Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 325

Archive 320

←

Archive 323

Archive 324

Archive 325

Archive 326

Archive 327

→

Archive 330

Inline citation for deprecated CCTV

CCTV is an distinctly almost deprecated source, diff added as the community decided per a RfC Archive 312 in September 2020 here. (The deprecation table links CCTV to CGTN.)

Exceptional claims via CCTV were deleted in good faith [1] then readded. Inline citations to CCTV were then added in good faith [2], per policy on adding contentious information on living persons. Those were reverted see last paragraph in 'Chinese response' and characterized as "disruptive" [3].

At issue is the exceptional CCTV claims (read ridiculous) were used in RS during the 2008 Tibetan uprising anniversary, or in the 'heat of the moment'.

This is a RfC on requiring inline citation of CCTV in such instances. If in these instances the deprecated status of CCTV allows for the deletion of edits sourcing CCTV indirectly, clarification is welcome. It's also requested that only uninvolved editors/admins comment. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)(edited due to edit conflict, will add diffs as provided, 14:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC))

Option 1: require inline citations as per exceptional claims and BLP.

Option 2: delete, as deprecated, or as should be deprecated.

Pasdecomplot, what do you mean by depreciated? The linked RfC was about CGTN, not CCTV. MarioGom (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read that RfC again MarioGom, it's also on CCTV. They're inextricably linked. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, CGTN was deprecated. CCTV, which is a network of dozens of different TV channels, was not. This RFC is just invalid because it assumes false premises. With other sites we went as far as evaluating the reliability of different sections, so I don't see how deprecating a channel implies deprecation of the whole parent network. MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry MarioGom, there are no false premises. Please see the table of RS/Deprecated Sources (first diff added above), which links to the CGTN depreciation archive. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, the CGTN entry vaguely mentions CCTV International. That's still a small fraction of CCTV (see CCTV channels). MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

CCTV is deprecated in our table of deprecated sources MarioGom. This RfC is focused on inline citations of CCTV since it's a deprecated source. It also asks the question of whether or not info from a deprecated source, here CCTV, should be deleted when cited by other sources. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, ok. It's clear that you interpret the CGTN RFC and the listing as covering the whole CCTV network, while I consider that was not the case, since CGTN was the source discussed in that RFC, and some editors clarified explicitly that the discussion was about CGTN and not CCTV as a whole. I guess we'll need input from other editors. Best, MarioGom (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting anything, MarioGom, just using RSN table of deprecated sources. It's a very clear. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Usedtobecool (RfC closer) or Newslinger (listed at RSP) can clarify: Did RFC: China Global Television Network result in the deprecation of CCTV as a whole (all websites and TV channels)? If not, did any other RfC result in such deprecation? --MarioGom (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reading the archived discussion, it seems clear to me that the Deprecation was indeed limited to just CGTN, and not all of CCTV (the initiator of the RFC was explicitly questioned about this, and stated that he/she was concerned that the RFC would become a WP:TRAINWRECK if it included all the various CCTV outlets). Note: This does NOT mean that CCTV is considered OK... it just means that the RFC was more focused. I would suggest that a second RFC is needed to clarify consensus on CCTV outlets beyond CGTN. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• A reminder: CCTV International is currently deprecated as per RS. That is its status. The deprecation was not limited, as evidenced by the table of deprecated sources. This RfC focuses on that status, which has been stable since September, Usedtobecool. Let's focus on CCTV's current status Newslinger.

The concerns about or objections to its status as deprecated can be addressed by another editor, of course, by proposing another RfC on those divergent issues. Which could be discussed under a different RfC, respectfully, since it's a different topic and diverges from the issues here Blueboar and MarioGom.Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(DISCLAIMER: the above reply does not speak in anyway about motivations, only about a result which does not imply, nor can be interpreted to imply nor interpreted to suggest, any motivation whatsoever. Thanks. 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC))

No problem on my end... I agree that further RFCs may be needed to clarify the previous consensus, but I don’t know the sources well enough to have an opinion as to whether they should be deprecated or not. Don’t really care one way or the other. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No, China Central Television (CCTV) is not deprecated. A discussion or RfC on a source applies to the source and its subsidiaries, but not the source's parent company or any sibling publications. For example, although the News of the World (RSP entry) is deprecated, its parent company News UK is not deprecated, and its sibling publication The Times (RSP entry) is still classified as generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 22:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The OP seems to be claiming this edit by Girth Summit was calling referring to CCTV "disruptive"? —valereee (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, I wasn't saying that referring to CCTV was disruptive. This isn't really the forum for discussing DE, but briefly - PdC removed a bunch of content about certain claims the Chinese government had made; they did this not because it was referenced to CCTV (it wasn't), but because the two RS (Sydney Morning Herald and Reuters) it was referenced to each made mention of a CCTV report in their own reporting. Another editor reinstated it with improvements, but PdC then changed the content to say that the SMH had 'published a report by CCTV', which was patently false. It was that edit which I warned them was disruptive - whether it was deliberate, or a poor choice of wording, it introduced a falsehood into the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the repetition, but CCTV International is deprecated on the project's table of deprecated sources, as the first link in this RfC evidences Newslinger. The deprecated status is thus proven.

