Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 265←Archive 268Archive 269Archive 270Archive 271Archive 272→Archive 275

RfC: The Herald (Glasgow)

The Herald is the oldest established regional newspaper in the world. It is unclear on what basis its reliability is being challenged. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

What is the best way to describe the reliability of The Herald (Glasgow)? I have searched the archives and although there are plenty of discussions on other sources with Herald in the name, I did not find one on this Scottish newspaper which is the longest running national newspaper in the World. If we have consensus, can we please add it to WP:RSP? Thanks, --SVTCobra 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  • 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

Survey (The Herald)

So what? People can ask questions on a noticeboard without filling an official RFC as well. Asking at a noticeboard is an alternative to the RfC process. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
That is the point. Ask at the noticeboard or do an RfC, no need in such an ordinary case to do both. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Added RfC tag. — Newslinger talk 22:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I presume this is some sort of hilarious joke that I don't understand. The fucking Glasgow Herald? Really? But anyway, per what Atlantic306 said above. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Actually I though it was already an approved source as old as it is ~ you know ~ the last time I was there laddie ~ I picked up a four leaf clover ~ who would have thought several years later, I would have had to remember that day ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I see many of you are having a laugh, but why wasn't The Herald on WP:RSP from all those years ago? Maybe, I am missing the point of that list. But I thought, it was supposed to be a quick resource to avoid this type of discussion. Also, I still don't know what technical mistakes I made in the nomination. Something about {{ RFC }}. Peter and Redrose confused me. I am sorry if I have wasted people's time. --SVTCobra 03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    @SVTCobra: It was Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) who made the first technical mistake, in this post (causing effect 1 and effect 2). You didn't make a technical mistake in the nomination - but you did with this post (causing effect 3 and effect 4). I will say this once again: Legobot (talk · contribs), which is the bot that searches for and publicises RfCs, cannot tell the difference between a real RfC and a demonstration that relies on <nowiki>...</nowiki> to indicate to humans that it is a demo and not real. Legobot looks for the three letters "rfc" (case-insensitive) preceded by two opening braces. If it finds those five characters in that sequence, perhaps with spaces between the "{" and the "r", it assumes that it is a live RfC, even if nowiki is being used. So, as advised at WP:RFC#Duration, you should use one of the template-linking templates such as {{tlx}}. Hence why I made this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    ​The perennial sources list has inclusion criteria defined at WP:RSP § How to improve this list (one RfC or two significant discussions). Once the criteria are met, any editor can summarize the past discussions into a new entry on the list. If a source is not on the list, it generally means that the source is less popular, less controversial, or more specialized than the ones on the list. RfCs work best on controversial topics and topics that would benefit from community-wide discussion. To start an RfC, you'll need to add the RfC tag, which was overlooked here. Don't worry, just refer to WP:RFC, and you'll get it next time. — Newslinger talk 04:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, understood. It just seems to me the list would be more useful if certain sources were 'green listed' ahead of them being challenged. Maybe it is to keep the list short, but a long list is preferable to searching the rfc archives, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I appreciate your explaination. Thanks, --SVTCobra 09:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
SVTCobra, you may want to take a look at WP:NPPSG, which is a work in progress. The idea for that page is to primarily meet the needs of new page patrollers who are evaluating articles about topics they are unfamiliar with, so it requires a weaker level of consensus necessary for inclusion (and consequently carries less weight and should be used with more caution).signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't regard my mistake as a "laugh". Sorry, and thanks Redrose64. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
No, they are laughing at my bringing this here in the first place. The Herald shouldn't have been debated it appears. --SVTCobra 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I'm not laughing at you, I think your bringing up the herald is a good thing ~ if you notice in my summary WP:Humor ~ by far it is not to degrade anyone in their edits ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Good for general topics, like any other quality newspaper. As with other general interest publications, WP:MEDPOP and the like apply: defer to specialist publications for specialist topics. RSP is for sources which are controversial enough to merit discussion here at RSN. Those that are obviously reliable (such as this) and those that are not (such as InfoWars) don't really need much debate. feminist (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 All the caveats that would go along with any news organisation apply, it's a well-established broadsheet newspaper with a reputation for fact checking etc. For factual reporting, I'd put it in the same brackets as the Guardian or Telegraph. GirthSummit (blether) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC - These "Is X a terrible source which should be banned from Wiki" RFCs have been like a rash on this page since the DM ban, which was the original instance of banning something just because the power existed to do it. There is no reason to classify the Herald here, no reason why help is needed to do this. Just apply WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2019 (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.

Order-order.com on a BLP (Laura Smith)

Gunnersaurus43 and I are in a dispute over whether the below text is suitable for inclusion in the article on Laura Smith.

In July 2019, Smith was accused of hypocrisy[1] for supporting a Labour Against Private Schools motion and campaign against public schools [2] despite having founded private tutoring company One To One Tutoring which provides tuition to children entered into private school entrance exams.

(Note the Guardian citation only briefly notes her support for the motion and doesn't mention any hypocrisy allegations).

There are three factors which, in my opinion, should prevent this sentence's inclusion in the article:

  1. The source is heavily biased to the extent the editorial team "see themselves as campaigning journalists. Campaigning against political sleaze, corruption and hypocrisy" and outright declare "we don't believe in objective impartiality nor pretend to it". NewsGuard concurs, noting in its entry on the site (worth reading in full, if you have the extension) – "... Guido Fawkes is upfront about its opinionated nature and does not purport to be a straight news site ..."
  2. There is a lack of other sources picking up the story, meaning including the sentence would likely give undue weight to the allegation.
  3. The article is a biography of a living person, meaning sources must be extremely high quality.

At an absolute bare minimum, as an opinionated source order-order.com should be attributed in the text itself, but I am inclined to leave the sentence out altogether. I would like other editors' opinions. – Teratix ₵ 12:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Anti Private School Labour MP Founded Private School Tutoring Company". OrderOrder.com. 12 July 2017.
  2. ^ "Abolish Eton: Labour groups aim to strip elite schools of privileges". the Guardian. 9 July 2017.
Guido Fawkes (blog) (order-order) is not a RS - it is a blog (though it does sometimes break stories, it's still a blog). At best it can be used attributed - and even that's questionable. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Is Gizmodo considered a reliable source?

I have a feeling that the following article is not considered an reliable source, just wanted to make sure. [1] Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Gizmodo is generally a reliable source for tech news. But that's not even what it's being used for in this case. Right now that source is just being used to support the claim that Vsauce has been featured in Gizmodo. Well, that is true. It's not like we really need an even more reliable source to confirm what is before our eyes. Whether that is relevant/significant to the article, that's another matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
(EC) Gizmodo is a generally okay RS for things related to pop culture, current entertainment, etc. But this specific question (What's the hottest temperature) is a scientific one , and there I would suspect we need a WP:SCIRS-meeting publication - something like Wired, Scientific American, or even a good NYTimes article. Gizmodo is too "bloggy" for stating something like that as a fact. --Masem (t) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I would agree if the source was being used in that capacity but it is currently being used on the Vsauce article solely to support that his videos have been featured on Gizmodo. This would be more of a WP:WEIGHT issue.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would remove it under my general rule that "X has appeared on Y, source, X appearing on Y" fails the Wikipedia test of reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd concur the main problem is citing Vsauce rather than it being on Gizmodo. They're a news source focusing on tech. But they're still a news source and as such are not any more or less inherently reliable than the New York Times. But Vsauce is some random vlogger, so... Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

bozhdynsky.com

There is consensus that bozhdynsky.com is a self-published, non-expert source, and as such cannot be considered reliable for factual claims. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

http://www.bozhdynsky.com/ Has been used at a number of article about cars [[2]], but appears to be just another website by someone who does not appear to be a noted expert in the field. So is this an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the assessment that this may be someone's website with any lack of credentials for fact checking. My opinion is that this is not a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me we can close this as unreliable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Unreliable. While I'm sure there's a lot of correct content on that site, the site is the self-published work of a random hobbyist on the internet. We do not and cannot accept that kind of site as a source on any topic. Citing random forum posts as evidence is worse than worthless, it indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia-Reliable source means. Any existing cites to bozhdynsky.com should be eliminated. Any content cited to this source should either be cited to whatever source bozhdynsky.com used to get the information (assuming it is WP:RS), or cited to some other appropriate source, or tagged {{Citation needed}}, or the content should be removed as unsourced. Alsee (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2019 (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.

Muslim scholars' published books to represent Muslim opinion

This is regarding a long-running dispute on the article Alexander the Great in the Quran. I support this lede however, this is being repeatedly reverted for this. The reverters while completely ignoring WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT concerns, only argue against using Muslim scholars as reliable sources for the representation of Muslim opinion.

Can people here kindly weigh-in on whether famous and respected Muslim scholars such as Syed Abul Ala Maududi and Mufti Muhammad Shafi with widely read and accepted published works should be considered reliable enough for their understanding of the views of their own demography? I also draw attention to WP:RSE#Religious sources.

Sources:

If required, I can cite about a dozen additional major Muslim scholars too.

Article: Alexander the Great in the Quran

Content:

...some early Muslim scholars believed [Dhul-Qarnayn] to be a reference to a pre-Islamic monarch from Persia or south Arabia, with modern Muslim scholarship also leaning in favour of identifying him with Cyrus the Great.

References

  1. ^ Maududi, Syed Abul Ala. Tafhim al-Qur'an. The identification ... has been a controversial matter from the earliest times. In general the commentators have been of the opinion that he was Alexander the Great but the characteristics of Zul-Qarnain described in the Qur'an are not applicable to him. However, now the commentators are inclined to believe that Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus ... We are also of the opinion that probably Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus...
  2. ^ Shafi, Muhammad. Ma'ariful Qur'an. pp. 651–652.
  3. ^ Shirazi, Naser Makarem. Tafseer-e-Namoona.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Assuming they're notable scholars (and that does seem to be the case), their own writings can clearly be used, with in-line citations, to describe their position; that said, if the goal is to establish "Muslim scholars say X", it would be better to find secondary sources summarizing them, since that would avoid the risk of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR and would make it more clear that whatever aspect you're covering passes WP:DUE. (For an example of why this is preferable - consider what would happen if I took an obscure Muslim scholar, or an obscure viewpoint of an otherwise noteworthy Muslim scholar, and presented that as the mainstream Muslim view. The easiest way to avoid that is to rely on WP:SECONDARY sources when possible.) That said, I'd say that you can use them as a primary source for their own opinions here if no better sources can be found. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. One thing I want to make clear is that one of these notable scholars writes: ... In general the commentators have been of the opinion that he was Alexander the Great ... However, now the commentators are inclined to believe that Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus ... We are also of the opinion that probably Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus...
Along with being a primary source for his own opinion, isn't this text a secondary source for the overall commentators' opinion too? -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I think Mawdudi's comment falls under WP:BIASED. It's reliable inasmuch his reputation for religious scholarship is high among fellow religious scholars. It's biased in that his views, including the generalizations he makes about the body of religious scholarship, represent a particular religious ideology. It's acceptable with an attribution, though it would be better to find an academic source for this generalization. Citing the other two sources is not appropriate in this sentence, unless they also make a similar generalization. Eperoton (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The other two sources were meant to support the idea that what Maududi was saying is accurate. I have read about a dozen major modern scholars' commentaries which also support the Cyrus theory. Given that about a dozen independent citations are supporting Maududi's generalisation, should he still be viewed as potentially biased and, more importantly, require attribution? -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the other sources, if we are making a generalization about Muslim scholarship, the only appropriate citations for it are sources that make this generalization. If Mawdudi citation wasn't there, and we cited only views of individual scholars, the generalization would violate WP:SYNTH. Since the Mawdudi citation is there, the other citations are simply inappropriate. We could use them elsewhere in the article to source statements about the views of the individual scholars being cited.
Regarding WP:BIASED, it is not a question of us evaluating whether specific religious scholars are biased or not. Opinions expressed by by religious authorities in general fall under that category and should be used with attribution. Eperoton (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

sfreviews.net by Thomas M. Wagner

I'm wondering about the site sfreviews.net by Thomas M. Wagner.[3] On one hand it's basically just a guy with a self-published website, which isn't promising. On the other hand this is a veteran reviewer who started out writing for fanzines back in the day and then moved to the web, founding his own site. He has written hundreds of reviews, appears as a panelist at conventions and has a bit of a presence in the scene.[4] He writes competently and is often very critical, this is no promotional fluff. We have lots of links to this site but I couldn't find any prior discussion here. So, uh, what do you think? Haukur (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit more and I now think it's fine to cite Wagner. It's easy to find books and academic literature citing his reviews.[5] And on the gripping hand we're citing him for opinions, not facts. Haukur (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul M. Remfry

There are a lot of references to the work of Paul M. Remfry, who has published a number of booklets on castles and related topics via SCS Publishing. He owns this imprint. His work is available via castles99.ukprint.com and castlewales.com, the former being his own website, the latter a personal website with no evidence of meeting RS. He is described as a historian but the pages I have seen list no credentials as such and no peer-reviewed publications. My searches to date find nothing that is not self-published. This seems to be a WP:SPS failure, and his website seems not to meet RS. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a local enthusiast, too bad most of his work is self published (his page mentions papers published in some journals). I see he has only master degree (Aberystwyth University), so evidently outside of mainstream academia. His publications are probably easily accessible, which explains their widespread on Wiki use. Pavlor (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree, this looks like a self-published source without evidence or reliability (from the publisher or the author). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Paul Remfry is an independent scholar who writes prolifically on medieval history. Many (all?) of his 20 something books are self published, preferring to be able to share research on his own terms, but he has published papers in independent journals such as the Transactions of the Radnorshire Society. His work has also been cited by other academics so while he may not often publish in mainstream journals or with established academic publishing houses it does have some traction. On the subject of his qualifications, PhDs amongst historians and archaeologists are more common today (citation needed?), but there are people without them who write reliable sources.
As to the matter of his website, it is indeed self-published but I thought the above context might be useful. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

P. D. Stemp

We have a number of cites to books by P. D. Stemp, all on lulu.com. I do not find any books by the author through any other publisher. I can't find any evidence of expertise, and I reviewed one of his books on a subject with which I am familiar, and found it badly written and likely compiled from other materials. There are no acknowledgements for the photographs or line drawings, but they are plainly not original as they date back in some cases over a century. I don't think we can use this. Example: LVG C.VIII. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

All his books listed at Google books are self-published through lulu and he provides no biographical information. So they are not rs. TFD (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 214#Blanket ban on all lulu.com sources? contains a good discussion about books published by lulu.com. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I remember it well. The default is that Lulu is not reliable. There are a few exceptions. As usual, noise about the exceptions drowns out the majority case. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we use book reviews published in FOSFAX and Alexiad?

