. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Headbomb. I don't have anything to add beyond noting that I agree with the comments of everyone here. --JBL (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

truthaboutscientology.com

At Scientology and celebrities#Notable Scientologist celebrities, an IP user added content indicating that the band members of Hollywood Undead are also Scientologists, and this was subsequently tagged as possibly unreliable. Is this a reliable source for the claims? Courtesy ping @Seefooddiet: Left guide (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect it isn't, as it's a self-published site by a Kristi Wachter [58]. Seems to just be a hobbyist who's interested in the subject, and going out of their way to publish negatively on Scientology (hence the name of the website, and the name of their previous site "Scientology Lies"). To be clear, I think NPOV is unflattering to Scientology. But for a source on Wikipedia, it's still not a good image for neutrality. seefooddiet (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It's self published by Kristi Wachter, who is used as a reference in other sources but only rarely. The same is true of the site itself. Wachter also don't appear to have been published by other independent sources as an expert on scientology. So it probably isn't a reliable source.
I would also note that the site says "The older a list, the more likely that a person listed on it is no longer involved in Scientology" and all of the listing are over a decade old, with some being closer to twice that. So any link would already be tenuous.
All of the individuals involved are living people, so high quality sources are preferred. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Use of Fox News on Jo Boaler

Jo Boaler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sangdeboeuf has reverted content three times on Jo Boaler over the last few weeks. The content is specifically:

Boaler's work on the 2023 revision of the California Math Curriculum Framework was alleged to contain numerous misrepresentations and inaccuracies. In response, Boaler said that the accusations demonstrated "a lack of understanding of educational research protocols and processes."

The claim is that the content violates WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS because the article uses the word "equity". While the article is published under the media section of the website, the claim here is that the use of any topic deemed to be political is sufficient for excluding content sourced to Fox News. In this case, Fox News is one of the few mainstream sources that Boaler has spoken to about this specific topic.

While there are potential BLP issues with any news source, in this case we are dealing with direct quotes from the living person in question. I suppose this boils down to: Should we include Boaler's critical response to the allegations, or should it be excluded?

Grossman, Hannah; Lencki, Maria (1 April 2024). "Stanford professor defends herself after being accused of 'reckless disregard for accuracy'". Fox News. Retrieved 2 April 2024.

Looking to gather and integrate community input. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a massive non-story, and pretty clealry exemplifies why we don't use Fox. Fox created a controversy over a "report" (i.e., 100 pages of anonymous ranting that was probably thrown in the trash by the Stanford administration) and then asked for comment. It was dumb of Boaler to engage with Fox, but her bad PR strategy doesn't make any of this due for inclusion in the BLP. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The topic here is whether we should include her rebuttal of the allegations. The coverage of the anonymous allegations is a separate topic which may be worth digging into, but that's not based on Fox News sources. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, if there are other sources use them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Since we are currently mentioning allegations of wrongdoing against Boaler—"alleging Boaler had violated the research policies of the university"—we should mention her denial of the allegations (see WP:BLPPUBLIC). If Fox is the only outlet that has published the denial, we should still include it. That doesn't mean we should use the Fox source to expand the mention of allegations. A better version would just be

In March 2024, an anonymous complaint was sent to Stanford's dean of research alleging Boaler had violated the research policies of the university. Boaler denied the allegations.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done a comprehensive search recently, but when the content was added the Fox News source was the only mainstream source that reported on her rebuttal of the allegations. I'll see if I can find anything else that's been reported since then. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"Boaler denied the allegations" requires a source, like everything. You can't cutely dance around citing sources that you're taking information from just because you think the source is icky. That's textbook WP:Plagiarism. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. I'm suggesting that we cite the Fox source for the denial. Am I dancing around or plagiarizing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, then I misinterpreted your statement to mean not using the source at all; you just meant "to expand". SamuelRiv (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone but Fox and/or other unreliable culture war conservative publications reporting on these anonymous allegations? If not, neither the allegations nor the denial should be in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Voorts has a good point. IF the allegations have been widely reported (and thus DUE to mention) THEN her rebuttal is relevant and Fox can essentially be cited as an ABOUTSELF statement on her part. HOWEVER, if Fox is the only outlet to report on the allegations then the entire thing is UNDUE and both the allegations and her rebuttal should be omitted. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur. The anonymous allegations and the denial seem UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. In the BLP, it's sourced to the San Francisco Chronicle: [59]. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that refers to the previous allegations. Inside Higher Ed covered this specific set of allegations here: [60]. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