Whether or not the deprecation status can be changed, or should be changed, or is a misreading of the discussion, are all another topics not included in this RfC. (Sorry for typo on deprecated -corrected in earlier edits.) Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, the table is a summary of previous discussions. Either there is an RfC deprecating CCTV or there isn't. That's the source of truth for deprecation status. There is no RfC deprecating CCTV, so it is not deprecated. My guess about the CCTV International reference (which was not part of the original RfC) is that CGTN is, indeed, an International branch of CCTV. However, it's not its only International channel. This is a dead end, really. An RfC may be started to deprecate other CCTV-owned outlets in addition to CGTN. Until then, CCTV is not deprecated. MarioGom (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I have striked part of my previous comment. The thing is that CGTN was formerly known as CCTV International. --MarioGom (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: we should remove the mention to CCTV International from the CGTN entry. The RfC did not mention CCTV International and it explicitly excluded CCTV. This is obviously causing unnecessary confusion for some editors. --MarioGom (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • CCTV International and CGTN refer to the same entity under different names. The reason CCTV in general was not included in that debate is to avoid trainwreck. (t · c) buidhe 14:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it is time to allow the trains to go down the track and see what happens. If we assume that all of CCTV was deprecated, the question then becomes: do we wish to undo (or modify) that deprecation? Alternatively, if we assume that all of CCTV was NOT deprecated, the question becomes: do we wish to deprecate it? This can only be answered by a new RFC. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

      Blueboar, I don't think we need an RfC to determine if CCTV was deprecated or not. It clearly wasn't. CGTN was deprecated (see closure), and CCTV was explicitly excluded by the RfC filer. When listing it, CCTV International was added as the former name of CGTN. Of course, that doesn't preclude the possibility of someone filing an RfC for more CCTV outlets. In the mean time, that doesn't mean that CCTV is always a valid source, that's an assessment we do with all sources in all kinds of contexts without the need of formal listing at WP:RSP. MarioGom (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

      • The issue at hand is regardless of whether or not we already have deprecated CCTV it does objectively meet our standard for deprecation and most of the sources presented in the CGTN discussion talked about the whole CCTV ecosystem not just CGTN. If CCTV is not currently deprecated it should be ASAP. CGTN is their headliner and by far the most reliable, the other channels have *less* editorial oversight etc not more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

        @Horse Eye's Back, the problem is that CCTV is actually 50 channels, including CCTV-10, which is the Science and Education channel and which some editors may believe is perfectly reliable for science topics, and CCTV-11, which is Chinese Opera channel, etc., etc. Do we do a single RfC, or do we need 50? —valereee (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

        @Valereee: I think technically that depends on whether the channels are editorially independent of each other, if they are then we do in fact need 50 just like we would if we wanted to deprecate every Murdoch owned outlet around the world. I haven’t seen anything that suggests editorial independence though, CCTV seems to have a unified management and senior editorial structure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

        Maybe it's something we're just going to have to bite the bullet on at some point? —valereee (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

        Perhaps, I think the bullet we need to bite is how to treat the Chinese information/disinformation network as a whole rather than having separate discussions for each of the big three. The problem there I think is that its such an important question we that we need to be damn sure we’re actually asking the right question before making it a RfC. We’re also obviously going to see pushback from the Chinese gov on that issue both on and off wiki which is why I think we’re all hesitant to bite the bullet on this one. Just look at what they did to the Wikimedia Foundation just because we allow the existence of a Taiwanese wikipedia affiliate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's clear we should never use CCTV as the source for any controversial content, but it's just as clear we can report on what reliable sources say CCTV has reported. The fact CCTV isn't reliable doesn't mean they disappear. When Reuters reports what CCTV is reporting, of course we can use that. We would never write, in Wikivoice and sourced to CCTV, "The Chinese government found arms in a Tibetan temple." We definitely would write "Chinese state-owned media reported the Chinese government found arms in a Tibetan temple" with a citation to the Reuters story. The fact a source isn't deprecated doesn't mean it's reliable. It may just mean other editors don't think it's worth the trouble of formally deprecating, which is the case here. Trying to RfC all of massive CCTV is just pointless. No one would source anything controversial to Chinese state-owned media. —valereee (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Valereee, I agree here too. It would be quite weird to deprecate, let's say, the sports channel (CCTV-5) based on the reliability of some pieces published in other channels about controversial topics. MarioGom (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Responding to the ping: it's true that CCTV International is deprecated, since CCTV International is the former name of China Global Television Network (CGTN) (RSP entry). But, CGTN only comprises 6 of the 50+ channels operated by CCTV. The other 44+ non-CGTN channels of CCTV are not covered by the deprecation, because the RfC did not focus on those channels or result in a finding of consensus on them. State media targeted to domestic (CCTV) and international (CGTN) audiences are subject to different conflicts of interest, so I don't think the deprecation of CGTN would necessarily carry over to the remainder of CCTV if an RfC were held for CCTV. We would need discussions that focus on the remaining CCTV channels to determine the consensus on them. — Newslinger talk 20:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Blueboar and Horse Eye's Back. So, what about the specific exceptional claims about living people made by CCTV, then "rebroadcasted" inline via sources? Aren't BLP issues also at stake? Shouldn't at least inline citations be required in this instance, especially since monks are living beings then at danger from CCTV falsified reports? As a note, I haven't seen RS that substantiated these CCTV reports. MarioGom please start that RfC on removing CCTV's name - just a gentle reminder that it's not the topic here.