User:Thomas.W asked me to run FOSFAX with you over here, which I'm happy to do. In my view this is a usable source for book reviews. Yes, it was a fanzine but a credible one that took itself fairly seriously. It had editors, multiple contributors, and a publication run that lasted decades. It was nominated seven times for the Hugo Award for Best Fanzine. Here's a table of contents for one issue: [6] Haukur (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and we should do Alexiad too which was founded when FOSFAX went under as (I think) a sort of replacement or continuation. Joseph T. Major (twice nominated for Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer, once for Hugo Award for Best Related Work) is one of the editors. I would argue that even if we file this under WP:SELFPUBLISH then Major would fall under the "established expert on the subject matter" exemption clause. Haukur (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I would also be grateful for a few more eyeballs on the Thomas M. Wagner thread I started above. I think that's a more marginal case where there might not ultimately be a convincing enough case for the "established expert" bit. Haukur (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems fine but would depend on the topic and the situation. Common sense would say to use better known sources for better known science fiction writers and sources such as FOSFAX who have received less coverage. TFD (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it should be considered reliable. I think a fanzine that was nominated seven time for a Hugo should be considered a reliable source. Making the final ballot for the Hugo seven times is no small feat, and means that the science fiction community saw it as a solid work for many years despite being "only a fanzine". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Black Sun (symbol)

Hello, all. Over at Black Sun (symbol) we have a bit of a disagreement about the use of two sources.

First, a little background on this obscure symbol. This symbol derives from an image found on the floor of a castle in Germany, a structure that was remodeled for use by the SS by Himmler. The design is basically wreath of stylized SS runes. It’s unclear if the motif was originally intended as anything more than a floor design, and if it had a name, it’s unrecorded.

However, certain Neo-Nazi groups have used it since WWII, as well as some other subcultures, like specific strains of Satanism. It gained the name “Black Sun” (German “Schwarze Sonne”) under the influence of a popular novel in the 90s. While the symbol is still super obscure to most in the Anglosphere, it has seen use in alt-right circles lately, becoming especially visible in some high profile terrorist incidents.

As scholarship on the topic makes clear, the specific design is unique to the castle floor, and it may have been to some extent inspired by similar-looking brooches from the early medieval period specific to a group of continental Germanic peoples (Zierscheibe). Whatever the case, scholarship on the topic refers to the symbol as a type of so-called sun wheel (German ‘Sonnenrad’), of which there are many, including the better-known swastika.

Little English language scholarship exists on the topic to date, but there’s plenty in German about it. Goodrick-Clarke has written a significant amount on the topic. Here are some examples of sources discussing the symbol:

English

German

The SPLC and ADL have written about the topic recently, but unfortunately they seem rather confused about the symbol’s history, evidently operating under the impression that the symbol is simply called “Sunwheel” or “Sonnenrad”, and in some cases misspelling the German form. In one instance, the SPLC claims that the symbol stems from Norse inspiration (a claim no other source makes because, well, it’s incorrect), and calls the symbol “Sonnerad”, which is a misspelling of the German word for ‘sun wheel’. The ADL’s enry on the topic displays similar confusion about the German terms and implies that the Black Sun is ancient, nowhere stating it was in fact a Nazi-era design for the SS. It’s a shame.

So, while the SPLC and ADL are correct about its use by neo-Nazis and the alt-right, these organizations are wrong about the symbol’s origins and name, as made clear by specialist sources that correctly identify it as ‘’type’’ of sun wheel and narrow down the design’s potential source of inspiration. In fact, the SPLC and ADL’s discussion on the symbol’s origins and names seem like garbled readings of reliable sources.

Since we’ve got WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, this presents something of a pickle. The SPLC and ADL are wrong about ancient Germanic history here, but they’re right about the symbol’s use by hate groups. I’ve proposed that we ignore what the SPLC and ADL day about the symbol’s name and history, but Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) insists that we cite otherwise unsourced (and in fact inaccurate claims) about some mysterious Norse origins in wiki voice as fact because the SPLC said it (some users here will recall that I’ve been in a nearly identical situation with Beyond My Ken before, in which he argued that since National Geographic said it, it *had* to be right—but it wasn’t). What to do? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly right that there is no Norse origin for this and I'd say the SPLC is not an authoritative source on what is or isn't Norse. Haukur (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Having looked at the specific contested wording ("the artist may have found inspiration from"), I'd need to dig more into the literature before saying whether it could be defensible. Haukur (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • For the moment, I'll repeat what I wrote on Talk:Black Sun (symbol):

    Regarding the question of whether the ADL and the SPLC are reliable sources for this article, I would say this: if the question was whether those organizations have general expertise on runes, German myths and folklore, the occult and so on, the answer would be "no". But one of the things those two organizations do specialize in is tracking and understanding neo-Nazi, neo-Fascist and neo-volkisch hate groups, including the symbols they use in their flags, banners and logos. Given that, I would say for that specific subject, both the ADL and the SPLC should be considered to be reliable sources.

    I will also add a reminder that the purpose of RSN is to determine whether or not a source is reliable. Its purpose is not to determine if any specific fact is "true" or not. To disagree with a piece of information, and therefore call it "false", and for that reason decide that the source is unreliable is not in line with the actual policy WP:RS, and is, in fact, backwards and invalid. First, determine if the source accords with the conditions of WP:RS, if it does, then it is a reliable source, and the information it reports is usable in our articles -- that's the proper order of things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Reminder: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course it does, which is why I discussed the context in my comment above, repeated from the talk page: symbols used by neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, and neo-volkisch groups, the very groups that the ADL and the SPLC tracks, and have been acknowledged -- on this very noticeboard -- to be reliable souerces about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This thread is specifically about the SPLC and ADL’s claims about the symbol’s history, and your insistence that we present those claims as fact. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yup. How do get around the fact that Goodrick-Clarke, on page 125, specifically calls the black sun mosaic a "sun wheel"? Is not Goodrick-Clarke the sine qua non of reliable sources for this subject, having literally written the book on it, and isn't that essentially what you're saying that the ADL & SPLC got wrong? And again, you're saying that they're wrong, so they're not a reliable source - which rather elevates your opinions over policy. (WP:RS).
Do the ADL & the SPLC meet the necessary qualifications for being a reliable source? Yes, this noticeboard has confirmed many times that they do. Is the subject area -- symbols used by the nasty guys -- in their area of expertise? Yes, it is. Can not experts disagree sometimes? (Especially when it comes to pre-history.) Do we not write our articles so that if experts disagree, we include both viewpoints, and do not give all creedance to one and none to the other? Why are you fighting that so vigorously? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If the thread is about the history, then why are we also questioning the name they use? Those seem like overlapping, yet distinct, areas of concern. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • As you’re well aware from earlier discussion: The Washington Post explicitly cites the ADL, the Australian source appears to derive its information from it as well. A Google Image search says nothing about the situation. Reliable sources again and again describe it as a *type* of sun wheel. Google Engram, on the other hand, backs reliable sources that place it in the category of “sun wheel”, illustrating how widely the term is used. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In this, I agree with Bloodofox, the black sun symbol is one type of sun wheel - there are other types, including the swastika. This is the reason I adjusted the wording oin one of my edits, but one of your recent edits made it unclear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:USEBYOTHERS is a sign of reliability. But what suggests that the ABC source is citing the ADL at all? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This board has seen thousands of examples of media sources picking up misinformation and running with it. It’s an unfortunate fact of life. The tip off that the Australian source is likely also drawing from the ADL is its mirroring of the ADL’s (incorrect) claims. Meanwhile, our reliable sources, like Goodrick-Clarke and other academics (primarily in German) say otherwise. It’s still only the SPLC making claims about supposed Norse inspiration, too. However, the article has changed a lot in response to these discussions and sources, and at this point my major concern is the Norse claim, as it simply has no footing at all and appears to be a result of the source not having footing in historical Germanic studies. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Because SPLC is the only source in the article which mentions "Norse tribes", and after a diligent search I cannot find any other reliable source which makes that connection, I've removed "Norse tribes" from the article. I suggest that it does not make any substantial difference, and could be helpful in reaching a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit odd to have editors named "Blood of Ox" and "Sangdebeouef" -- French for "Beef blood" -- in a dispute, considering that an ox is a castrated male cattle (i.e. "beef")? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
They may be wine connoisseurs? Daveosaurus (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If SPLC and ADL contradict mainstream scholarship on the topic (origins of that symbol), then follow POV of mainstream scholarship. Plain and simple. In this case, SPLC and ADL would present a fringe POV. Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment This is clearly a content dispute, not an RS dispute. Bacondrum (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Concur with several above that the SPLC and the ADL are certainly WP:RS for current white supremacist and neo-nazi iconography but that they should not be supported over reliably sourced academic material from historians and archaeologists regarding the origin of this motif. Notwithstanding whether Bloodofox is correct in their assertion, we'd need a WP:RS to support that they're right. But if they have an historian that contradicts the SPLC and the ADL, then I'd not likely ascribe much WP:DUE weight to the SPLC / ADL history while still retaining that it is WP:DUE for issues of current use. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Just putting this here for readers not using the talk page:
"Currently the article cites the SPLC—and only the SPLC—for the claim that the symbol may derive from "the sun wheels used by Germanic tribes as pagan symbol". This isn't accurate: Reliable sources, like Goodrick-Clarke, specifically state that the inspiration behind the symbol may be ornamental discs (German Zierscheibe), in part because there exists Nazi era discourse on the subject. This is presented as an alternate theory as to what Goodrick-Clarke says. The SPLC's generalist statement is not only misleading but also far too nebulous to be accurate. It needs to simply be struck from the article, and we need to stick to stuff like Goodrick-Clarke and other specialists for this information rather than the SPLC or the ADL."
So, in short, nobody is arguing that the SPLC and ADL are not reliable sources for extremist groups using symbols. The issue is that they're not reliable sources for the history of these symbols. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
How do you know that it is not derived from Norse mythology if there is no source that says otherwise? Wewelsburg was re-built in 1650 and how do you know what their inspiration was? I think that without sources to the contrary, the SPLC and ADL are adequate sources on articles about Nazi symbolism. TFD (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Certainly not. The SPLC and ADL are no authority on history or old mythology. If no high quality source mentions such a connection (and there are better sources as listed above), SPLC and ADL POV is exceptonal, fringe. Pavlor (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely not reliable for statements about the historical origin of the symbol when better sources are available. SPLC and ADL writers are not published experts in medieval/ancient topics, including history, archaeology and symbology. Nor are journalists for Washington Post or ABC. Those can all be fine for talking about modern use of the symbol, but when we have work by actual credentialed historians on what is known about the origin of a symbol, anything contradictory from a weaker source is a fringe POV that should not be mentioned. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Quoting WP:NEWSORG: "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." While the SPLC and the ADL are not news organizations, the similar principle of using sources written by academics over those written by lay people applies; The SPLC and ADL are reliable for content on hate groups, but on the history of a symbol there's absolutely no reason to consider them particularly reliable, and indeed news and things written by lay people routinely get academic topics wrong. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Galobtter and Someguy1221. On the subject of the history of symbols, if the ADL and SPLC are contradicted by academic or scholarly historical sources, then the academic and historical sources should take precedence. The ADL and SPLC's views on current usage of symbols by neo-fascist groups are WP:DUE and should be included (but probably with attribution; they are advocacy groups), but they are not known for their expertise in analysis of the history of symbols. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • But that's the thing. What ADL & SPLC say is not contradicted by any reliable sources, those reliable sources just say something different, and they don't say so in a way that excludes other possibilities. Goorick-Clarke does't say "X is the case", he says "It has been suggested that X is the case." That's not the same thing at all, and leaves it open for other possibilities. Bloodofox has yet to provide a source that specifically contradicts what ADL/SPLC say, or says that they are wrong. Bloodofox is trying to make into an absolute statement what is actually a conditional statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I just don't think the ADL nor the SPLC are recognized authorities in the archaeology or history of symbols. If there are scholarly sources by experts in the subject, then the ADL, SPLC, and news sources should not be used, regardless of whether they're directly contradictory or not. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
        • There's more than one way to skin a cat. They aren't experts in that subject, generally, I've already acknowledged that, but they are experts in hate groups and the symbols they use. They approach the subject from a different direction, and with a much tighter focus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
      • ADL & SPLC are useless sources for this kind of informations. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. If shcholarship is silent in this point, we can´t use disputed lower quality source to fill the gap. Simply find high quality source supporting ADL & SPLC POV and nobody will object anymore. Pavlor (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Agreed. It doesn't really matter if the inferior source is contradictory or merely different. Either one is insignificant. SPLC, ADL and journalistic sources potentially complement historical works by documenting modern usage, but it's not like they are undertaking actual research programs to uncover medieval or ancient usage. Where did they find out where it came from? Any information they provide on that is going to have come from somewhere else, and we have no idea where that was. It could very well have been another site with user generated content. This is how citogenesis happens. How could a journalist know more about an ancient symbol than the historians who study it? Either there is another historical reference work that Wikipedia doesn't cite yet, or the journalist got it from an unreliable source, or just plain got it wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Tom Kratman

Over at [[10]] a debate has arisen over the use of Mr Kratamns SPS as a source for information about his military career.

[[11]]

The issue is that is it a violation of SPS because we are (in effect) repeating his own claims, that are very much for part of how he is marketed and how his books are advertised?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Burden of proof is on the people demanding this kind of informations in the article. In any case, claim not based on an independent reliable source should be attributed as a self-claim of the subject of the article (eg. in his book ... Tom Kratman mentions ...). Other question is WP:DUE - if reliable sources don´t care about his past career, are these facts even needed for the article? As author writing about himself is not a reliable source, any disputed claims in the article need backing by another independent reliable source. Pavlor (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like the article to mention that the author served in Panama and Iraq because one of his books is set in Panama and many of his books have Islamic themes. The present wording is like this: "In an autobiography on his website, Kratman gives a personal perspective on his military career and mentions details such as years of service in Panama and a deployment with the 5th Special Forces Group during the Persian Gulf War." I think this is well within the WP:BLPSELFPUB guidelines. It's relevant, minimal, does not involve claims about third parties or anything not directly related to the subject. The bone of contention is whether it is "unduly self-serving" which I don't think it is. Also, the sentence itself mentions the source (as Pavlor suggests) and readers can evaluate for themselves whether someone who ended his military career at the faculty of the War College is a credible source on where he was deployed. Haukur (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm deeply uncomfortable with the use of Kratman's blog as a source for any statement of fact. I'd suggest a strict interpretation of WP:SPS would be well-served here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
      • We have other sources confirming his education, years of service, years as a lawyer and War College tenure. The only thing we're using his autobiography for is to relay that he was deployed to Panama and served in the Gulf War. And even then, we are explicitly attributing these non-extraordinary claims to him within the text. This is well within even a strict interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF. The only possible issue I can think of is someone might feel "5th Special Forces Group" sounds too exciting or heroic or something. We can take it out if you prefer. Here's another phrasing: "In an autobiography on his website, Kratman gives a personal perspective on his military career and discusses both service in the Gulf War and many years of deployment to Panama, where he met his wife." Haukur (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Global ban on non-RS?