See also: [61], [62], [63],, [64], [65]. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Three of those links are to The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper. Not exactly bolstering the case for due weight IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Though I've seen it used as a standalone source in other articles, I agree that the Stanford Daily alone should not be used to establish due weight. Inside Higher Ed, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and Ed Source are all top tier reliable sources when it comes to broadly reporting news in the education world. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine. In that case we don't need the Fox News source at all, and we can close this discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Stanford isn't investigating this at all seems to reinforce that it would be undue to include these anonymous allegations in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not how WP:DUE weight works. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This could be used for an WP:ABOUTSELF statement, but that would apply only the second sentence. The first sentence is additional commentary separate from the ABOUTSELF statement, so Fox is likely not a suitable source for it.

Being reliably sourced isn't necessarily a reason for inclusion, rather all content that is included must be verifiable to a reliable source. So whether the statement is due if only Fox has covered it isn't a matter of reliability, and should be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What specifically is the issue with the Fox News reporting? TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is obvious cult war stuff, and so covered by FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Something doesn't have to be exactly labelled by the source for it to apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear the reason they are reporting on this at all is because of culture war issues, however they phrase their article or what category of article it's sorted into doesn't change that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for the motivations at Fox News. I can only say that I think Boaler's response is an important part of the story. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

FOXNEWSPOLITICS describes what the community's consenus is and why Fox is considered to be generally unreliable for politics. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The cited article is not politics news reporting. Is there something specific about the reporting or the article which is concerning to you? TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is quite clearly a culture wars political issue: going after a scholar with anonymous attacks because she promotes racial equity in STEM. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the anonymous attacks are due to the fact that she promotes racial equity in STEM? That's a WP:BLP claim, and needs proper sourcing. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It would need a source if I were trying to add that claim to the article. I'm just using my common sense and knowledge of how conservative politics operate in the United States. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This helps no-one. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The question was why does FOXNEWSPOLITICS apply, and I was explaining why I think this is a political issue rather than a story about academic integrity. There's a fuzzy line between political, cultural, and academic issues, particularly in the United States where education has become centered in the culture wars. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're going to have to come up with some kind of policy rationale for treating regular news content as political if it's not explicitly labelled as politics. Going with your gut doesn't pass muster, especially when you make unsourced claims like: "going after a scholar with anonymous attacks because she promotes racial equity in STEM". I haven't seen any reporting that suggests that's what is actually happening here. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You're inventing a completely arbitrary standard for what counts as political coverage. Just looking at the "media" category on Fox's website, the top stories include one about Kamala Harris's presidential run, another about Donald Trump's comments about Kamala Harris, and another about Harris's drug policy positions. Do these stories have nothing to do with politics because they aren't explicitly labelled as political? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Your own Inside Higher Ed source describes this as part of an attack against scholars promoting racial equity: Rufo and conservative media outlets have published multiple accusations of plagiarism and research misconduct [...] They’ve all been backed by anonymous complaints, and they’re all against officials or scholars at prestigious institutions who either work in DEI or have studied race and equity. [...] There’s a reason he’s focused on DEI and 'grievance departments,' Rufo said. [...] Observers such as Isaac Kamola, director of the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom at the American Association of University Professors, see 'a coordinated attack' behind it all. In short, this is another hack job by Christopher Rufo, similar to the anti–CRT panic of a few years ago: [66] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please stick to the article in question. This is not the Inside Higher Ed article. There is no mention of Trump, Rufo, Harris, etc. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You said that you haven't seen any reporting that suggests there was an attack on Boaler because she promotes racial equity in STEM. I pointed out that your own source in fact suggests this. You don't get to dictate how sources are used here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a [DEI or whatever Fox diversity-buzzword-bogeyman of the moment is] story. It's also an evaluation of a scientific publication. That's both parts of WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of DEI in the article. There is also no mention of any scientific publication, as there are none being referenced. Maybe you are reading the wrong article? TheMissingMuse (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Quoting the very first line of the Fox source (my bolding): A Stanford professor, who was one of the thought leaders behind San Francisco's removal of algebra in junior high for equity reasons, is coming under fire [...] "Equity" is very much a part of DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. As reported by Fox, the anonymous complaint contends that Boaler misrepresented the findings and/or methods of a number of reference papers, which concerns a scientific publication. Are you sure you're not reading the wrong article?