As my first RfC, this should have been posted above (permission to refractor sought): Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, you seem to be the only one here who thinks that CCTV is deprecated. Even the person who added the CGTN entry to WP:RSP explained it. So this RfC is still invalid. MarioGom (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've struck through "deprecated" to keep the RfC moving, and added text also to Option 2. Please feel free to start another RfC MarioGom. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just refractored in the Options at top. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, this is embarrassing. Please stop. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed "RfC" from the section heading, since formal requests for comment use the {{rfc}} tag, which is not present in this discussion. An RfC on CCTV as a whole might not be very useful, since there are too many channels in this television network. For comparison, a discussion on CBS News would be specific enough to be useful, but a discussion on every channel owned by ViacomCBS would almost certainly not be useful. — Newslinger talk 22:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger Should I resubmit this as a RfC to deal with inline citations vs deleting per BLP concerns, or may I refractor in the tag? (Sorry, it's my first RfC thus the roughed-in tag.) Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs in your original comment in the discussion, I don't think an RfC on CCTV would actually address the content dispute. In Special:Diff/996472133 and Special:Diff/997466244, the source in question is "China finds 'firearms' in Tibetan temple" from The Sydney Morning Herald, one of Australia's newspapers of record. The Herald is not republishing a CCTV article, but is using a transcript from CCTV as one of the data sources for its reporting. Reliable secondary sources regularly incorporate data sources in their reporting, even when these data sources are not necessarily considered reliable on their own. Since the Herald does have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, its reporting is usable in the 2008 Tibetan unrest article. I see that the article already qualifies the claims as originating from Chinese state media, so everything looks fine to me. — Newslinger talk 22:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger. But given the concerns for BLP (the monks) and exceptional and dangerous claims (hiding guns in a monastery), an inline attribution to CCTV is necessary. At BLPN on Chen Quanguo by Girth Summit, this condition was discussed repeatedly. I need to note GirthSummit definitely mischaracterized the diff above, which first opines no inline attribution to CCTV was necessary. This is counter to BLP and the discussions/CON at that specific BLPN. I have made no false edits, nor false claims. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, I'm getting tired of explaining this to you, you appear to be unwilling to listen to/understand/accept (I'm not sure which) anything I or anyone else has to say to you. I have not mischaracterised anything, you did introduce a falsehood, although I am perfectly happy to believe that was due to difficulties with the English language rather than an intentional act. And you are comparing two completely different situations. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The concern with BLP standards by Girth Summit at Chen Quanguo BLPN include Amongst the sources that have been added are reliable news sources, but there are also various Tibetan campaigning groups; some of these are attributed in-line, but that has not been done rigorously where using inline attributions are discussed. At RSN archive 313 on these sources, discussed in more depth are inline attributions.

And here, we have serious BLP issues that the editor and Girth Summit have still not reedited. BLP policy reads All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. It also says the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

I would add that repeatedly questioning a person's place of birth/language is rude (on talk then here). Repeatedly not answering BLP concerns could be actions I associate with xenophobia and racism (to quote a phrase by GirthSummit at Chen Quanguo, but no comment is made on the editor's motivations). Ain't 'Merican English good 'nuff for ya? Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, yes, we would normally use in-line attribution when we mention the views of a campaigning group, but we wouldn't normally do it for factual statements in a reliable source such as the Sydney Morning Herald. The stuff about the weapons claims already has an inline citation (which is different from inline attribution) to more than one reliable source, and it is already qualified by describing them as 'claims' rather than asserting that they were true, so I genuinely can't understand what your BLP concern is.

I have never asked what your birthplace was, I don't believe that would be relevant in any way to your editing here. I have asked you whether English is a second language for you, because you seemed to be having difficulty understanding certain phrases - that is relevant to your editing here, and to our communication, and I believe it is a legitimate question to ask someone. You are not required to provide an answer if you don't want to, and since it has upset you I won't ask again.

I don't understand how you can say that my actions are those that you associate with xenophobia and racism without expecting it to be interpreted as a comment on another editor's motivations. I recognise that you are quoting me, but you have taken those words entirely out of context, and are once again pushing at the boundaries of your TBan: I would urge you to remove those remarks. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

NOTE FOR CLOSING constructive discussion has stopped; BLP concerns per policy and necessary CCTV attribution shared with Horse Eye's Back while it seems Blueboar and others addressed need for deprecation on another(other) RfC(s). Should have closed and resubmitted/redrafted another RfC earlier. Thanks to all. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Nonie Darwish a reliable source on Islam?

I asked this question back in August and I thought consensus was that Nonie Darwish was not a reliable source in Islam (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#Is_Nonie_Darwish_a_reliable_source?). However, Stefka Bulgaria insists she is a reliable source for this quote:

Khomeini, in his subsequent writings, also approved of adults satisfying their sexual lusts with children provided such activities stopped short of any penetration.

I strongly believe that Darwish is not a reliable source on Islam, not even with attribution. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Darwish as "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Arab". This is what she has to say about Islam:

• "Lying and slander is an obligation in Islam." (SPLC, webpage)
• "Islam should be feared, and should be fought, and should be conquered, and defeated, and annihilated." (article, The Intercept)
• "A mosque is not just a place for worship. It’s a place where war is started." (article, New York Times)