Since when do we have an absolute ban on the use of non-RS? I am unaware of this, I know of no policy requiring such.

We have WP:RS, also WP:V and WP:N. As is well-known and accepted, we need to be able to demonstrate WP:V and WP:N by the use of WP:RS, as necessary. However we have never had a further ban on the use of sources not meeting WP:RS in a supplementary role to this. This is often not because they're questioned for their veracity (no-one is advocating the inclusion of falsehoods), but for reasons such as WP:SPS.

This arose today, as ever, because of the actions of JzG (talk · contribs). See Special:Contributions/JzG, where we have a bulk run, evidently automated (and WP:BOT / WP:MEATBOT might have something to say about that) to remove all instances of two sites:

  • Jeffrey L. Thomas, ed. (2009). "East Orchard Castle".
  • "East Orchard Castle". Gatehouse. The comprehensive online gazetteer and bibliography of the medieval castles, fortifications and palaces of England, Wales, the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man. 6 July 2016.
This refers to the entire web site, these just happen to be two links from East Orchard Castle [12].
BTW, your "review" for East Orchard Castle was so incompetently done that you left one of the citations hanging from a deleted reference. Clearly you've been doing no such review. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

A removal rate of > 20 / minute is not judging each article or edit, it's simply applying a global rule to an entire site, without judgement. That's how we revert vandalism, not how we judge sourcing.

As the site author says themself, "I am not a professional historian and have no academic qualifications in the field so please take my site as the work of an amateur enthusiast." But this is not a question of whether they meet RS or not (someone might wish to advocate that, but it's not my point here), it's about whether all non-RS are subject to summary automated removal without even examination. I know of no policy justifying this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it an material that cannot be cited to RS can be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That would be our rule for challenging material. Which is a bit more nuanced than that, per WP:PRESERVE, but nor is it what's happening here.
These removals are simply removals of the citation, not any content (maybe some are removing content too, but I've not seen any). How does just removing a reference improve anything? It doesn't make the content more robust, it doesn't remove questionable content. It's also (and I see this as important) it's being done without any reference to the article content at all (>20 a minute?!), merely automated stripping of references based on a domain name. We have no policy to justify such. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
There are differnet ways to remove unreliable sources. In some cases I remove the text the reference supports, in other cases I leave it, if it looks uncontroversial. People assert with equal confidence that I MUST do one or MUST do the other in every case. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • So your claim is that "WP prefers unsourced content to content sourced at least to an unquestioned, non-RS or SPS source". You'll no doubt be able to point us at that remarkable new policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Start with WP:REF. RS are encouraged, but there's no exclusion there that each and every source must meet it. Also our clear practice through WP is accepting of this. If WP:RSONLY is now policy, no doubt you can cite it (reliably).
The particular problem here is closer to WP:SPS, for which we have WP:USESPS. Which part of that requires this bulk removal? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:RS doesn't have an exception for sites we like. A self-published site by an admitted non-expert, or with no author attribution at all, has always been a legitimate target for removal. It's not a bot, it's AWB, I review each removal and in some cases skip or manually adjust. Oh, and some of the content is not owned by the site owner, which raises issues for copyright, but that's an aside: it's not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    One does not "review" the use of a source in under three seconds. This is an automated 'bot-like run, done on the basis of domain name alone.
    Nor does this have any relevance to whether a source meets RS or not: the question is do we permit sites without requiring them to meet RS. Now such sources might not achieve WP:N or WP:V, when needed, but nor does this make such a site an automatic target for removal. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • First thought is removing non-RS removes impression that something is cited to RS. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Here you're removing WP:EL for the reason of not meeting WP:RS. Yet those are not the same policy and do not have the same standards. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • If a source is so utterly useless that no citation or external link to it could ever be remotely defensible, then it actually makes completely sense to just nuke it from Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Do you claim that these two sites are " utterly useless"? Why? JzG has given no indication of any fault with them, or that such a problem would be global than referring to a particular claim or building. There is a long distance between RS, not-meeting RS (and SPS is the regular issue there, not accuracy) and then "utterly useless". No-one is defending the incorrect or this utterly useless, but there is no evidence of that in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, link spamming is an issue too, thanks for reminding me. Again: personal website, acknowledged by the author to lack authority or expertise. This just seems like your usual contrarianism. It's also worth noting that the onus is on the person seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for it. We're not really here to boost the SEO of fansites, and WP:FANSITE is basically what this is. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Here you also seem to be removing publications by English Heritage and Routledge, claiming that they're not RS... Hchc2009 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Your careful "review" here has removed the two sites which you simply don't like, yet left the CPAT link which is a 404. So no, I don't place much faith in your "review". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect there is not clear policy because I doubt any one thought that the "I know its not RS but why remove it" would ever be used as a defense to keep a source that fails RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with removing sources that are unambiguously unreliable - such as a history blog run by an amateur historian. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I also do not get what the objection is, hence my point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I take it you did not see the part about how I suspect there is no clear policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I have a better idea: perhaps you can point to the WP policy which prohibits the deletion of non-RS sources? --Calton | Talk 15:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • So why are these two sites "unambiguously unreliable"? Have you found any error in them? What egregious fault is there? It must be pretty obviously bad, to justify removing every instance of their use!
But of course, there is no such fault. This is just chauvinism against particular sites, on no basis, and we have no policy to support such blanket actions. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You appear to think that removing an unreliable source confers an obligation on me to check every other sources. You are wrong about that. Chauvinism? That's ridiculous. I see a site, I check its reliability, if it is unreliable, I remove it. That applies to predatory journals, personal websites, self-published books and all sorts. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • So just how did you assess the reliability of these sites? Are you qualified in the field? Did you ask anyone who is? Until very recently, you didn't even know who Philip Davis was.
You have decided, on no evidence, that these sites are "unreliable". A purely personal judgement. You still can't explain why they are unreliable.
You have equated non-RS with "utterly useless". There is no basis for that: it's a long, grey continuum. That's why we have to do editing, not just run 'bot scripts. Even if SPS and not fully RS, these sites are far from that. We do also have vast use made WP-wide of similar, and far worse, sites.
You have then carried out a bulk removal. No judgement per-use or per-topic.
You are now hiding behind RS, which doesn't suport any of this, but of course it's unchallengeable in itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:RS requires a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and has strict rules about using self-published sources (like a personal website); see WP:RS/SPS and WP:SPS. If you want to rely on a self-published source, you have to demonstrate that it nonetheless has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that it falls into the narrow exemptions for a self-published source laid out there. --Aquillion (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If you want to rely on a self-published source
But no-one is suggesting that.
If we need to rely on something, for purposes of WP:V or WP:N, then we have WP:RS for that.
But there is a great region, in which these sources may lie, where they do not meet the letter of RS (often for PRIMARY or SPS reasons). I know of no reason why such sources may not be used (and if you are about to reply, "RS!", then please re-read the previous). We cannot rely upon them to meet V or N, but for much of an article there is no requirement to, and yet such sources (as used here) may still improve the quality of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • HereHere you're removing sources from Coflein, the Welsh government national archive for such structures. Did your careful review of that do it because they're "amateurs", or because they're "utterly useless"? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Three links in that removal. One is 404, the other two had been tagged for replacement since February 2013 and are not to Coflein but to gatehouse-gazetteer, a personal website owned and run by a non-specialist. Your "careful review" appears to be as bad as mine. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, that one's my typo and I pasted the wrong link in. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Having bad (even garbage) source is better than no source at all. Simply tag the source as unreliable (or use better source template). Pavlor (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Not really, no. See WP:RS, which is policy. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. (from WP:RS guideline) All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. (from WP:V policy). Removing source goes against verifitability policy. You may claim nobody would dispute now unsourced content, but it was your edit which made these informations unverifiable. I will repat myself: find better source, tag the source, or remove the source together with respective content. Pavlor (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Removing a source doesn't make non-contentious material non-verifiable. It just leaves it in limbo until challenged. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    WP:LIMBO is a new policy? Joking aside, content with removed reference should be at least tagged CN. If such information remains without source or tag, it may remain in such a state indefinitely. Pavlor (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Yes it's the policy, WP:V All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    And that is the core of the problem: the content is not removed, only non-reliable source. And article so remains in an half-maimed state. Before removal, we at least knew from where these facts come, now we are - well - in a limbo... Is this information sourced by other source in the article? Is this work of some random vandal? We have no way to know for sure, which would not have been the case, when unreliable source was simply tagged as such. Pavlor (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Your correct, what should have been done (According to policy) is that any material sourced to dubious sources should have been removed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Not sure where you meant to reply. This is not correct. Only contentious or likely to be challenged material *may* (not should) be removed. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    "and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I would suggest saying "this is not an RS" is saying it fails verifiability which say that "information comes from a reliable source". Thus any information that does not come from an RS fails verifiabilty.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    "The sun is yellow" and "the sky is blue" (just as examples) do not need sources. If you remove a source for the sun being yellow (or white, whatever, this is just an example) you don't need to remove the statement. Or "a circle is round" if you prefer. It's easily verifiable. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    That is because these are irrefutable facts (we even have a policy on it as I recall WP:COMMON). But that is not what we are talking about here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    You are free to remove any uncited material. The person who removes a non-RS is not obligated to remove material that they consider non-contentious (or any material). —DIYeditor (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll come back to this conversation when I have time, but wanted to say that the Gatehouse Gazetteer is a useful source and probably should not be removed en masse. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:USEFUL. The site owner admits it is not a reliable source. That's it, really. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
As per Richard, worth having a look at who Philip Davis was... He's a famous figure in the field of castle studies, but was always a very modest writer. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I did. I particularly looked at what he said about himself, and I looked for published articles. I did not find any. Feel free to help with that, if he is published in scholarly journals that might establish his credibility. Apart from that I will leave this for a while for tohe rinput, as long experience indicates that once Andy Dingley gets involved it takes a very long time to stop the discussion, at least if the result is not what he wants. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You'll find him published in the Castle Studies Group Journal. A Google search will find it. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Guy, I've struck your NPA. Any more of that, or any more of your takpage threats to block me with vague handwaves of repealed and irrelevant DS, as you have done so many times before, and I take this to Arbcom. I've had enough of you and your (Redacted) editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean, ego-driven editing also sort of seems like a personal attack. Since you're in a strikethrough sort of mood, how about you go and strike that too Andy? Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Totally out of hand personal dispute. Andy Dingley seems to be in a bit of a mood the two times I've seen him in the past couple days, issuing ultimatums to Flyer22Reborn... —DIYeditor (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Being called transphobic does tend to have that effect on me. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Well please take that personal dispute somewhere else. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
That wasn't at all vaguely what she said. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not about users, please stop commenting on them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the general idea here that a user's site where the user admits may not be accurate should not be used as an RS. However, the action taken by JzG to use semi-automated tools like AWG to remove that site from hundreds of articles ventures into WP:FAIT territory. Before doing this, consensus should have been sought to make sure there was agreement that this site was deemed unreliable and thus making the mass removal non-contentious. Baring cases of clearly inappropriate sites, no one editor should deem a site as a non-RS and proceed to mass remove references to that site. --Masem (t) 13:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Baring [sic] cases of clearly inappropriate sites, no one editor should deem a site as a non-RS and proceed to mass remove references to that site.
Because? --Calton | Talk 15:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Because of what FAIT implies. I am not saying JzG was acting in bad faith (and they stopped as soon as there was an issue raised, meeting FAIT), but if an editor is going to take on an action of the the scale (in terms of # of edits required across multiple articles), it is likely going to work out a lot better to assure some type of consensus exists for that mass change, otherwise, it can create a mess to sort out. It probably helps to understand the history of where FAIT comes from and the nature of unilaterial actions like this to see why it applies. --Masem (t) 15:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
They didn't stop when challenged. They reverted me, posted to my talk page, then did another 50 or so. See [[13] Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
If they started again after this discussion (which appears to be the case), which clearly shows the site to be of questionable RS, they're fine now; that's the type of consensus to justify removal. It just should have been there at the start just to have a point of consensus to fall back on when challenged. --Masem (t) 19:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I tried, up above, some days ago. Nobody opined. Then drama ensued. As it happens this may be an edge case, which is fine, I'm waiting for Richard Nevell to find time to provide some more information. I don't doubt his good faith and am happy to wait. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Absence of complaint may simply be ignorance of the quesion, not agreement to it. The footprint for removals from so many articles is obviously rather larger than a single noticeboard posting.
But the point remains, and the whole reason for this posting, is nothing to do with whether these meet RS, but rather what do we do (and what policy is there) on what to do if they do not? I can see no such policy which supports their blanket removal. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Removing bad sources or content supported to bad sources is a good thing, and JzG is performing a public service. We are an encyclopedia—full stop—self-published material deemed "good enough" does not satisfy our threshold. The baseline policy is pretty clear that the WP:BURDEN "lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Neutralitytalk 03:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Neutrality: - There seems to be nothing wrong with the source provided, which was removed as linked by Andy D. Here is what he linked to [14] and this is the copyright page of the source - it is a book published by Oxford University Press [15]. This is where mistakes are being made. Also, removing external links (as noted above) in this fashion does not seem to agree with " What to link" and WP:ELYES. Please see my post below (next section). If you need to respond, I suppose you can respond here to keep it all in one place. And, if you see the above thread, "Gatehouse Gazetteer", you'll see that is probably a good source for the reasons given. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:BURDEN is a redir to WP:V. It refers to material, i.e. article body text, and the need for this to be verifiable. Where is that 'material' here? Where is the questioned content? JzG has not removed any such content. Instead, he is removing citations, not content. There is no part of BURDEN that supports this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A citation that utterly fails WP:RS is worse than useless, since it could mislead casual readers into believing it's a credible source (few people check each source in detail.) When it is clear-cut that a source completely fails RS and is utterly unusable for whatever was cited to it, replacing it with a fact tag is a strict improvement and is always desirable. Now, mass-removals of a source have to be done fairly cautiously, like any other large-scale mass-edit, and I think it's fair to object if the WP:RS status of the source isn't clear; but "a non-RS doesn't do any harm" seems flatly wrong to me. Having a bad source in an article is no different than having bad grammar or spelling - it hurts the credibility of the article as a whole. The question of whether to immediately remove the material cited to that source or to leave it in and replace the source with a fact tag is complicated - it depends on a number of factors, including how controversial, shocking or dangerous the material cited to the source is (WP:BLP in particular requires removal on these grounds sometimes, of course), how likely you think it is that a source can be found, etc. If a source is likely to exist, it makes perfect sense to replace an utterly-unusable source with a fact tag. But "where's the harm of leaving in a personal website?" isn't a useful argument to make. --Aquillion (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The way I would see it is that while this site does look like a non-RS, it 1) does not immediately fail completely unacceptable ELs , like to Pirate Bay or PornHub, 2) had been used in hundreds of articles and 3) had no prior discussion to its reliability that I can see. To that end, while you could take on the mass removal, the onus does fall on you to be aware if those changes are contested, stop and discuss, and if you were wrong, go back and revert your changes. Of course, to avoid that mess, you could start by asking about the reliability and use first and then once consensus sits in favor, go ahead with mass changes. It's better to be cautionary in the mass change than bold when the source has potential allowance. --Masem (t) 16:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