The 2021 California mathematics framework, which was the source of the controversy here, has already been heavily politicized: [67][68][69] The anonymous complaint, as well as the university's response, are already mentioned at Jo Boaler, citing The Chronicle of Higher Ed: [70] The Fox article adds nothing significant IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The use of the word equity does not make this a political article. Which reference paper was a scientific publication? TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the complaint details 52 instances in which Boaler [...] allegedly misstated or misconstrued outside studies about learning, neuroscience, and math education.[71] Did you want me to go through all 52? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Fox News covering the intersection of science and culture-war politics is, well, it's not a circumstance in which we can cite Fox News. XOR'easter (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no science or culture war politics in this article. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the 2021 California mathematics framework, which became a proxy for various political issues, including equity and social justice, [72] is explicitly referenced in the Fox News article: [73] It quite evidently a political topic that both The New Yorker and CalMatters describe as part of the culture wars. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Shifting Focus

I would like to thank everyone for their feedback. There has some strong constructive input from various editors including Slatersteven, Firefangledfeathers, SamuelRiv, ActivelyDisinterested, and voorts. While I don't agree with everything they have said, their feedback has been invaluable.

There has also been another contingent of editors who have been responding quite emphatically that Fox News is just not a source to be used in anything that has even the patina of politics, with just the use of the word equity in the article being disqualifying. I certainly appreciate this perspective as well.

There have also been some questions about whether or not the coverage of the incident in question rises to the level required for inclusion. We have not dug into that deeply, however the broad coverage in the mainstream press and educational press establishes it as more than just an internal issue for Boaler.

It's probably worth shifting focus to evaluate whether or not this topic should be included in the article, and the address the issue of whether or not Boaler's response should be included per WP:ABOUTSELF. While I did not add the content in question to the article, I was the one who added Boaler's response, because I think it's an important part of the story. As for whether or not there is due weight for the topic to be included, I would ask: which noticeboard is appropriate for that discussion?

Input invited, and thank you everyone for participating! TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether something should be included is an NPOV issue. It's usually best discussed on the article talk page, but outside opinion could be sought at WP:NPOV or as this is a living person you could try WP:BLPN (as it's usual better attended then NPOV). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the help. I will raise the broader topic there. Cheers! TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a single person has said the use of the word equity by itself is the reason to reject the Fox News article. That is a straw man invented by you. The actual reasons given by me and several others are that Boaler has been the target of politically motivated attacks, with the California mathematics framework being used by the right wing as a proxy for DEI in their culture war, and that the source is reporting on scientific claims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

To say that "Boaler has been the target of politically motivated attacks, with the California mathematics framework being used by the right wing as a proxy for DEI in their culture war" is a misleading oversimplification. The criticism of the framework came from across the political spectrum and some extremely harsh personal attacks connected with that dispute came from progressive sources. See [74] and [75] for more context. Will Orrick (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not misleading and it's not an oversimplification. OP asked about a particular aspect of the criticism (i.e. an anonymous complaint discussed in a Fox News story) and that's what we've been discussing. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Boaler has received extensive criticism from across the political spectrum, with the most substantive criticism having nothing to do with culture war issues. In fact, if you review high quality sources like Chronicle of Higher Ed, and the Times sources (see article for more sources) you'll find that culture war issues are essentially absent from the issues raised. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but you raised the issue of this particular anonymous complaint, and several of us has argued that it is a right wing culture wars canard. Both things can be true at the same time. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has provided any reliable sources that support that perspective. No one has suggested that Fox News is not a good source for establishing due weight for the topic. The only relevant content unique to that source is Boaler's rebuttal of the complaint. I think that's important to include, but I may be alone in that. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines on media outlets that publish Disinformation, Conspiracy Theories and Propaganda (DCTP)