I think she easily meets the definition of WP:QUESTIONABLE because she is "expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist". I'm honestly disappointed that users would not have the good sense to instantly recognize this author as not reliable.VR _talk 15:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone reading the "Criticism" section of her article or Georgetown Univerisity's Bridge Initiative profile of her would realise that she is a rabid islamophobe and part of the speakers circuit of "counter-jihad" people and is associated with Pamela Geller, and therefore should never be used as a source of facts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Having had a look at their edits to the Nonie Darwish article, Stefka Bulgaria looks like a tenacious anti-islam POV-pusher who should probably be topic banned from anything to do with Islam. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This comment confuses me, as far as I know bigotry is not grounds to topic ban someone. Some of our oldest and most prolific editors are bigots. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Would you like to name examples of competent bigoted editors? other than Eric Corbett of course. It depends or not if the bigotry is disruptive to the project. GPinkerton's editing on islamic topics were disruptive, so he was topic banned. Bigotry can create a hostile environment for editors who happen to fall within the users prejudices. Using obviously unreliable sources because they dislike Ruhollah Khomeini for an editor with over 3,000 edits shows pretty clear WP:CIR issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems we agree then, repeated disruptive behavior is grounds to topic ban someone but bigotry alone would not be. I agree that using obviously unreliable sources is either a CIR issue or disruptive. I just wanted to point out that a hypothetical (it seems it was a mistake to not keep it purely hypothetical) competent bigoted editor could exist and even if they made objectionable comments in talk (and here for example) as long as their article edits are clean and rule abiding. I would give examples but for some reason I don’t think those examples would react well and I’d rather not have to spend the next few days litigating the finer points of NPA at ANI.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I though we had consensus last time, the author isn’t an academic or subject matter expert and pushes a number of WP:FRINGE opinions. Nothing about them or their texts meets our standards of reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nonie Darwish writes against "Islam and its oppression of women" (quote from The Guardian). Her criticism of religion and their practices alone does not make her unreliable. Looking at the edits here, Vice regent removed the quote Darwish is referring to from the Tahrir al-Wasilah article. That quote translates to

  "Question 12 - It is not permissible to have intercourse with a wife before the completion of nine years, whether the marriage was always or not. As for all other pleasures - such as touching lustfully, being held together and teased - there is nothing wrong with it, even in a breastfed infant."

  Darwish seems to only repeat what Khomeini wrote in his book. Rondolinda (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rondolinda: Cherry picking a single article from 2007 doesn't outweigh other evidence presented here. "Her criticism of religion and their practices alone does not make her unreliable" maybe not, but suggesting that “The education of Arab children is to make killing of certain groups of people not only good, it’s holy,” probably does. Darwish is not a reliable source for the translation of the Tahrir al-Wasilah and if no good source for the claim can be found, then it shouldn't be included at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion is now referred @ Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Khomeini's the Little Green Book requesting for more information.

Bookku (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment if true, this should be covered in some more authoritative source. (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

buidhe can you comment on the reliability of using Darwish as a source on wikipedia for anything other herself (as per WP:SELFSOURCE)? Darwish keeps popping up and I'd rather not waste more of the community's time again a few months down the road. Lets settle this conclusively. VR _talk 19:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nonie Darwish may have some credibility for Arab-Israeli relations but it's been adequately shown in this thread that her views on Islam have not gained academic acceptance and we would never state in Wikivoice the hyperbole that "Mosques are places where wars are started" or anything similar. Spudlace (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not Reliable according to a Snopes[4] analysis of a viral email that collated various "points" from her writing. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Darwish denied writing the chain email, though it does conform to her views. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This translation:

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable."

But I don't know if it's good enough. Rondolinda (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase Ian Hislop, if Goodreads is a good enough to source to say that Khomeini says sodomising children is acceptable, then I am a banana. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a better source for the occurrence of this quote in the book. Using Google, I cannot find any solidly reliable sources using this exact quote. (t · c) buidhe 02:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A 1985 translation available at the Internet Archive contains no such wording: THE LITTLE GREEN BOOK - Selected Fatawah And Sayings of The Ayatollah Mosavi Khomeini — translated into English by Harold Salemson — with a special introduction by Clive Irving, Bantam Books, 1985. Fences&Windows 02:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows even if something is true, don't we still need a reliable source to include it into wikipedia? Because if something hasn't been published in any reliable, secondary/tertiary source then it should be given zero WP:WEIGHT. Reliability is not just needed for verifiability, but also due-ness.VR _talk 05:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree we need better sourcing. A translation of Tahrir al-Wasilah available here does support Khomeini writing what was claimed, but the secondary sources referring to this are not strong, e.g. blog posts [5]. Scholars seem to have not discussed the issue. Fences&Windows 15:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• She is reliable for her own words whatever her opinion should be included is question of WP:DUE Shrike (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Questionable I agree with VR's analysis. Due criticism is fine. But something that's undue must be regarded as "unreliable" unless it is just about them. She is reliable for her own words, and unreliable for Islam. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Prachatai

The prachatai source is partial, see: https://www.iiss.org/about-us , https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/washington/29blackwill.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=login&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1194092186-oD/P7hK9sBgiXh7U96GOBA& , https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/supporters/ , https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our-work/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy , https://www.ned.org/regions/ , https://prachatai.com/english/about Nildo ouriques (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Nildo ouriques, please explain more about what these links are supposed to demonstrate. Fences&Windows 15:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Is reasonablefaith.org a reliable source or not?