OK lets put this into perspective, why should we not use David Irving, after all we do not have a ban on non RS, how about George Adamski? All this means is anyone can just include any old rubbish as long as they can find a non RS for it (which is exactly what the RS policy is meant to prevent). But my lesson form this is, if its not sourced to RS remove it and the source then this debate is mute.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is usually what I do, especially with predatory journals, but this did not seem to be particularly contentious information (other than in a few cases which I removed). If I know one thing about purging non-RS, it's that it is impossible to please everybody, and quite often impossible to please anybody at all. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you claim that these two sites are "utterly useless"? (as has been said) or "any old rubbish"? Why?
Do you support their use in these articles?
Do you hold that all sources must meet RS, or must be removed?
We do, BTW, use David Irving as a source on David Irving (per WP:PRIMARY). Likewise Adamski. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
But this is about a wider principle, of using non RS when we have no other sources for a claim. This goes directly against verification and RS policies.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
A further aspect to keep in mind is what is the level of contentiousness in the information that this SPS source was being used for. If these were BLPs or hot-topic controversial topics (eg anything dealing with Trump or Brexit), we would 100% expect the best RS, and so SPS should never be used. But here we are talking historical facts about castles. (eg [16]) I'm not saying all the information coming from this specific SPS is right, but this type of stuff is far far far far from being so contentious as to necessitate the mass removal of those sources. We are a work in progress, and RS and V are not so strict as to disallow reasonably okay SPS for interim sourcing until some better sourcing can come along. I wouldn't pass articles with this source as a GA/FA, but given no DEADLINE, having the SPS source there could help with additional research to find a better source. --Masem (t) 13:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
In this instance maybe, but many people think their "facts" are not controversial. This is the problem with general principles, they have to be as cast iron as possible so as not to be used as a loop hole. Otherwise we will be back here again when we try to remove some dodgy source used to support some fringe claim that not exactly a hot topic or a BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't need to source (at all) "the sky is blue". We need to use WP:RS-compliant sources to WP:Verify anything "contentious". We have a vast range in-between. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Gatehouse Gazetteer

Is this an RS.Slatersteven (talk)

  • No. It's a personal website of a non-expert. While I'm certain he's put a lot of effort into his fondness for ancient castles, his passion alone doesn't meet the sourcing standard of this project. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I did already ask that above, a couple of days ago. I also noted in the section above that the author may be considered reliable despite his modesty if he has a record of publication in reputable sources. There are precedents for that on Wikipedia, albeit not many. I'm happy to be persuaded either way, my concern is use of non-authoritative self-published material. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    you correct, so can we please stop hashing over its status as an RS, if we are already disusing it above. Can we please focus the discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and Philip Davis was an expert on castles. Will happily discuss further once I'm back at a computer (writing on a phone right now). I'm not usually given to waving around credentials, but since it does seem relevant for context I have a PhD in medieval archaeology with a focus on castles. In my experience, it's a reliable source. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell:, thanks, that will be helpful. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, can we close this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  • So... this all comes down to the question of whether the author qualifies as an (amateur) expert or not. If so, then SPS applies and the source is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
That would be one option.
However, and the reason I posted this in the first place, is that I know of no policy which absolutely excludes all non-RS. We have a large grey area between RS and those that really are utterly useless. This is why we have to make editorial judgements, not just use 'bots. Now meeting WP:N and WP:V might additionally require WP:RS in particular, but for most uses, the appropriate and judicious use of non-RS in a supplemental manner is permitted, accepted and widely used across WP. But here, they're being bulk removed, and removed on the basis of the domain name, not even the per-topic content. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree that this action has been a mass removal of citations without giving thought to the context in which the citation is used in each article. I'm looking at 12 removals per minute (11:46, 26 July 2019) and 15 removals in the next minute (11:47, 26 July 2019) for a total of 27 articles in two minutes. I don't think it is appropriate for one editor to mass remove citations that are not considered spam or vandalism and without consensus. These citations are not spam and are not vandalism.
WP:FAIT is relevant to this discussion.
Also, WP:EL has different criteria than the article body. WP:EL is used for additional material that is not used in the article proper, which enhances the topic, and which is useful to the reader. The only requirements are that it is not spam or vandalism and that it is on topic. These citations are on topic and are useful (additions) for the reader. Additionally, it is helpful if the link is to a unique resource. Please see " What to link" and WP:ELYES. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It unambiguously fails WP:ELNO 11 (personal website by someone who is not a recognized expert; note that WP:EL has extremely strict rules on such experts). This isn't a site that should be used as a source or external link. --Aquillion (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Aquillion: It seems my reply in the section further up this page has been missed. To be clear, the person who made the website is an expert so it passes the external link guidance. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I read your comment before posting and found it entirely inadequate to justify an external link under WP:ELNO #11. Again, the criteria external linking a personal website as an expert is extremely strict, more strict than our criteria for using a recognized expert as a WP:RS (something people often don't realize when they try to shift from using a personal website as a citation to using it as an external link.) Specifically, this exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people. Simply being an academic in the field is explicitly insufficient. If you believe Philip Davis passes that standard, you should start by making an article for him to demonstrate that he passes WP:BIO; but my reading of ELNO point #11 is that it's specifically and unambiguously intended to bar exactly the sort of usage people are talking about here - "random expert with a website" isn't what external links are for. The sort of people whose personal websites are proper external links are ones whose expertise is so notable that it is sufficient to justify an article on them in its own right, ie. people whose shadows are so heavy on the field that even their unfiltered personal opinions are worth covering. It's not intended to be something you can squeak through by publishing a few papers and calling yourself an expert. 'Normal' experts who lack that sort of overwhelming notability are better covered by finding their published work and citing or linking to that (relying on the reputation of the publisher as we usually do.) Basically, the default assumption is meant to be that a personal website, even from someone who has some loose claim to expertise, is not a good external link. --Aquillion (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
That's now on my to do list. I'm not sure how much time I'll have, so would it be enough to demonstrate notability? Richard Nevell (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy with some publications in mainstream historical journals published by respected academic presses, or evidence of significant citation in such journals. That seems to be a suitable indication of authority for someone who is a self-acknowledged untrained amateur. And yes, there absolutely are untrained amateurs who are nonetheless respected experts in niche areas. No rush, I won't touch any more until you're ready. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Blueboar "this all comes down to the question of whether the author qualifies as an (amateur) expert or not", well the problem with general rules is that even non-expert sources can hypothetically be sources for something, for example their own opinion. Such cases do come up, so if we do mass deletions without reading the context there will always be some risk?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley while I get concerns with general rules, (it is a general rule, that general rules can be a problem!) what I don't see being discussed is the question of whether all the deletions involved very similar subject matter. It seems they did? That would be relevant to this concern wouldn't it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There are three questions here (when I posted, there was just one and another I didn't want to push further, but that's scope creep for you):
  1. It seems that these sources may well meet RS anyway. Which is convenient here, but doesn't answer the question.
  2. The use of an automated and unreviewed tool to do this many removals has caused problems. It has removed the source for multiple citations and left the others dangling. It has removed other clearly-RS sources at the same time. It has removed ELs under a justification for RS. Much of this is presumed to have been due to the rate at which it was done (< 3 seconds each, for many). It's also a problem (per WP:FAIT) when so much material is deleted despite the deleter having no knowledge of the source's author, or their reputation.
  3. The main question remains. For "contentious" claims, and WP:Notability, it's well established that only WP:RS are adequate to WP:Verify those. This is not challenged. Yet for "the sky is blue", we accept no sourcing at all. There is a great grey area between the two, in both dimensions: both the statements in the material, and the quality of the sources cited here. It is clearly valuable to have a statement in an article, "Castle Boris has three round towers and a square gatehouse, the gatehouse is dated at 1481 by a carving over it" and would be possible to have that supported by a source such as a Flickr stream which appears objective, accurate and yet non-expert. Much of such material is objective, it's simply stating obvious facts of observation in situ, without interpretation (which is where recognised expertise would become far more necessary). There is also the use of non-RS in addition to RS. These are the core questions underlying this whole issue.
No policy has been put forward supporting the deletion of such sources. Policy supporting their retention is somewhat general in tone, such as WP:PRESERVE. WP:RS does not apply (they are not RS). There is no WP:RSONLY. WP:V does not apply, as we recognise that in that case, RS are needed.
There is also the question of why, if these removals were necessary, per WP:V, it was only the references being removed, not any challenged material. There is evidently no challenged material 'on the table' in any of this, I thus question why there was any need to remove anything.
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


Is PhD thesis in Theology a reliable source for the claim about authenticity of Tacitus fragment?

In her PhD thesis, Helen Bond says that the Annals 15.44 are an independent source about crucifixion of Jesus, along with four Gospels. ("it is attested not only by the earliest Christian traditions but also by the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44)."). Is this theology work a reliable source for the statement about authenticity of this Tacitus fragment?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there something deficient about the sources that may already be found in Tacitus_on_Christ#Authenticity_and_historical_value and Annals_(Tacitus)#Provenance_and_authenticity? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Should be reliable for this being attributed to Tacitus. However, since there are multiple well-published academic views on Tacitus and the historicity of Jesus, a PhD thesis probably would be WP:UNDUE or have a very small weight in relation to other published sources. In this regards - reliability/DUEness is a spectrum, and a PhD thesis would fall under the brunt of better published research. Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, the question is not if this passage is being attributed to Tacitus (I think noone doubts in that). The question is if this source is reliable to support a claim there is a consensus that this passage is authentic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Bond does not state that there is a consensus on the authenticity (at least not on page 1 or any other hit on 15.44). Bond seems to see this as authentic. The issue here seems to be a matter of WP:WEIGHT - as discussed in Annals (Tacitus)#Provenance and authenticity. A PhD thesis is a RS (on the face of it) - however its weight vs. journal articles and/or academic books would be low in general - and very low in a very well written field (anything involving Jesus has a plethora of more significant sources available). Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I will note that the PhD thesis seems to have been published later - [17] (in 1999 - and this would be a better citation (of course, assuming it has the same info) than the 1994 thesis) - by Cambridge University Press - which increases its weight and that Helen Bond has gone on to have an academic career in the field - so this is a notch up from a PhD thesis. However - regardless this is a weight / NPOV/n issue more than a RS issue. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see the article Pontius Pilate and Talk:Pontius Pilate#Recent changes for the background on this. Bond's book is cited to the published work. Paul Siebert is trying to argue on the basis of the Tacitus fragment that Jesus didn't exist and wasn't crucified, so that information should be excluded from the article. Other sources supporting the inclusions are:

Paul Siebert is not actually interested in Bond and whether or not she is a reliable source. He's just brought this up because he mentioned her as a scholar we should follow to deny the historicity of Jesus without knowing what she actually said.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, don't ascribe to me the words I never said: I never proposed to exclude any information or any source from this article, I propose just to restore a correct structure of the article to separate historical facts from Christian mythology. And, by the way, I brought this up because you provided Bond as a source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
And, by the way, that rises an interesting question: Can a book published by a theological publisher, such as Liturgical Press, be a reliable source for historicity of Jesus?.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It would seem to be a reliable source. I don't know why those this specific source should be chosen. Furthermore, the dispute seems to be whether Tacitus' writings confirms the historicity of Jesus. Probably very little, since Tacitus would have relied on Christian sources for the story of the Crucifixion. Apparently he had no reason to doubt it. Paul Siebert, in this case reliability is determined by it being a PhD thesis. I would say though that the academic section of the publisher would probably be reliable. But in general I would avoid books written by scholars for a laymen, which is what most of its books are. TFD (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The only person arguing about whether Tacitus establishes the historicity of Pilate is User:Paul Siebert. If all he were concerned about was how we are presenting Tacitus, I'd be happy to accommodate him. All we need to do is add "The authenticity of this passage is disputed" plus source. But instead he is arguing the Jesus myth theory which is WP:FRINGE.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
In this particular case, not the number of persons matters, but the number of sources. Three sources presented by you on the talk page openly question his historicity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
None of those sources questions the historicity of Jesus. They discuss whether the passage in Tacitus is authentic or an interpolation and what info we can glean from it.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, not. As I already explained, three points of view exists: (i) that the fragment is authentic AND it is an independent confirmation of a Christian myth, (ii) that the fragment is authentic, BUT Tacitus just reproduced the story told to him in late 1st century by some early Christian, so it is not an independent proof, and (iii) this fragment is a later addition. Since the Tacitus passage is the stone the whole concept of historicity of Jesus rests upon (that is exactly what the source provided by you says), only the group (i) sources support the idea of historicity of Jesus--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Please actually read the articles Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory as well as the many WP:RS cited there before you start talking about consensus in these areas. And I'm not going to misuse this messageboard to discuss this anymore.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTSOURCE, but I am grateful for pointing my attention at these Augean stable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
No one said it was a source, all it does is give you a good overview and links to the sources. But you won't read them or care, you're a perfect example of a stonewaller, you will deflect anything anyone tells and keep trying to force your way even when it's clear not a single person is going to support you.★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I presented the analysis of three sources on the article's talk page, but you seem to completely ignore it. Can you remind me which of your beloved Gospels says "Physician, heal thyself"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This is honestly disgusting, I am an atheist and have been my whole life, as have my parents and grandparents, the gospels are not "beloved" to me and I would really appreciate if you stopped trying to deflect away from my points by claiming I have some bias on this because that is simply false.
I would be equally overjoyed if we found a way to definitely and irrefutably know that Jesus did not exist as I would be if we could find a way to definitely and irrefutably know Jesus did exist, because both those things would be an amazing historical discovery. But as it stands right now the consensus among the vast majority of historians is that he did exist. Their opinion simply weights more than anyone elses on this topic. Doesn't matter if you think you have sources that "prove" he didn't. That's not the accepted opinion among experts.★Trekker (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek

Should Newsweek be moved to questionable? Newsweek hasn’t used fact checkers since 1998 and has published numeral articles that after fact checking have been proven false, over exaggerated or only half factual. Here is a couple sources for you guys to check out. I don’t believe it should be moved to unreliable but I do believe it should be questioned.

https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2012/the-story-of-when-newsweek-ditched-its-fact-checkers-then-made-a-major-error/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/08/from-expensing-a-yacht-to-chasing-the-onion-i-watched-newsweek-die-from-the-inside-216948

https://checkyourfact.com/2018/01/18/fact-check-national-review-nukes-will-only-kill-democrats-and-minorities-joy-reid-newsweek/

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/02/19/bots-force-al-franken-resign/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/polish-first-lady-trump-handshake/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/marlboro-cigarettes-production/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/newsweek-fact-check-denies-russian-payments-to-clintons-even-though-payments-happened

Hurledhandbook (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's go through these one by one.
  1. "No fact checkers" does not imply "no fact checking". The position disappeared, but the duties were subsumed by other positions. There is an allegation this had an effect, so let's look deeper... oh, I see. They're complaining about an opinion piece that was explicitly framed as an argument to not vote for Obama in 2012. If anyone was using that as a source for... really, anything other than Niall Ferguson's opinion, they have a problem no matter which outlet it was published in. Oh, also the thing about babies eating carrots, but I note, "a correction was issued..." That's the sort of thing we hope for.
  2. This one definitely presents a much more substantive concern, though it is absent any information on how long it took for the errors to be corrected or articles to be pulled. Retractions are an ordinary thing, and again, a hallmark of a reliable source - they not only try to avoid errors, but are willing to admit them after the fact. I also honestly cannot get a sense from this story how common these errors are.
  3. It's about this newsweek story, which accurately describes French's article, and proposes by implication a motivation/hidden-message of the story. French says the alleged motivation is bullshit. Whatever, this is not a reliability issue, but using Newsweek's characterization could potentially be a due weight issue.
  4. This one is a substantial and concerning goof on Newsweek's part.
  5. Another embarrassing goof, later corrected, but I honestly think they would have been better off just 404ing the whole page than keeping the entire article that now just seems obnoxious considering the central event didn't happen.
  6. Another embarrassing goof.
  7. Oh you've gotta be kidding me. There are actually no factual disagreements at play in this one - the Examiner is just whining that Newsweek didn't fit enough nuance into the headline. Ignore it.
Okay, so what does this all mean? I guess it means that opinion pieces are stupid and shouldn't be cited for facts, which we already knew, and that Newsweek seems to suck at getting breaking news accurate... like essentially every other outlet. But they also correct themselves when they actually make mistakes, so that's good. Yeah, I'm not overly concerned about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hurledhandbook, I've removed "RFC" from the section heading because this discussion was not designated as a request for comment. If you think an RfC is necessary, please see WP:RFCST for instructions. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 05:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable I mean, of course I said that; I've questioned Wikipedia's dependence on American and British newsmedia outlets for a long time. The truth is that journalists aren't particularly good at providing verifiable, dispassionate accounts of historical and current events at the best of times. It's not really what they're trained for. When a journalistic outlet shows signs that it doesn't exert significant editorial oversight and regularly fails fact checking, we should definitely be considering not using that source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally Reliable per Someguy1221, especially post-independence from IBT. Has anything changed since Newsweek was last discussed, in April in the larger context of IBT? --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2019‎ (UTC)
  • Probably no worse than most small-scale newspapers which have experienced staffing cuts following declining readership. feminist (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable for news topics. Newsweek has robust editorial guidelines, and maintains a list of corrections they have made to their articles. Issues with accuracy can be minimized by not including information on current events into Wikipedia articles immediately after it is published, and this line of advice applies for all news sources. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Newsweek is still heavily used by other reliable sources for factual information, including CBS News, Forbes (RSP entry), New York (RSP entry), The Hill (RSP entry), Quartz, The Washington Post (RSP entry), Vox (RSP entry), USA Today, and many others. — Newslinger talk 08:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable as per Newslinger, it has a good reputation, is used by other reliable sources, not a tabloid in content. Also agree that care should be taken with using breaking news, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable. Has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy, fairly non-partisan, and is used by others.Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Mu, a loud Mu against "general reliability" threads. Quoth the wise words above: You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable. Unless there is a specific content dispute involving the use of Newsweek as a source, this (and the other threads like it) should be closed. – Levivich 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • This isn't a helpful comment, and it underlines why the proposed rule would be too WP:CREEPy. The discussion above seems reasonable and helpful to me, while "close this thread, violation of rule 376c!" seems absurd. Also, discussions of Newsweek have been extensive, so this particular discussion was badly-needed - the need for this particular RFC is so clear-cut that any rule that would justify trying to shut it down is obviously a terrible suggestion. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
      WP:NOTAFORUM is a pretty strong Wiki rule, and this amounts to a forum discussion of Newsweek, completely divorced from any specific dispute related to article content. FOARP (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
      I agree with User:Levivich and User:FOARP. This noticeboard has some instructions at the top, and "please feel free to debate the general reliability of any source that someone might (or might not) want to use in some unspecified article" isn't what they say. If you can't name a specific article and a specific article in a magazine, then please don't clutter up this noticeboard. General chatter about hypothetical uses of hypothetical sources in hypothetical articles belongs elsewhere (e.g., a WikiProject in a relevant subject area). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per Newslinger, though use with some caveats. I definitely agree that its reliability has declined to the point where we should use some caution, avoid citing it for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, and so on (and particular care should be taken to never cite opinion pieces there for facts, which is something to avoid in general but seems like a particular problem here). I wouldn't consider it a top-quality source at all... but WP:UBO still applies - a reputation doesn't vanish overnight. It's still a major mainstream magazine which is treated as a decent source by other reliable sources, and I don't think there's the evidence of intentionally misleading readers or flagrant disregard for the truth that we'd need in the face of that. Whether they should or they shouldn't, other sources still treat it as credible, which indicates it hasn't completely lost its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion; we have an RFC open on the topic of general RFCs if people want to weigh in there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It amounts to a RFC, since the author is clearly requesting comments from other editors. That it was posted without using the template matters neither here nor there. WP:NOTAFORUM applies. FOARP (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Other editors participating in the discussion find it useful. If you're not interested in the discussion, you don't have to participate. — Newslinger talk 10:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
But I will have to live with the outcome of the context-less discussion if it concludes "Source X committed wrongthink and should be banned". PS - funny how it's the rules people don't like that become "bureaucracy" FOARP (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No sources are "banned", with the exception of the ones on the spam blacklist. You're always welcome to start a new discussion on this noticeboard regarding any source for your specific use case. — Newslinger talk 10:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Any of things that get "Option 4" (or whatever people want to call it) are clearly banned by any meaningful sense of the term per WP:DUCK. I mean, here we are discussing the general, context-less, badness of Newsweek. FOARP (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"Option 4" is not available in normal discussions like this one, but only in RfCs that are properly tagged with {{rfc}}. And a discussion on the specific use of any source (including deprecated ones) on this noticeboard always takes precedence over a discussion on the general reliability of that source. If the community has shown consensus that a source is generally unreliable, then a specific use of the source is probably not going to be well-received. But you're always welcome to ask, and if your reasoning is convincing, then other editors will defend your use of the source regardless of how it was evaluated in general. — Newslinger talk 11:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I see. WP:NOTAFORUM doesn't matter because it's purely a bureaucratic thing that no-one cares about, but the absence of particular tags in something clearly written as a request for comments is deadly important. Again, a discussion on here that is simply a WP:FORUM-type discussion of the general merits of a source, completely divorced from anything to do with article content or any other meaningful context for this encyclopedia, should be given no weight at all. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone of the note placed at the top of this page. RSN is for discussing the reliability (or perhaps a better word would be “appropriateness”) of sources in CONTEXT. Please praise questions in the form of: “is source X reliable in situation Y?” Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Generally reliable. Newsweek is clearly a reputable national mainstream reporting establishment, and clearly more reputable and reliable than the countless local newspapers and other sites that we use regularly as reliable sources. If the imitator of this topic has an issue with a particular content being cited to Newsweek, at a particular article, then I suggest they follow the instructions at the top of the page. Alsee (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable They have a poor record for factual reporting and should not be used. Galestar (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable as per Newslinger. "Reliability" is a range, and most outlets are assumed to lie somewhere between its two poles. As long as outlets don't make a habit of screwing up (think Fox News, Breitbart and tabloids) they should be usable for our purposes. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Fox News is considered by many as generally reliable and not on the level of Breitbart or tabloids. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not responsible for other people's mistakes. François Robere (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Looking at sources logically and rationally is not a mistake. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This doesn't need to be listed as anything on the perennial list - Newsweek is a perfectly normal news magazine whose use should follow perfectly normal Wikipedia practice distinguishing factual from opinion journalism. In the absence of large numbers of debates about its utility, we can treat it as we do virtually every other mainstream source. Bonus irony points for citing the Washington Examiner as a source to undermine the credibility of Newsweek. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable as per Newslinger. Bacondrum (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

bioexposed.com as a source in a BLP

I've come across www.bioexposed.com used as a reference in several biography articles:

I haven't been able to locate an editorial policy. There is a 'by' name listed but no information about the writer. I suspect it's not a reliable source. I'd like to hear from other editors here before taking any action. Gab4gab (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's just an anonymous blog? I don't think we could use it for anything. --Aquillion (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Unreliable. Spam. It's being removed on sight as unreliable by other editors.
Looks like just another one of the many biography sites out there trying to capture views.
I've removed the rest and notified the spammer. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, information on BLPs requires MORE reliable sources. This is a gossip blog. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I have requested that this domain be blacklisted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

La Voce del Canavese in CasaPound

Is the (online?) newaspaper La Voce del Canavese a WP:RS for claims that Casa Pound has entered into a long-term alliance with Destre Unite following the European elections as per the article [18] here? I have two concerns but I want to be fair, so I thought I'd ask here.

  1. I am unfamiliar with the journal and don't know enough about Italian journalism to distinguish between a tabloid and a good newspaper.
  2. I am concerned that the article was drafted in April and the EU elections were in May which makes this WP:CRYSTAL.

The editor making use of the source is new but already getting into hot water over issues in this topic area so I'm trying to avoid WP:BITE while still applying appropriate rigor. Advice welcome. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Well if they said something had happened based upon events that had not yet happened, no it is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
To be fair - the source is using the future tense, saying "there will be" an alliance - and it seems attributed to Marco Racca (a CasaPound politician) - so at best this source could be used that Racca said something would happen. It also seems like an infoflash and not an actual full fledged article (this kind of bullet point reporting (for the main webpage - in bullet list or side scrolling) - is often of a lower quality (though done real time) vs. fully vetted articles). No opinion on La Voce del Canavese itself (need to assess) - but it seems it isn't making the statement anyway (merely saying Racca said it would happen). Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks folks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Is NewsTrackLive reliable

Is newstracklive reliable? Its 'About Us' section doesn't provide much information about the editors, staffs, etc. Although it claims to have circulated newspapers in the past. It only mentions "irman & Chief Editor" under "People Associated with NTIPL". This link from the website has been recently used to support birth_date of Namish Taneja. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably going to need a Hindi speaker here. User:Winged Blades of Godric speaks a bit. GMGtalk 14:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping:-) Not reliable by a few miles or so and agree with OP's reasoning. I am coming across the site, for the first time. ∯WBGconverse 14:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Gatehouse Gazetteer

This site is "http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/contact.html a personal project by Philip Davis]", who says "I am not a professional historian and have no academic qualifications in the field so please take my site as the work of an amateur enthusiast." I do not think this meets WP:RS. I intend to remove these links unless anyone objects. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Objection as not supported by any policy. See discussion below. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Supported by policy: WP:RS. Next? Guy (Help!) 12:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Philip Davis (who sadly recently passed away in 2017) was one of the leading castle studies specialists in the UK; he was a key member of the Castle Studies Group, and published through their journal, as well as compiling government, local authority data etc. into his own website, which was then taken over and maintained by the UK academic community after his death. As his colleagues commented, "his whole life was bound up in the study of castles and medieval buildings and the Gatehouse website developed over many years to become a vital tool in helping amateurs and academics alike in researching and studying castle sites, their history, archaeology and architecture." He was, however, extremely modest, and self-deprecated himself and his expertise in a classic English academic style. User:Richard Nevell could explain more. Hchc2009 (talk)
I did read about him, he sounds like a delightful man and a real enthusiast, and I completely take your point about the modesty of the true scholar. Did he publish books of his research? If there's a book from a proper publisher I would love to cite that instead. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
If you do a google search on the Castle Studies Journal and his name, you'll find various links to his published work. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The source itself is a personal website and such should not be used as an RS, but I'd support JzG here that an alternate, appropriate, citation to the same person would be helpful. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any evidence it has a reputation for fact checking, or is well regraded?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, apologies for the delay in replying. It's been a Long Day. The point here is about the Gatehouse Gazetteer website and whether it's a reliable source, but I'll be giving some additional information which isn't directly about the site but is intended to show that he is more than a hobbyist.

Like Hchc2009 says, Philip was a modest man who would never describe himself as an expert, but his peers would happily do that for him. He published at least nine research articles in the Castle Studies Group Journal. They have been cited by Prof Robert Higham and Dr Colin Platt amongst others who have written various journal articles and books on castles. If you're not familiar with archaeology, medieval history, or castle studies then these people are influential authors. Also, treat yourself and read about some castles, they're great fun. Academics have consulted Davis' work and found it good enough to reference. As well as having an almost encyclopedic knowledge about castles, he was an authority on licences to crenellate.

As useful as his research papers have been, the Gatehouse Gazetteer is an invaluable source for bringing together information on castles and linking to resources when they're available online. For all his considerable knowledge, I hope he wouldn't mind me saying that when it comes to website design he wasn't an expert. It does its job, but does look like something made around 2000. When I first came across the site around ten years ago I was sceptical because we're used to slick looking websites. Its appearance doesn't detract from its value of course and the Gatehouse Gazetteer has been acknowledged by Prof Oliver Creighton and Dr Duncan Wright in their 2017 book on 'the Anarchy' as 'invaluable'; referenced by Dr Michael Shapland in his 2017 work titled 'Anglo-Saxon Towers of Lordship and the Origins of the Castle in England'; Michael John Key's 2019 book Edward the Elder: King of the Anglo-Saxons, Forgotten Son of Alfred; and Dr Rachel Swallow's 2013 paper 'Two for One: The Archaeological Survey of Shocklach Castle, Cheshire. There are others too. It also helps that numerous castle experts have helped enhance the information on the site such as Dr John Kenyon and Dr David Mercer. It's linked to from the Castle Studies Group and the Castle Studies Trust websites as a useful resource for castle studies; I'm involved with both organisations but had nothing to do with the decision to include links. And it's mentioned in at least one Historic England publication. The website is self-published but by someone who is an authority on castles and has had input from numerous other experts.