After reviewing the current guidelines on the reliability of sources, I've noticed a gap in coverage regarding media outlets that consistently publish disinformation, conspiracy theories, or propaganda. Specifically, there is no clear guideline addressing the treatment of media that, e.g., after changes in ownership or editorial stance, begin disseminating such content. This is particularly relevant in regions like Latin America and Eastern Europe (and mostly, but not limited, to authoritarian regimes)--political shifts often lead to media outlets spreading conspiracy theories and false narratives as Imagocracy "an idea to characterise autocracies, where data, statistics and media all remain manipulated", i.e., most 21st century autocracies.

To address this gap, I propose we expand the guidelines to include criteria for assessing the reliability of media outlets known for publishing conspiracy theories, disinformation, or propaganda. A review of the literature reveals that media outlets like Expreso in Peru and Magyar Nemzet in Hungary have been documented for spreading baseless conspiracy theories, such as those involving George Soros, the "New World Order," and the "White Genocide" narrative. These outlets often shift their editorial stance to align with political agendas, as noted in studies published in journals like Media, Culture & Society and Journalism Studies, and so on.

For example, a 2022 study in JS highlights how Magyar Nemzet shifted from a centrist position to a pro-Orbán propaganda outlet, regularly publishing disinformation. Similarly, a 2021 article in MCS document the transition of Expreso into a platform for conspiracy theories following a change in ownership. Their potential to mislead and misinform readers is weirdly and frighteningly high.

An Expreso 2020 article literally says this:

[The anti-government protest] has resulted in a planned coup d'état aimed at seizing power to further impose the colonizing agenda of the New World Order, which is served by this local criminal organization, whose candidates and NGOs are financed by Soros.

In Hungary, the Nemzet goes further by dedicating articles to Sorosleaks conspiracy theory.

---

some editors might argue that categorizing these media as unreliable could lead to overly broad exclusions, potentially limiting access to diverse povs. However, it is important to recognize that the goal is not to censor, but to maintain Wikipedia's commitment to reliable and verifiable information. We could address these concerns by establishing a clear framework for assessing when a media outlet crosses the line from biased reporting to misinformation. This could include criteria such as frequency of publishing demonstrably false information, alignment with known conspiracy theories, and lack of accountability or retraction for such reporting. I would welcome feedback from other editors on this proposal. Are there additional sources or perspectives we should consider when refining the criteria for untrustworthy media? A collaborative approach will help to create a balanced guideline that protects the integrity of Wikipedia while respecting diverse viewpoints.

---

TL;DR:

• I propose to expand the guidelines on unreliable sources to include specific criteria for media outlets that publish disinformation, conspiracy theories, and propaganda (D/CT/P). (A list could also be made of the journalists who broadcast DCTP in these media.)
• If there is consensus on this approach, I can begin drafting a more detailed proposal, incorporating community input. I encourage everyone interested in this issue to contribute their ideas and research so that we can develop a comprehensive guideline.

JD John M. Turner (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the way to do this is case by case, if you have a specific list, you could start threads, not all at once, about these outlets to have them considered unreliable or deprecated. But note that RSP doesn't list every source, just perennially discussed ones, unreliable sources are still unreliable even if not listed. Also, if nobody is actually trying to insert them into Wikipedia, there's no need to have them preemptively deprecated, except for spam blacklist purposes. Does that help or make sense? Also, I would advise you to communicate in more succinct and targeted messages as this one is a bit long. Less is more here. Andre🚐 19:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought such issues would be covered by the requirement for a reputation for fact checking and accuracy part of WP:Verification. What you're suggesting sounds like WP:SCOPECREEP.