So I was wondering about its reliability. The website I'm asking about is reasonablefaith.org. On the one hand it publishes scholarly work. On the other, it seems to be run as a blog. Is it okay to link to it to support citations about professional work so people can read the work(s)? Can it be used as a standard link to support things in philosophy of religion articles? EDIT: got my websites confused there, it's not a blog but is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to Biblical Christianity, which I know some people have said is not ideal in a source. I was hoping for some clarification on whether this is an appropriate source to use, either together with a journal citation, or on its own.--Phil of rel (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Christianity and its major divisions are extremely well studied topics, you are much better off trying Google Scholar rather than apologist websites. (t · c) buidhe 04:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of statements you are citing it for. William Lane Craig is an important guy in philosophy of religion, and as an exponent of certain positions he would be a definite source. OTOH I imagine his papers can also be found in more conventional academic presses. Beyond that, a particular issue would be required to give a better answer. Mangoe (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Usable for the attributed views of the article authors where WP:DUE and of course subject to case-by-case WP:CONSENSUS. If secondary sources already discuss the topic or if they put the view in perspective, those should be used instead. —PaleoNeonate – 16:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answers. I think I understand I should try and include links/ citations from actual scholarly articles rather than just the link to an apologetics site. Thank you all once again for the help in understanding how I should use this source.--Phil of rel (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Tennis history sources

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

---

I would like to propose a change to current wikipedia policy on which sources are and are not allowed on wikipedia tennis pages. Currently the rule on self-published sources seems to be being administered unfairly by one editor who discriminates against Amazon published books. More and more good books are self-published these days. Particularly for the pre-open era pro tour, nearly all the sources are self-published. Currently some are allowed and some are not allowed, with Amazon-published works not being allowed by him. Perhaps the editor in question fears the opening of the floodgates if we allow all Amazon published works as sources, so let me set his mind at rest by proposing the following solution.

Amazon published tennis books should be allowed as wikipedia sources under the following rules for minimum standards of entry:

Publication has an Amazon Sales Rank in five different countries.

Publication reviewed or recommended by a tennis magazine or an established expert.

Publication accepted into the Kenneth Ritchie library at Wimbledon.

Author may not cite own work.

tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. Karoly Mazak (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support the proposal, too, especially because more works are and will be self-published. Conventional publishing houses serve as a useful and perhaps critical guidemark, but they do not publish everything that is of good use. That may be more a problem in certain areas of study, than in others. Tennis history currently has no book published under a conventional publishing house that contains even half of all professional-era results now known. That includes Joe McCauley's The History of Professional Tennis, which is a self-published book that has nevertheless met certain criteria to be used here at Wiki; and we do cite it here regularly, even though it is terribly out-dated now. So, there is a judgment call to be made on any individual source; and in certain areas of study these judgment calls are very necessary; so I very much support this proposal. Krosero (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Would you guys mind commenting on the existing policy (WP:RS/SPS, WP:SPS), which states that self-published sources are reliable when they are written by subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? I.e., who writes these books?--JBchrch (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are already sources that are being used as wikipedia tennis sources that don't meet (at least I have reason to believe that they don't meet) the criteria of having "previously been published by reliable, independent publications". And exactly what is an expert? My list of criteria was deliberately chosen. Not only does the qualifying book have to establish a certain sales level, but also, it must have been reviewed by a magazine or established expert and accepted into the Wimbledon library. Not all authors are tennis journalists (in fact an increasing number are not). This rule seems to be being interpreted by the self-appointed moderators of wikipedia to choose the sources they want to include as sources and discriminate against those they dont. I want a fair set of rules in place where all publications can be judged the same way tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding WP:RS/SPS and WP:BLPSPS, let me honestly respond to your proposition: 1. Sales are not a good indicator of reliability: some popular books peddle nonsense, while books written by experts and published by academic presses are generally bought by no-one. 2. Why not, but do tennis magazines and established experts actually review self-published books? 3. (pinging Fyunck(click)) Librairies do not generally review their acquisitions or check their accuracy, so I don't see how that would make them reliable (there is a copy of Chariots of the Gods at the Bodleian Library...). But it seems like several editors support your proposal so maybe you should start a RFC to move this forward?--JBchrch (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• @JBchrch:In rebuttal, just because a book is published by Rayner Unwin does not make it any more reliable or accurate. It was simply a topic the publisher thought they could make money on and took the chance to publish and pay royalties. And the Kenneth Ritchie library at Wimbledon is not just any local branch library. We have to be careful about what self-published works are allowed, and case by case is what is often used. But while I agree with you about sales reliability, having a publication reviewed or recommended by a tennis magazine or an established expert, or sitting on the shelf of the Kenneth Ritchie Wimbledon library, seems to be a pretty good compromise for tennis sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• If it is accepted by the Kenneth Ritchie research library at Wimbledon it should qualify as a legitimate source. I believe the library does occasionally publish its catalog as I have seen the 2010 version available for purchase. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Then The Professional Tennis Archive and The Concise History of Tennis qualify as sources, fyunck, because they are both in the library. The Professional Tennis Archive was deposited in the library in 2019. The concise history of tennis was deposited earlier. Also, tennis magazines do review self-published books. The Professional Tennis Archive was reviewed in one. The Concise history of tennis was reviewed positively by Alan Little, the now deceased honorary librarian of the Kenneth Ritchie library and Little would qualify as an expert under my proposal. There is a lot of mainstream rubbish published by publishing companies, let us not forget that. How does one go about an RFC JBchrch? tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