The Gatehouse Gazetteer is used in two ways in Wikipedia articles: (1) as a reference and (2) as an external link to provide more information. The main focus of this noticeboard is of course the former, but since we're here I might as well comment on the latter too. Since it contains a comprehensive list of publications on each site as well as links to various other resources such as historic environment records and historic maps it is a valuable addition to any Wikipedia article as an external link.

For full disclosure, I should perhaps note that I met Philip once and we exchanged emails a few times about small tweaks to the website but hopefully that doesn't amount to an unmanageable conflict of interest. Andy Dingley asks an interesting point on whether sources that fall in the grey area between clear-cut reliable sources and dross should be removed altogether. I've not addressed that here, but hopefully I've made the point that academics consider the Gatehouse Gazetteer to be reliable and that it's fine for Wikipedia's purposes. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC) @JzG: Separate from the EL issue mentioned below, I've addressed the initial issue of whether the Gatehouse Gazetteer is a reliable source in the above paragraphs. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing to say in Wikipedia's guidelines that we can't use non-RS, personal websites/projects, blogs. or primary sources for that matter. Evidently if an expert reliable source can be found to replace the source, that's mush more preferable. But in my view it's better to have a source rather than no source at all, particularly for things that are non-controversial and not open to challenge. Sionk (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is. It's right there in WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Fake Quebec newspapers as reported by CBC

Hello. I've come across two CBC articles that talk about fake newspaper sites claiming to be hosted in Quebec but were actually hosted in Russia or Ukraine. In the examples listed in these articles, there are Wikipedia articles that are using these websites.

These ones might be the same as linked above in the CBC articles:

  • Siver Times - redirects to Sherbrooke Times but I think the link is sivtimes.com (specifically says quebec) not sivertimes.com ("headquarters in New York, and in bureaus in Germany, France, Italy and China.") - both have wikipedia search results
  • Silver Telegram - CBC links it to a .com domain, but Wikipedia search results finds sivtelegram.media which does look similar to the above sites.

Also on the list but thankfully not used is Vtabloid.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Not RS and should all be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Including the Siver Times and Silver Telegram ones? Do you believe those ones are the correct links? I don't want to accidentally remove the wrong ones. The other seven I'm sure. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
So remove those 7.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enoguh. I'd def. would like discussion on the other two before I remove them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
As it is not clear leave them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course they should be removed. Editors should consider the sites before using them. However, check to see if these are articles copied in from reliable sources and find the original sources if possible. In the meantime, remove the links and the content, if it appropriate. TFD (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove on sight as these appear to be actual fake news websites (as opposed to strongly biased or partisan sources that promote a certain viewpoint though without deception). Though of course it's best to restore the content that can be cited to the original French-language articles if as CBC suggests some are poor machine-translated versions of legitimate articles from French-language outlets. feminist (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Is randomstory.org an unreliable source?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources
 – GermanJoe (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Is a link from randomstory.com bad? JaneciaTaylor (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Inherently. ——SerialNumber54129 12:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Randomstory.org appears to be a content farm; it's impossible for me to even trace back the original source at a glance. Randomstory.com is a parked domain so you're unlikely to find much content on it. feminist (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

thetruthaboutguns.com

thetruthaboutguns.com - insource / all links

I can't help feeling that thjis site is dubious. Apart from the obvious - any site with "truth" in the name generally isn't - it is written by NRA or ex-NRA authors and is full of anti-Obama screeds in reviews of submachine guns and the like. It seems more like a WP:FANSITE than anything else. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Write for Us looks like they just get contributors to write. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Not close. And echo Guy's comment about any site that uses the word "truth". O3000 (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Just to play devil’s advocate here... It does have an actual editorial staff (See their “About Us” page). This may be yet another of those “Context is important” situations where we need to examine the source on a case by case basis.
Also, I am concerned that we not dismiss this source based on our own political prejudices. Remember that sources are allowed to have a bias... WE (the editors of WP) are the ones who are supposed to be neutral. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Depends on contex: This was discussed extensively just a few months back. [[19]] The writers are generally knowledgeable in the subject but also have a clear POV. Much of the content is opinion but this is an area where the gun rights opinions are often not will covered by larger media outlets. Basically it should be used carefully and not treated as universal "truth". Springee (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Consider some examples that might be cited here. The weight/length of a rifle based on measurements they took for a review. This would be a basic statement of fact with little possibility for controversy. What saying the muzzle velocity of X was greater than Y? I don't see any reason why we would generally question the site when it comes to basic review of a firearm type information. I would say that such basic facts could be cited to them in wikipedia voice. I mean do we have any evidence that they would lie about the barrel length of a ____ rifle? OK, what about opinions on a proposed law? This is a harder one but I would still say we could use their opinion as notable (not WP:NOTE) in the field. What about a case where "gun rights supporters disagree with the NRA" cited to an editorial at TTAG? I would never suggest using their opinions in wiki-voice but certainly they could be a source for views on a gun related topic. Springee (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Any site that puts itself out there as an advocacy site like this, unless it clearly has the blessing of other RSes (eg something like SPLC) should be considered unreliable. --Masem (t) 13:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Guy started a near identical discussion earlier this year so I'm not sure why the same topic would be posted again. Why start a new discussion without mentioning the previous discussion? Springee (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Are there no other publications that perform gun reviews and features? I know little about guns but just as an example, Future plc seems to have several publications focusing on gun news and reviews. Is there a specific use case where an article from The Truth About Guns is superior to what is available from non-advocacy sources? I have a hard time imagining that. feminist (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg

Can/should Bloomberg reports about China be taken seriously? Such as this: White House Eyeing Chinese Forces Gathered on Hong Kong Border, which, for some reason, has not been mentioned by RS, AFAICT (just a couple of minor sources, news.com.au and Nz Herald, both citing Bloomberg). And for background, Bloomberg_News#China_coverage and Bloomberg_Businessweek#"The_Big_Hack". zzz (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Obviously Yes. Bloomberg is a top-tier NEWSORG - for business/finance as well as geopolitical issues, in particular when they intersect with finance. Unlike non-business outlets (or lite-business outlets) - Bloomberg does not engage in gossip or partisan spin to the extent current news media does (CNN/FOX being extreme, but this has infected the likes of NYT/WaPo as well). It actually is not surprising this hasn't been covered in depth by the more newsy American/British outlets who mainly cater to local audiences (and obviously coverage from within Hong Kong and China has... its own issues (freedom of press) on this topic) - besides Bloomberg catering to an international audience, in the world of financial markets a possible crackdown in Hong Kong is a major risk event (potentially directly impacting HKEX (with shock waves through Asian markets) as well as world trade). Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Did you read the China coverage and "The Big Hack" links? The Columbia Journalism Review said Bloomberg's handling of the episode "has tainted its corporate identity and journalism brand to a degree that could last for years" etc. zzz (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
No it doesn't; it says Bloomberg's cancelling of an investigative story tainted its identity. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"In a stroke, Bloomberg was becoming an important player in international news—and now, just as suddenly, it has tainted its corporate identity and journalism brand to a degree that could last for years. All because of its China coverage." zzz (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Read the article. It's solely referring to the spiking of the investigative piece, not its China coverage as a whole. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Bloomberg is on average perfectly acceptable as a reliable source. Every source is going to make errors, and that's why we rely on exactly the type of piece published by the Columbia Journalism Review in order to know where errors are made. That other major outlets are republishing the story rather than refuting it is an endorsement. We should also keep in mind that on the subject of bilateral relations, we should generally prefer sources that are from neither partisan country, expecially where they disagree on things like particular wording.
But I'm not sure any of that matters here anyway, because I'm not sure why we care that the US government is "monitoring" the situation, or why that should have any lasting encyclopedic value. Do we really think that the governments of India, Russia and the UK are also not "monitoring"? Isn't that what the governments of major world powers do? Isn't that the entire point of major powers having an intelligence gather apparatus in the first place? GMGtalk 12:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The Columbia piece is not about an error. The story is about a supposed troop build-up on China's border. zzz (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same 2014 article? The one about corruption? GMGtalk 12:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Signedzzz: Here is the Columbia Journalism Review piece. It is not about "errors" or "an error". It is not about "corruption". It is not about "a supposed troop build-up on China's border". It is specifically about Bloomberg's cancellation of an investigative article, which cancellation was leaked to other outlets and reported by them. Softlavender (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Not to split hairs, but whether you call it an "error" or not, the Columbia piece is explicitly calling Bloomberg out for what they see as a lapse in their journalistic integrity. GMGtalk 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The article mentions no errors. Softlavender (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • About as much as any other media news source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes But learn to read the article beyond the headlines, which are not themselves considered rs. The article begins, "The White House is monitoring what a senior administration official called a congregation of Chinese forces on Hong Kong’s border." Did a senior administration official say that? Probably. Is what he said true? Who knows. But based on the wording of the article we cannot present the official's statement as fact but can only present it as an opinion. TFD (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Note FTR that concerns have not been addressed here. Now, I'm off to learn to read... zzz (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael Alig interview of Desmond is Amazing

In the criticism section of Desmond is Amazing there is interest in connecting Desmond, a drag kid, to Michael Alig, a murderer, and former leader of the Club Kids, whom Desmond cites among his drag inspirations. Are any of these sources reliable for this? Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

1. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/desmond-napoles-gender-identity-ideology/

2. https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/the-exploitation-of-drag-kid-desmond-is-amazing/

3. https://spectator.us/desmond-amazing-child-drag-queens/

The spectator is a reliable source. The other sources I dont know enough about. scope_creepTalk 18:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Vigilant Citizen is a definite "NOOOOO". This is the top story on their main page right now. I wouldn't cite them for anything. The National Review and Spectator sources aren't complete garbage, but they both appear to be opinion pieces. Per WP:NEWSORG: they may be useful for statements of opinion attributed to their authors, but they are probably not reliable for statements of fact. If this is the extent of the coverage, then it probably doesn't really warrant a mention in the article - it's possible to convey the general idea that some social conservatives think this kid is surrounded by bad influences without necessarily transcribing accusation they make . Nblund talk 19:00, 29tor July 2019 (UTC)
Nowhere on the Spectator article does it say it is an opinion piece, apart from the question mark, which may give the impression that is an opinion. It is in the life section, but it is still fact checked. It does have an opinion page for the editor. scope_creepTalk 19:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Can you take a look at this when you have a chance. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 19:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Articles aren't always stamped as "opinion pieces", but Ben Sixsmith is not a journalist, and I don't really know how you could dispute that he's sharing opinions when he says things like "I take a dim view of the concept of ‘child stars.’". The Spectator also doesn't label opinion columns from far right figures like Taki Theodoracopulos as "opinion" either - though they clearly are, and I don't really know if The Spectator's straight news coverage is even all that great: this is the paper that hired Boris Johnson as an editor after he had been caught fabricating quotes at The Times of LondonNblund talk 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hard to see the Spectator or nationalreview as anything but opinion pieces. I’m not even sure how to squarely summarize their opinion or put anything in addition to the article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

In her confirmed social media accounts the child's mother cites Michael Alig as an influence on the kid's look and performance style. She has gone on about it quite extensively. Attributing "an interest in connecting Desmond, a drag kid, to Michael Alig, a murderer," to the Wikipedia community, is not an accurate portrayal of the situation, Gleenanon. The kid and his mother's confirmed social media accounts, and interviews with them, are full of references to Alig, including photos they have posted themselves of the kid posing for photos with Alig, and posing as Alig. Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now on several threads and board-shopping, actively trying to suppress controversial material like this and blaming Wikipedians for including it. While I am not interested in writing about this child at the moment, I've seen the photos that have been posted. If Wikipedians want to document the parent-approved connection to Alig, a subject that is considered a public figure's official social media posts can be used as sources. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest before commenting that editors do a search on: Michael Alig and Desmond is Amazing. Maybe use a few different search engines if you habitually use one that alters results based on preferences or political leanings. There is also YouTube footage. (I'm not proposing any particular sourcing here, just a reality check.) - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Anything that isn’t a primary source for this? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
User:CorbieVreccan: WP:BLPSELFPUB allows us to use social media sources for very basic non-controversial facts about a person, but using Facebook pages to make contentious link between two people seems like it would go far beyond a permissible use of that kind of source. I'm sure it's not your intention, but this kind of sourcing would give the appearance that we're digging for dirt in a child's social media history. Nblund talk
I've never seen the child's Facebook and would not feel comfortable using that. So much about this child being a public figure is inappropriate, period. Obviously, only official, public sites like those linked from the official website on his article would be appropriate (if any of this is appropriate, and I question that). I don't recall which site the photos I saw were on (IIRC, it was the child's mother's social media, where she was going on about Alig, so, not usable). It certainly wasn't a right wing one. The criticism section of the article right now is definitely POV and inaccurate, as there are members of the LGBTQ community that are concerned for this child. Concern and criticism is not only coming from "the right wing." It's not anti-LGBT to be concerned for this kid. I'll look some more, but so far most of that concern from the community is not being expressed in RS formats. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Noting, as I just did on talk: I just checked the BLP and the article already uses the child's social media, run by the mother (the Instagram account I discuss above) for sourcing. I really don't want to edit the thing, but just letting others know, this BLP needs the sourcing overhauled if you have concerns about this. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Question to uninvolved editors: Would you consider this usable? Is This Just Amazing or Is it Pedophilia?. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You’re not serious? I certainly hope you’re kidding. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
^Seconded: a random-ass letter to the editor where a "Santa Clarita resident" engages in wild speculation about whether or not a pedophile organization might be interested in recruiting this child is not suitable for a WP:BLP. It's probably not suitable anywhere on Wikipedia. It's probably not even suitable for a noticeboard. No. Not even close. Not in a million years. WP:TROUT for even asking. Nblund talk 02:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
^:Thirded, I agree. Its very rough, speculative and trying to associate a pedophile organisation with Desmond in the mind of the reader. As is an opinion piece is not suitable. There is also lot of anger in the letter. I came across an article on Ben Sixsmith. Seems he is not journalist and produces light pieces, e.g. life sections article. So @Nblund your right. scope_creepTalk 08:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Fourthed - Sorry if I wasn't clear; it was a bit late for me to be editing. I'm not actually suggesting we use it as a source in the BLP. I wanted to see what people thought, because the BLP currently uses other "sources" that are also opinion pieces, just at the other extreme. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on the reliability of MeriStation

Hello! This post is to inform y'all that there is currently a discussion on the reliability of MeriStation here. Thanks, TheAwesomeHwyh 20:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Elsevier topics: reliability of machine-generated sources

I see that a few articles are referencing www.sciencedirect.com/topics/, for instance special:diff/896997058 at Mediated transport. Elsevier announced in 2017 what these are, but I suspect some people are not reading the fine print.