As Andre said sources are handled as they become an issue, if a source has never been used or it's use disputed then there is no need to list it anywhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Unicorn Riot reliability

Is this website a RS?[76] Mhorg (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be cautious. Their "About Us" makes no mention of editors, fact-checking, or even who their writers are. It's a nonprofit set up to report "underrepresented stories" and present "alternative perspectives"; The New Yorker quotes one of the founders as saying they have a "reputation as a clearing house for data dumps on far-right groups".[77] Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed we have an article on them. And I also see that a number of articles do cite them.[78] Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

They're certainly biased to the left, but they're one of the few organizations that has on-the-ground coverage of social movements/protests in the United States and engages in investigative reporting of the far right. They have both an editorial independence policy and a correction policy. I would presume they publish under the Unicorn Riot byline rather than individual names because they operate as a collective. So yes, be cautious and attribute their reporting in-text. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Belladelli et al. (2023): Reliable or unreliable?

Way6t has claimed Belladelli et al. (2023) is not a reliable source. I have claimed that Belladelli et al. (2023) apparently is a reliable source. WP:RS and WP:MEDRS have both been brought up in the discussion. Relevant discussion may be found at: Talk:Human penis size#Discussion on the inclusion of Belladelli 2023. I have shared some relevant, summarized details below. Please, feel free to take a closer look at the source and share your thoughts.

• "Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis":

"Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, authored by Federico Belladelli et al., and published in World Journal of Men's Health (from website: "Open Access, Peer-Reviewed", "Indexed in SCIE, SCOPUS, DOAJ, and More", "pISSN 2287-4208 eISSN 2287-4690") on Feb 15, 2023. Also, included in the National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central and PubMed.

• Per Human penis size's "A note regarding sources" (editnotice), which links to WP:MEDRS:

"This is ultimately a medical/scientific article, and we should use medical/scientific sources that meet the de-facto standards here for sources in articles on medical topics. Given that we now have high-quality evidence in the form of several peer-reviewed studies on this topic published in reputable journals, including a systematic review of other studies, as sources for this article, we should not now be citing either crowdsourced user-generated data, or non-peer-reviewed analysis thereof, even if they been reported on in reliable sources such as the popular press."

Daniel Power of God (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Way6t: appears to be saying at the Talk page that the review is technically in line with what makes something an RS technically, but that Way6t is applying editorial judgement (with an additional outside source) to argue that use of the review in this article is WP:Undue. Making this judgement involves a bit more reading into the literature and context of this topic, and this is something outside the scope of this noticeboard.

If you need more input, I suggest posting instead on WT:WikiProject Medicine, where you may find people already equipped to judge the appropriateness of the review better. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC on The South African

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The South African?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• • The reason why I am opening this RFC is that I have a concern about The South African hosting plagiarised Wikipedia content in their news articles. The one that concerned me was this article that appeared to have directly copied from our Des van Jaarsveldt article. I emailed the paper informing them of this but got no reply. When I raised the discussion at RSN, opinions seemed to believe there was reason to doubt the reliability of The South African so this is why I am formally opening the RFC and asking the community given it has similar characteristics to the issues from WP:ROYALCENTRAL that led to it's subsequent depreciation. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

    Might be worth looking at the author's others writings too.. don't have time to rn Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey (The South African)

• Option 2 They appear to be a standard news organisation, although the issues highlighted raise concerns about their quality. I can't find any other issues being raised, although search for information on them is made difficult due to their name. I don't think one issue is enough to declare them generally unreliable or deprecate them, but it does show the source should be shown more scrutiny if it's used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (The South African)

• There are multiple publications that have very similar names, so it's not easy to search for information on the source. Also there appears to be two very different periods in its history - from 2003–2015 it was a freesheet distributed in London, but since 2015 it has been an online news source focused on the South African market. The BBC[79] and Stanford Libraries[80] both have media guides about South African news media, neither of which mention the The South African. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've left a notification of the RFC on the Project South Africa talk page[81]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)