tennishistory1877, please refer to WP:RFC. The more I read this exchange, the more I think it would be an appropriate way to resolve the dispute you guys seem to be having (WP:DR#RfCs).--JBchrch (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• It needs to be stated that there is a clear conflict of interest here. The editor who started this proposal is the author of the book (The Professional Tennis Archive) which he is trying to get accepted as a reliable source under his own proposed rules and is doing so without having disclosed this interest. The same applies to Karoly Mazak who supports the proposal as he is the author of the other book mentioned (The Concise History of Tennis), and he also does not disclose his interest. As both editors by their own admission have collaborated or are collaborating outside of Wikipedia this at least has the appearance of canvassing.--Wolbo (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• It needs to be stated that there is a clear bias from the editor Wolbo. He is the editor in question who is currently using his biased judgement to disallow some sources while allowing others (and not applying the existing rules fairly). He has made derogatory comments about Karoly Mazak's book. He has shown clear contempt for self-published works in remarks I have seen him make on wikipedia. My proposal is not about allowing any single book onto wikipedia. This is about a set of rules applied to all books. These books will have reached minimum guidelines including the involvement of verification from experts. Wolbo does not qualify as an expert so I do not see why his discriminatory judgement should be taken into account when deciding what sources are allowed or not. tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Calm down everyone. This is a valid way of making some sources minimally acceptable. Especially since so many things from books to music are being self-published in the 21st century. While editor Wolbo has been harsh in his opinions on several books, and he is sometimes overly anti-self-published entities, he is trying to make this as good an encyclopedia as is possible. He has a valid point that if you are arguing that a certain minimal level of acceptance should be required for tennis books, that you owe it to those here at Wikipedia, whom you are trying to persuade, to let them know that you wrote books that would fit the new criteria. We want everything above board... nothing shadowy. Lay out a proposal, mention if you have some involvement, and convince. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• If we are talking about transparency, these are Wolbo's biased remarks I referred to. "No offence to anyone who has taken the effort to publish something but any idiot can self-publish (and it seems a lot of them have). Fyunck's view that "something is better than nothing" is simply wrong if it doesn't meet the requirements set out in WP:V, WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUB (which are not static but evolve with community consensus). It is a minimum standard that cannot be compromised. If we allow Mazak's "book" (and I use the term loosely) we might as well determine the rankings ourselves and that is aside from the question about the encyclopedic merit of judging in 2010 that Gore was the No. 1 ranked player in 1877."

I have already stated that editors should not cite their own work. I didnt mention my book or Karoly's specifically because it isnt about allowing them specifically. It is about allowing all books that meet minimum standards and I thought carefully about what those standards should be before listing them. I dont see it as a debate about encyclopedic standards either. McCauley is allowed as a source and we all know the huge error count in that book. If you want me to list the processes of how I wrote my book I will, but this isnt about my book specifically. I want this standard applied to all self-published tennis books, past present and future.

tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• No convincing reason to special-case this - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about tennis sources

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

---

Should self-published tennis sources be allowed as sources under wikipedia under the following rules?

Amazon published tennis books allowed as wikipedia sources under the following rules for minimum standards of entry (all standards listed must be met):

Publication has an Amazon Sales Rank in five different countries.

Publication reviewed or recommended by a tennis magazine or an established expert.

Publication accepted into the Kenneth Ritchie library at Wimbledon.

Author may not cite own work.

Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I believe that this rule should be adopted. Although my own book would qualify under such rules, this is not about my own book specifically. This is about establishing a policy whereby all self-published works can be accepted as sources under the same criteria. Currently the existing wikipedia policy seems to be being administered on wikipedia tennis pages by one editor and he is using his personal tastes to choose which sources are allowed. This can't be right. It should not be down to any individual editor to choose wikipedia sources. Rules should be established and applied fairly. The Amazon sales rank criteria could be dropped if editors object, though I do feel this is a good way of establishing level of sales. I would welcome the voices of as many editors as possible on this, including those who are not specifically tennis editors, because this is about setting minimum standards of entry and is an important principle. Similar rules (chosen individually for each sport) could be applied to many sports. Minimum standards (individually chosen rules for each subject) could be applied to non-sporting publications too. It is no longer acceptable to ignore all amazon-published works when more and more good books are published this way.

Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I agree with this proposal. An established policy is needed whereby all self-published works can be accepted as sources under the same criteria. More and more works are and will be self-published that can contain valuable information not to be found in books published under a conventional publishing house. Karoly Mazak (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose self-published sources about tennis, similar to other topics, should rely on WP:SPS. If you can establish that the author is an expert or the book is considered to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then it can be cited. Incidentally the question is unclear whether all of these conditions have to be met, or just some of them. (t · c) buidhe 15:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Currently this rule is being interpreted by one editor to allow some sources and disallow others. Those he allows have not been established as being reliable, they are purely down to his own prejudicial judgement. It shouldn't be down to the judgement of any single editor. Also, I think the rules on what qualifies as an expert under the existing rule needs clarifying, because at the moment the rule as written is letting people like the editor in question dictate things and that isn't right.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  That is a behavioral complaint, not a reason to modify the sourcing policies. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  It is a behavioral complaint, but I can't help thinking the rule as written is part of the reason behind this as well. I really wanted to avoid this becoming personal. The establishment of set rules was a way of avoiding this. If we discuss individual cases and the case is my book, then it could be claimed I was biased in making my case and the bias of the editor in question has already been shown against such publications, so the result is an almighty row. Not really the best way of dealing with the situation. I would prefer to leave the judgement of such matters to established experts, not the whims of individual editors. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:SPS is sufficient, no compelling reason to carve out an exception for tennis has been presented. Even if we did need to revisit guidelines for self published sources, these could not be the ones to use: relying on highly-gameable Amazon sales ranks or on the judgment of one particular librarian will not work. - MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Amazon sales rank could be removed if editors dislike this part of the proposal. The librarians at Wimbledon tennis library are not idiots. They work within the tennis industry.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Libraries often accept donations, that does not mean the library thinks it is a respected work.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose SPS covers it, and should not be weakened for a very good reason, and "But its tennis" is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - no reason to special-case this - David Gerard (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The book in question is self-published, and, afaict, not written by an acclaimed expert in tennis history, tennis, or history. Furthermore, when using Amazon's "Look Inside!" feature, I couldn't find a single footnote. Filer needs to do more to show that the source is authoritative. For example, by pointing to (many) glowing reviews in sports magazines. ImTheIP (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to make a special exception for tennis to the ordinary rules about self-published sources, and the criteria suggested in the RfC statement are arbitrary at best. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Although my own book would qualify under such rules ... what a joke. Most of the proposed conditions are irrelevant to quality or reliability of sources, the others are already well accounted for by WP:SPS. --JBL (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Your profile states you are a mathematician. This is about tennis sources. I am sorry you feel you would rather rely on the opinion of one prejudicial editor rather than the views of experts.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Luckily, as a mathematician, I am able to count, and thereby determine that the number of editors who oppose this bad proposal is much larger than 1. --JBL (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. Self-published sources lack editorial oversight, and there is nothing about tennis-related self-published sources (as a category) that makes them more reliable than self-published sources in other topic areas. I think this discussion is at the point where it can be closed under WP:SNOW. — Newslinger talk 22:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed about closing this discussion. This motion has not passed. I will try to resolve the issues I have on the tennis pages.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2021 (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.