Is it fine to cite as secondary source an article which is actually a machine-generated text? As far as I know, we have no idea what the editing process or quality assurance is on such texts. Machines might be better than humans at summarising large amounts of primary text (especially when the full text of the source articles is paywalled and very technical), but editors might be advised of making sure that at least an abstract of an upstream source confirms whatever claim they're borrowing from the machine-generated summary, no?

Note that this is not specific to Elsevier: Springer machine-generated books are coming as well. Nemo 21:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Only with archiving/snapshots. My main concern is less with reliability as each /topics/ page specifies the original source of the content presented. Rather the main problem is that because these are machine-generated pages (with no timestamp as far as I can see), these can be updated on-the-fly and the information on the page can be radically different between when it was cited and when a reader assesses the page. So, these can probably be used (and are arguably better than paywalled/technical full text), but only if an archived version of the page (e.g. an archive.is snapshot) is provided as part of the citation. feminist (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable Elsevier is an academic publisher and their articles are reliable for scientific topics. I looked at one example [20] and it is properly sourced with peer reviewed articles. I see no issues here.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Is https://edzardernst.com/ a reliable source?

https://edzardernst.com/ This is the private page of a rather outspoken researcher who often uses this to vent his frustration with alternative medicine. In my opinion, as it is effectively a blog presenting the personal and professional opinions of a single researcher, it should not be considered a reliable source and is best avoided to be used..... KFvdL (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

He's not just "a rather outspoken researcher"; he's an authority: Edzard Ernst. Now, what by him is it that should or should not be cited, to support what assertion? -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:PARITY, even Ernst's self-published work is generally reliable in articles about fringe medical topics. Though for a "ruling", as it were, you would need to be specific. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter". Ernst is such an expert, but it depends what claim is being supported. Instructions are given at the top of this page how to post here, and since they haven't been followed it impossible to answer specifically. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Subject matter expert. This is about sourcing on Talk:Craniosacral therapy, which the editor has now admitted a financial interest in - David Gerard (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sub Pop - IP insisting that " You need to cite these easy to find references to clarify the page in the book." - best way to do this? I thought it was

See [21] I found the source earlier but didn't link the url. It's here. What's odd is when I looked first I found the page numbers. I have no idea why this particular use of the source is being challenged as it's used quite a bit, but if someone could help me with this I'd appreciate it. Given the IP's post to my talk page I think they'll keep reverting me. Thanks. --Doug Weller talk 14:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The idea that you have to cite an online source is obviously wrong, and the IP just seems to be oblivious to that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Wrong, sources do not need to be online.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Harry Hay lead

In the WP:lead of Harry Hay we have:

Controversially, Hay was an active supporter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pedophile advocacy organization.

  • Weir, John (23 August 1994). "Mad About the Boys". The Advocate. p. 37. ISSN 0001-8996.
  • Simon LeVay; Elisabeth Nonas (1997). City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America. MIT Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0262621137. Although some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, the link between NAMBLA and the mainstream gay rights movement has always been tenuous.
  • Bronski, Michael (2002-11-07). "The real Harry Hay". The Phoenix. Archived from the original on 2012-03-02. Retrieved 2008-11-16. He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades.
  • Vern L. Bullough (2002). Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. Psychology Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-1560231936. Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign [supporting NAMBLA] rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate.

I ask that others take any appropriate action on the article as every effort I’ve done to address this content has been reverted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "as every effort I’ve done to address this content has been reverted"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I’m having connectivity issues. See June 21-26. I’ve opened a, now lengthy thread, at WP:NPOVN to deal with the article content itself. This is specifically to address the lead’s sourcing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Not seeing any issue here, the sources seem to support inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
In each source cited, we’re using the sum total of what they have to say about the connection of Hay to NAMBLA, sometimes not even a whole sentence. I think this violates Wikipedia policy on Lead if nothing else.
These are all examples that “prove” he must be an “active supporter”, they actually prove he protested them from being banned from *TWO* parades, eight years apart, and was an invited speaker at a conference. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I’ve looked at every source available to see what content is possible and there remains no reliable sources to support that Hay was much of an advocate for them, or pedophilia at all. When Hay spoke about anything related to this he talked about his own positive experience as a 14-year old with a man he sought out. But that’s hardly what our article makes clear. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This is Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continuing to forum shop. I think he's posted this in about a dozen places now. The issue has already been talked to death at the NPOV Noticeboard, where Gleeanon409 took it when he didn't like consensus at article talk. He didn't like consensus at NPOV, either. He's been told he should stop with the WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:DROPTHESTICK, and he's had forum shopping explained to him and been warned about it, but he has a history of not taking anyone's advice on these matters. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I’ve been consistently waived off, and told to drop the issue by, I believe, only one person. I think anyone willing to vet all available—non-primary—reliable sources will come to similar conclusions that I found: the sourcing in no way supports the “pedophile advocacy” category; doubtful if anything arises to lead content; is presently poorly sourced; and written from a POV that disguises reality. Your recollections of what must be true are not on par with reliable sourcing and reporting of those sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
"Hay supported NAMBLA" is true and verifiable, but in my opinion needlessly vague. It's certainly true that Hay was an advocate for a certain variety of pederasty only, and I don't think any reliable source accused him of supporting pedophilia. That statement as written makes one suspect Hay supported pedophilia. For all we know that's true, and it's certainly something a lot of people do believe or imply, but there are no statements from Hay or reliable secondary sources to say that he did. But it's still important to leave pedophilia in there, as that is precisely why his support of NAMBLA was so controversial. I think that could be accomplished simply by rewriting the paragraph a tad to have the lead sentence be something like "Harry Hay controversially supported the free speech and association rights of NAMBLA, a pro-pedophilia advocacy group, as well as speaking out in favor of pederasty based on his own adolescent experiences." I do not consider it whitewashing because it doesn't actually make Hay look any better to anyone who disagrees with him. But it's more accurate by virtue of being more precise. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Someguy1221:, I appreciate the suggestions. Actually Hay nor any reliable sources say he supported sex with children at all. Even the cherry-picked, by right-wing bloggers from NAMBLA itself, quote is misinterpreted.
The reliable sourcing on this says he 1. Talked about his own experiences “to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” 2. Did so “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ and 3. Treasured the mentorship of “how ‘people like us’ should conduct themselves”.
It’s fine to say why people get his support for their free speech and assembly mixed up with support for their cause. It all still was not at a level that supports *any* mention in the lead. At all. It took a lot of digging to find what little exists.
BTW, as far as I can tell, this all came about in discrediting Jennings, the Education czar of Obama, who was an openly gay man citing Hay as an inspiration, thus the urgency by some to link a gay man to pedophilia, a favorite trope of the right wing. Now Wikipedia is being used to do so. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Glee. "Actually Hay nor any reliable sources say he supported sex with children at all." I certainly didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Pederasty != pedophilia. He was of course very specific about the type of relationship he had in mind, but that can't be crammed into a one-sentence summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Someguy1221:, I appreciate that. The content on the article is distorted from the sources both on the article and the better ones found since. How on earth is it going to be fixed? BTW here’s the article that points out the Obama connection:
I’m lost on the path forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Travel media as reliable sources

I have raised a case on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Calala Island which touches on both NPOV and reliable sourcing. One of the questions being the use of travel magazines or travel media as reliable sources given their often borderline nature to rely on PR. I am also raising here as audiences between the two notice boards may differ. It may make sense to keep the conversation in once place. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Jared Taylor a reliable source for his own advocacy of white genocide conspiracy theory?

I withdraw the question. The Lyster and Gedye references both refer to Taylor as a white genocide conspiracy theorist explicitly, so his own 1995 book report is superfluous. EllenCT (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

Regarding this revert by Grayfell, is Taylor, Jared (June 1995). "Fairest Things Have Fleetest Endings". American Renaissance. Retrieved 6 August 2019. a reliable source to establish that Jared Taylor is a proponent of the white genocide conspiracy theory, in that article? Please note that Grayfell repeatedly deleted mention of Taylor as a white genocide conspiracist who does not blame the Jews for the alleged plot because the sole source in support of the statement at that time only described his lack of anti-Semitism without reference to his beliefs about white genocide. The context is:

However, the view that Jews are responsible for a white genocide is contested by other white supremacist figures, such as Jared Taylor.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Arnold, Kathleen (2011). Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 508. ISBN 9780313375217. Unlike many other white supremacists, Taylor is not anti-Semitic, and in fact encourages Jews to join his fight ... however many within the white supremacist/anti-immigration movement disagree with Taylor, most notably David Duke, and he has been under tremendous pressure to break ties with the Jewish community. Taylor, at least for now, has refused to submit to this pressure and continues to work with Jews to further his platform.
  2. ^ Lyster, Rosa (May 9, 2018). "The creeping spectre of "white genocide"". The Outline. Retrieved 6 August 2019.
  3. ^ Gedye, Lloyd (23 Mar 2018). "White genocide: How the big lie spread to the US and beyond". The M&G Online. Retrieved 6 August 2019.
  4. ^ Taylor, Jared (June 1995). "Fairest Things Have Fleetest Endings". American Renaissance. Retrieved 6 August 2019.

EllenCT (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Does he say "white genocide conspiracy theory"?Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope. The only mention of the concept is a direct quote from the novel being reviewed. The source also doesn't mention Jewishness, anti-Semitism, or any related concept, making this WP:SYNTH at best. Grayfell (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
That is untrue, as shown by the excerpt below. EllenCT (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
If no independent reliable sources mention this, it's at best insignificant. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
That is what I suspected, but thought I would check, then no the source dose not support the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Here are the more pertinent excerpts:
The article currently defines the conspiracy theory as a plot to, "promote miscegenation, mass immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence, and eliminationism in supposedly white-founded countries to exterminate white people through forced assimilation and violent genocide."
I would also point out that Grayfell's deletions took place immediately after a content dispute arose regarding the extent of white genocide theorists who do not blame the Jews. EllenCT (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Immediately? Sure, close enough. So is this the place to litigate that?
The statement this was attached to is this: However, the view that Jews are responsible for a white genocide is contested by other white supremacist figures, such as Jared Taylor. What does this source have to do with this? Where are Taylor's views explained in this review of The Camp of the Saints? Where does Taylor discuss his views of "white genocide" in this review, and where does he discuss the role of Jews in it? Further, how does this source support the significance of any of this in the article? Grayfell (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you claiming that your deletions were unrelated to the content dispute? The source you were earlier trying to delete states, "Taylor is not anti-Semitic, and in fact encourages Jews to join his fight," and explains that he is at odds with other white supremacists on that point. EllenCT (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
So no then he does not say he is, he makes certain statements that can be read as expounding it (but then depending on your interpretation can also be seen as not saying it is a deliberate plot so much as inaction and apathy), that is our definition of OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying that claiming e.g. the book's author's call, "to all whites to rekindle their sense of race...for [without it] we will disappear," is a white genocide conspiracy theory, is original research? EllenCT (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as it does not say "its a deliberate plan", which is what the white genocide conspiracy theory is. It is no different form saying that "if we do not get more young people into...it will disappear". Now it may well be it is a god whistle, and that is the point. He does not come out and say it, and thus we cannot say he has.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Our definition of the conspiracy theory includes racial integration and low fertility rates in addition to violent extermination. EllenCT (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It still have to be deliberate, as that is what the lead says (..."belief that there is a deliberate Jewish plot"...), and this does not say it is deliberate. We cannot say (read wp:blp) someone has said something unless they have explicitly said it, not just implied it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Fine. The previous two references say Taylor is a white genocide conspiracy theorist explicitly, so I have no desire to waste anyone's time further on his 1995 book review. EllenCT (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2019 (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.

Reliability level of Looper.com?

How "reliable" is entertainment news site Looper.com? Specifically for citing in the article Prisoners (1981 film). Muzilon (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Not. It's a notorious clickbait website. Also, if you've visited there, consider a malware scan. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Master thesis

Is it OK to use the Master thesis for the following material in the Women's rights in Iran?

Hijab is a veil worn by Muslim women when interacting with males outside of their immediate family. Before the foundation of the Islamic Republic, women were not required to wear a veil. In 1935, Reza Shah mandated that women should no longer be veiled in public or In the time of Mohammad Reza Shah, Iranian lifestyle changed swiftly, being influenced by secularization and westernization, which unintentionally caused bitterness among religious organizations in Iran, which made Mohammad Reza Shah suspend the law banning the veil, making it optional.

In addition, WP:SCHOLARSHIP demands that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". Thanks.Saff V. (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Standards for master thesis in my country are apparently (much) higher than for this one (no statements are directly referenced here). Certainly not useable as a RS. However, some of the works in the bibliography section of this thesis may be useable. Pavlor (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Aside from the modern artwork, that thesis does not cite a single primary source. Therefore, everything it contains, if accurate and significant, has a better source that can be used. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pavlor: and @Someguy1221: Am I allowed to remove the source from the article and cite [citation needed] for remaining content. The source has been used 11 times in the article!Saff V. (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I´m not a great fan of removing references, you may start by tagging the source with better source needed template. This will maintain verifitability until better source is found, or there is consensus to remove the content. Pavlor (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As you know source has been used for 11 times and I have to cite "better source needed" 11 times. Am I right? Finding sources for this amount of material need to time till that time we have to keep this disputed source. Yes?Saff V. (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
That is what I would do (it is similar work as 11 CN tags...). However, other Wikipedia editors may prefer removing source and placing CN tags. Pavlor (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A politician’s tweet of their political position

Is such considered RS? Which WP policies apply? Example: https://mobile.twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1149670242236264448. In that instance, the tweet also appears on VoteSmart. So, I am asking generally for both cases — without or with a citing source.