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.

Daily Research Plot

What are the thoughts on the reliability of Daily Research Plot, specifically this? I'm trying to source YaYa Gosselin's birth name and the only sources I found on her birth name are this Republic World article, this TVOvermind article, this unverified FaceBook account from a film she was in and a bunch of wiki sources, none of those being reliable sources. Any thoughts? Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Zambia Daily Mail

What is the reliability of the Zambia Daily Mail? It’s used as a source several times on Draft:Tanonga Nswana. I had previously declined the draft due to incorrectly assuming it was affiliated with the UK Daily Mail. SK2242 (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Our article about the source seems to more or less call it a government mouthpiece, and states that as of 2005 it had a circulation of 10-15k (in a country of 17 million). Still, given the relative paucity of coverage in African sources, it may be usable for relatively uncontroversial topics like musicians' biographies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The Zambia Daily Mail should not be considered a reliable source on political affairs, considering that it is state-owned and controlled, and has a record of tugging the line of EC and the PF on any and every matter. It could perhaps be considered reliable on non-political content. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources at List of highest-grossing media franchises

Some examples: The Licensing Letter [6] (behind paywall) Chartbiz/taojinjubao.com [7] Are these considered reliable? Timur9008 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Licensing Letter and CharaBiz Data are two of the most widely cited sources for licensed merchandise sales in the North American and Japanese markets, respectively. Numerous reliable sources rely on these two sources for their data on the North American and Japanese licensed merchandise markets, respectively. Taojinjubao, on the other hand, was a random Chinese site (now a dead link) that leaked data from CharaBiz. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Maestro2016 and Chris Stuckmann? Timur9008 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As a reputable film critic, he looks like a reliable source to me.Still not sure what the problem is with using him as a source. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You've raised a good point about paywalls though. Both hide much of their data behind paywalls. Is there a way to reliably access data hidden behind paywalls without having to pay large amounts of money? Maestro2016 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to address the paywall issue. Timur9008 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PAYWALL we do not discount the reliability of these sites simply because they are paywalled. --Masem (t) 15:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've now made a resource request at WP:Resource requests#CharaBiz (Japanese language) sources for List of highest-grossing media franchises. Not sure if it will work, but it's worth a try. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Does this source look like a reliable source? It lists some of the 1999 data from CharaBiz. Maestro2016 (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Gript Media a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?

Gript Media is an opinion/commentary website with associated social media accounts, launched in 2019 by John McGuirk. It was founded and funded by anti-abortion campaigners (see here, also.

• It presents a particular world-view - some have described it as "rightist", including conservative sources.
• It is not a member of the Press Council of Ireland (which includes web-only publications).
• It has promoted those spreading COVID-19 disinformation.
• It publishes such... balanced... articles as "Black Crimes Matter" (we Irish are, apparently, all white, I learned from the first paragraph!) and "How Irish people are conditioned to hate their own culture".
• It does not list an office, and address, or any method of contact that I can find (bar commenting on its website or @'ing it's social media?)
• It has an 'About' page, which pretty much states it will not be neutral.

Am I right in thinking this can be deemed to not be a reliable source for Irish and international news and current affairs, where better/other sources exist? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Bastun, If it doesn't publish actual news only opinion pieces, then the entire site is only reliable for its own opinion and/or that of the writers. (t · c) buidhe 18:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that is has started to creep into edits on relevant pages (which have been reverted so far such as here), I think it is worth considering blacklisting as a source, to alleviate the work of editors watching these pages. Smirkybec (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, it markets itself as news, which is why I think it should be considered for blacklisting. Smirkybec (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Probably not. Its raison d'être seems to be to oppose the outcomes of the founder's losing referendum campaigns; it's unlikely to gain a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy campaigning against women's rights and against European solidarity. Certainly not reliable for facts. GPinkerton (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  Just throwing in my two cents: I think in lieu of other sources, Gript article so long as they are not opinion pieces should be included. Irish conservative media covers events that other publications don't. Gript article that feature factual reporting are probably more reliable than most Irish tabloids. Randolph-Bourne (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Headline Planet