Thx, Humanengr (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Well SPS covers it, but what do you want to use it for?Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
For a statement of a political position in a ‘Political positions’ section of a politician’s page. Humanengr (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Re WP:SPS: WP:ABOUTSELF would seem to allow. Humanengr (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans, As you were the one who removed my use of the above tweet, perhaps you can justify that here? Humanengr (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I get that, I want to know what position, what do you think it says?Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for missing this; answered below Humanengr (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
This is very simple: we use secondary reliable sources to cover the political positions that politicians hold, both to ensure that the full context is provided (politicians may have reasons to lie about their positions or omit relevant info) and ensure that it's WP:DUE (politicians hold a million positions and not all are notable). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That position is notable as the core of Gabbard’s platform and something the supposedly ‘reliable’ media refuses to publish. It satisfies WP:ABOUTSELF. Humanengr (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It passes the RS cliff via ABOUTSELF - however is probably UNDUE as Gabbard has significamt 3rd party coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure it even passes ABOUTSELF, since it is clearly unduly self-serving in tone. Without a secondary source to provide interpretation or analysis, quoting or summarizing the tweet would imply using Gabbard's framing, which goes against the WP:ABOUTSELF requirement to not use sources for self-serving statements about themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure where to begin. That is not only absurd, it’s insulting to a candidate who puts ‘service above self’. “self-serv·ing: /ˈˌself ˈsərviNG/ adjective 1. having concern for one's own welfare and interests before those of others.” She is describing her views, not in abbreviated misinterpretable buzzword fashion, but in concise 48-word text form + a subtitled video of a campaign speech. There is no better authority on her views than that. Humanengr (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Snooganssnoogans. Politiican's actual positions are sometimes more nuanced than their public statements. Kamala Harris for example says she opposes the death penalty and supports medicare for all. Donald Trump says he is anti-war and supports coal miners. If the position is significant then it can be found in a secondary source. TFD (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
“sometimes more nuanced” arguably fits your examples for Kamala and Donald — which are 3 words or less each; but not to a 48-word tweet. What ‘nuance’ is missing? Re: “secondary sources”: Can you find any reporting Tulsi’s position that “Foreign policy is inseparable from domestic issues”? Humanengr (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the other editors who have stated that this is more of a due weight issue than a reliability issue. signed, Rosguill talk 22:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE speaks to the weighting of ‘reliable sources’. Here, the reliable source is the tweet; no MSM has reported this. Ergo, the weighting favors the tweet. Humanengr (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
So at this point, it's pretty clear that this is no longer a discussion about reliability but about due weight, which means that the appropriate place for this discussion is Talk:Tulsi Gabbard, not here. But to clarify the policy argument made in the above comment, UNDUE says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (emphasis mine). Which means that even if we take Gabbard's Twitter as being equally reliable as any other source, proportionally it would appear to be a minority position. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
No faux-reliable sources have reported it. Gabbard's tweet is not equally reliable as any other source; it's the only reliable source. It's not a minority position; it's the -only- position. Humanengr (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding WP:UNDUE. If the only coverage is her twitter, it has very little prominence in published, reliable sources. Even if this passed WP:RS (I don't think it does), it would unequivocally be WP:UNDUE. Often, the easiest way to see that something is undue is to notice its absence among sources that would be expected to cover it if it were WP:DUE - in this case, every high-profile, high-quality source that covers her without mentioning this counts against inclusion, since they implicitly dismiss it as unworthy of mention. In fact, you seem to be acknowledging that it's undue when you complain that the mainstream media hasn't covered it; Wikipedia is not the place to try and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by trying to call attention to things you think have been overlooked. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
UNDUE: “the prominence of each viewpoint“ — that’s on a specific topic, not relative to all topics covered by MSM. Here no viewpoints contradicting Gabbard’s statement of her own position on this have been expressed. 1 (actually multiple expressions thereof) > 0. And RGW is not policy. Humanengr (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll say what I said on the BLP/N board - we are an encyclopdia and should not be looking to update a politican's position day by day to their current political views. We should be looking at their views from the long term. As such, unless the tweet was needed to satisfy some type of concern that allows that use per BLPSPS (eg clarification or countering what another RS said), we shouldn't be rushing to include these. More so if no mainstream source has really covered it. --Masem (t) 22:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This is not a ‘day-to-day’ update. It is a position consistently expressed for a long time. There’s no ‘rush’ here; on the contrary, there’s persistent suppression by faux-reliable sources and raising of inapplicable objections here. Humanengr (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Having been involved in something like this before, unfortunately, we have to go "verifyability, not truth". If no reliable source at all is covering her positions like this, then the tweet isn't needed. However, if reliable sources are stating her position is one thing, and she's addressing that they are wrong and clarifying that, then the tweet is okay. But using the tweet without any type of attention from RS would be UNDUE. --Masem (t) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Re your "no reliable source", what I said was there are no MSM (aka 'faux reliable') sources. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, the tweet is a reliable source. As the only RS, there is no dispute for WP:UNDUE to govern other than 1 reliable source > 0 reliable source. Humanengr (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, having been in a case before where I felt the MSM were purposely missing the point, and having to deal with how to get that onto Wikipedia within policy and consensus, I can tell you can that calling the MSM "faux" is not going to win support for your position. To the point at hand, are the MSM otherwise covering other parts of Gabbard's other positions? If they are, may this is the type of type they just felt wasn't needed to add and didn't bother to cover it, so its not our position to make up for that. Similarly, if they are purposely ignoring Gabbard's campaign, it is not our place to make up for that either. --Masem (t) 23:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You didn’t address ABOUTSELF. RS ≠ MSM. I.e., RS includes other, e.g., ABOUTSELF. Whether MSM covers a topic or not is not the sole or final determinant. Humanengr (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
If we are talking about a politician who is running for a major office, then a twitter post about their position would immediately fail point #1 : "the material is neither unduly self-serving..." - expressing their political position is clearly self-serving in a case like this. As I mentioned, if it were that the candidate needed to correct mis-information in the press, that would be different, but that's not the case. --Masem (t) 02:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Sad state of affairs when citizens of these United States have been acculturated to think all candidates who run for office are self-serving by definition. See here. Humanengr (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Even if we have to rely on WP:ABOUTSELF ... surely there is something better than a Twitter post. Especially if this is a long term stance, and not a day-to-day shift. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
If you can find RS that covers this, pls do provide. Humanengr (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say it's almost never usable. It might technically pass WP:ABOUTSELF, but using Twitter to try and present a politician's positions strikes me as almost always "dangerous" in the spirit of WP:EXCEPTIONAL; if they're relevant, they ought to be sourcable elsewhere, and there's a serious risk that the politician's own description of their politics will be unduly self-serving. Additionally, using a Twitter post to state or even imply "this is a major position the politician has taken" (vs. "here's a random thing they said, possibly without thinking it through") raises potential WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issues. I definitely don't think it's acceptable for people to dig through a politician's tweets to try and present them as having outlandish or unusual views (or popular ones, for that matter), which becomes a serious risk if this is allowed. In a few very straightforward cases it might be acceptable - a politician unambiguously saying "I endorse [specific bill]" or "I support / oppose [specific clear-cut political view, like on abortion or gay rights]", but even that potentially raises issues if someone is dredging up an old tweet on views that may have changed, or if (for example) the politician's actual support for that is in question. I'd say that if it's a 100% clear-cut unambiguous statement of position, about a clearly-defined issue widely acknowledged as important, made during the current campaign that it's being cited for, and nothing about the statement is WP:EXCEPTIONAL (ie. it has to be a position people would reasonably expect from a politician of that party or affiliation), and there are absolutely no other sources that might raise questions about the politician's sincerity on that issue, it might be usable, but would still not be an ideal source, and should not be used if secondary ones exist. If it fails any of those points I'd say it shouldn't be cited at all. (In the final case, where sincerity is in question, we'd want to rely on secondary sources that can do interpretation and analysis.) Note that this only applies to tweets being cited directly, of course - when we have a clearly-reliable secondary source covering the tweet, all these issues disappear. --Aquillion (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you read the tweet? There’s no ‘might ‘technically be’ ABOUTSELF about it. It passes that policy criterion without question. Gabbard has presented it at multiple places, including at the San Francisco Meet & Greet (video available on her Facebook page) that I attended and many other places. It’s some stretch to think this might be self-serving. Her whole campaign theme — derived from her military background — revolves around dedicating her life to service of others.
It’s not SYNTH or OR or random or digged through to find given she has stated the same thing in almost verbatim repeats multiple times and that’s all captured in the tweet. It frames her entire policy set. It’s unambiguous. She’s one of a handful of candidates challenging the existing DNC control, so what she says is expected for someone in that position. There are no sources that have questioned her sincerity. No secondary sources exist. Humanengr (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
If there is a video on her Facebook... use THAT instead of the tweet. Problem solved. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thx, Bb — What guides you to distinguish text and video on Twitter from text and video on Facebook? Humanengr (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think Aquillion aptly describes why using a tweet to describe a politician's policy position is generally not a good idea. Biographic articles should not be a list of things a person said once, but rather a description of significant aspects of their lives as covered in secondary sources. I'd even go so far as to say that many independent articles that do nothing more than repeat a politician's tweet and comment on it should probably not be used either, since these days many such articles come out each day. By selecting from them one could come up with some arbitrary conclusions about any given person, meaning they have the same problems as the tweets themselves. I think this is related to the issue of reporting legislators' votes on individual bills; there's so much data and so little context that we have to be very careful about choosing what to report so as not to paint them in a false light. Ideally, such sections should be based on in-depth descriptions of their political positions. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
She didn’t say it once; she has repeated it nearly verbatim many times. ‘A description of significant aspects of their lives’?? It’s not a biography; it’s a policy statement. It’s not arbitrary; it’s repeated. It’s not about an individual bill; it’s the exact opposite. It’s not painting her in a false light; it’s her repeated statement. As an overview preface to the policy section, it is at an appropriate level of depth. Humanengr (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Just use these sources instead and call it a day. Says the exact same as her tweet: NPR, Mt Pleasant News. The lack of coverage may have to do with establishment media throwing their weight behind certain candidates over others. Perhaps if funded by parties who don't want the end to wars, certain media outlets will show favoritism since they are motivated by money. One wonders. petrarchan47คุก 20:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thx much. Those can be cited for support: NPR: “… Gabbard says domestic priorities could get more funding if not for expensive foreign entanglements.“ Mt Pleasant News: “Gabbard said that until regime change wars are ended, the U.S. will not have the resources to bring about health care reform, address climate change, invest in education and rebuild crumbling infrastructure.” Also, “Ending regime change wars would free up “trillions” of dollars to be put toward health care, immigration reform agriculture and climate change, Gabbard said.” But, IMO, the point is most effectively made with this phrasing: “Foreign policy is inseparable from domestic issues“. Hence my desire to use the tweet. Re ‘One wonders’: indeed. Humanengr (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

For context, Tulsi Gabbard, candidate for President, says in the video embedded in that tweet:

The reality is there are many needs we need to address but we will not have the resources that we need to invest in our people and our communities unless we deal with one central issue. That issue is the cost of war. For too long we have warmongers from both political parties who have been dragging us from one counterproductive regime change war to the next, who are hyping up a new Cold War and nuclear arms race now.

So as President and Commander-in-Chief, I will end our longstanding policy of waging wasteful regime change wars that have taken so many lives, that has cost us trillions of taxpayer dollars and undermined our national security.

I’ll work to end this new Cold War and nuclear arms race and lead us away from the abyss of a nuclear war. I’ll take the trillions of dollars, your hard-earned taxpayer dollars that have been and will continue to be wasted on these programs and instead invest them in serving the needs of the American people — things like quality health-care for all, truly sustainable agriculture, affordable housing, clean water, clean air, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, improving education, and so much more.

The tweet is reliably a statement of her overall policy framing appropriate as an intro to the 'Policy positions' § of the page. Humanengr (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What political position?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Her position that ‘foreign policy and domestic policy are inextricably linked’ if you’re asking for a short summary title. Humanengr (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Although I'm sympathetic to your concerns about Wikipedia's over-reliance on newsmedia (which I'm almost uniformly critical of) I don't think including more WP:SPS will make things better. WP:RGW will point to why we shouldn't be correcting the systemic bias of American corporate media here. (Though we should perhaps be more careful with what we consider reliable to begin with.) (In case it wasn't clear, I don't think the tweet is WP:DUE at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
ABOUTSELF is policy; RGW “is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” Humanengr (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
You could source wiki-text to the first debate: Time provided the transcript. Search for "This insanity must end." to find her remarks (which call for less spending on regime-change so that there's more money for taxpayers' well-being). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thx much. This too can be used for support. The section you noted: “… for too long, our leaders have failed us, taking us from one regime change war to the next, leading us into a new cold war and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end. As president, I will take your hard-earned taxpayer dollars and instead invest those dollars into serving your needs, things like health care, a green economy, good-paying jobs, protecting our environment, and so much more.” Also, “We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. We are in a place in Afghanistan where we have lost so many lives. We’ve spent so much money. Money that’s coming out of every one of our pockets, money that should be going into communities here at home, meeting the needs of the people here at home.”
In addition, the MSNBC text describing her interview there: “Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman and 2020 candidate Tulsi Gabbard discusses her debate performance and why she thinks her focus on foreign policy is central to addressing domestic issues ….” The interviewer Katy Tur did not challenge Gabbard’s statement: “There are a whole host of very important issues domestic issues like health care, education, infrastructure, climate change. … You cannot separate these issues. But my focus on foreign policy is central to being able to address every one of these domestic issues.“ Humanengr (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Found what should satisfy all: Real Clear Politics citing an MSNBC interview at the South Carolina Democratic Convention as “Representative Tulsi Gabbard talks … about how United States' ‘foreign policy is inseparable from domestic policy’ and ending ‘regime change wars’ is the best way to pay for other things Americans need.” The fuller statement from which that was abstracted: “This really is the message that I’ve been bringing to voters across this country … of understanding how our foreign policy is inseparable from domestic policy; that we have to deal with the cost of war, ending the wasting of our taxpayer dollars on these wasteful wars, and invest those dollars and making it so that we can provide healthcare for all, we can provide a quality education, we can rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.”

Re policy re the tweet: The existence of other supportive statements — thx petrarchan47, SashiRolls, and also Blueboar re the Facebook posting — combined with the lack of any viewpoints in RS negating her expression of her own policy positions would seem to overcome whatever remains of the various objections above regarding citing or inclusion of that or the Facebook posting as well. Humanengr (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Elite Daily as a reliable source

Hi, I just wanted to know your opinion about the reliability of this website called Elite Daily. I have cited two articles by this website on In My Head (Ariana Grande song), which is being reviewed for GA. This website is part of a major company, Bustle Digital Group, and the sources mostly compile information from some Ariana's interviews. The GA reviewer, SNUGGUMS says that he has his doubts about this website because he "couldn't find any credentials for authors, an editorial staff, a reputation for fact-checking, or anything of similar nature". I need another opinion on this, and I would be really grateful if anybody could help. Thank you so much. --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270&oldid=1138648453"