headlineplanet.com  

There is a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Headline Planet that points to an earlier consensus that headlineplanet.com is not a reliable source for music or other entertainment "news". Because its use occurs in multiple articles, we were hoping to either have it black-listed or "deprecated" (although I hate that term, but for different reasons than I dislike the former term). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Dropping by to voice my support for this as per above-linked discussion about the source in question and the initial discourse some months ago of which I was a part. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Same, I support blacklisting/deprecation. Considering there is a lengthy list   of pages that use this source, it can’t be ignored, especially since some of the pages in that list are BLPs. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I’ve been vocal about how terrible this source is in every discussion we've had about it as of late. Not only is the whole site written by one man (Brian Cantor), but it’s also pretty much only used as a source to peddle fancruft into pop music articles. The "reporting" on it is about non-notable radio chart movement and single-vendor chart "records" that no reputable source would bother to cover. Please blacklist it, music articles will be much better without it.--NØ 21:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It does not seem as though there is overwhelming support, but there are no dissenting voices either. Can we move forward with making it so that it cannot be saves as a source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note to Walter Görlitz: per WP:DEPREC/WP:DEPS, deprecation can only be done through RfCs. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Then we should open an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Grit Daily

Is Grit Daily reliable? It was (until recently) being used for the following text on Signal (software) (see also Talk:Signal_(software)#RfC:_Mention_of_app's_use_by_far_right_-_include_or_disinclude?). Looks vaguely like a WP:NEWSORG to me; describes itself as "the top news source on Millennial and Gen Z brands — from fashion, tech, influencers, entrepreneurship, and life". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signal Foundation has not provided information about how or if it moderates messages being exchanged by the far right and QAnon conspiracists.

References

• I'm not familiar with Grit Daily, but looking through a few pages my first impression is that it's not a source we should rely on. It seems to lean towards sensationalism, and this looks like an advertisement masquerading as a news article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, the specific statement being cited strikes me as very strange and possibly also a red flag for Grit Daily's quality as a source. Signal is end-to-end encrypted – as I understand it, it's impossible for them to moderate the content of messages.[8] —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for Reporting on Technology The editorial staff are, themselves, considered reliable by sources we consider reliable: the managing editor was most recently a reporter with VentureBeat ([9] + [10]); a staff writer was most recently a reporter with KNSD-TV ([11] + [12]); a staff writer was most recently a reporter with AdWeek ([13] + [14]); etc. It has a gatekeeping process and a physical presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. "Signal is end-to-end encrypted – as I understand it, it's impossible for them to moderate the content of messages." There is nothing in that fact inconsistent with "Signal and Telegram have not said if or how they would moderate content relating to QAnon or other extremist groups". Regardless, however, the personal analysis of individual editors as to whether we agree or disagree with their articles is not a criteria for determination of a source's reliability consistent with our ethos. Reliability is not determined by gut instinct but by whether or not reliable sources consider it reliable. In this case, they do. Chetsford (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• The Signal Foundation, has, in fact, said they can not monitor or moderate messages, which is why this statement is so nonsensical. The mere existence of that statement shows that the writer does not understand the core purpose of an encrypted message system, which brings into question her reliability as a Wikipedia source.Dabluecaboose (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC

• They can monitor messages by ending E2E encryption. The fact that this would be a business decision not supported by the product's consumers does not make that impossible by the laws of physics. There is nothing inconsistent or incorrect with the outlet's assertion. Chetsford (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• The outlet asserts that they have not announced if or how they would monitor or moderate: This is false, they have announced that they do not plan to monitor or moderate. Dabluecaboose (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The one thing we know about it is that it made a very serious mistake. Despite Chetsford's claims to the contrary, Signal's E2E encryption does in fact make it impossible for them to moderate the content of messages. Furthermore, even narrowly this is false since the Signal Foundation has in fact offered this clarification before. In their privacy policy, on their website, they say quite clearly: Signal cannot decrypt or otherwise access the content of your messages or calls. Because of this basic mistake that could have been discovered by checking the organization's own public website, I'm strongly inclined to say that Grit Daily is unreliable. Loki (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No mistake. They can monitor messages by ending E2E encryption. The fact that this would be a business decision not supported by the product's consumers does not make that a "mistake". We don't evaluate a source's reliability because its reporting suggests an application preference we don't like. A newspaper could report that McDonald's could make Quarter Pounders healthier by switching to Gardenburgers. The fact you don't think that would taste as good doesn't mean the newspaper made a "mistake." Chetsford (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• "No mistake. They can monitor messages by ending E2E encryption." Yet the mistake still stands that they claim Signal has not announced whether or not they will moderate, while they have actually announced that they will not on several occasions, including on their own website. Dabluecaboose (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• "they have actually announced that they will not on several occasions, including on their own website" So, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is for determining if a source is generally reliable or generally unreliable. Since we don't conduct WP:OR on WP, we're not generally able to pass judgment on individual sentences, phrases, or words in a single story. Chetsford (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• One would think that reporting blatantly incorrect information is relevant to whether or not the source is reliable. Dabluecaboose (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• In general, I would want stronger evidence of reliability than the fact that some of their staff previously worked for publications that may be reliable. I'm not seeing any evidence of a gatekeeping process. I am seeing evidence that some reporters for Grit previously worked for other outlets. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• "I'm not seeing any evidence of a gatekeeping process." Really? That's strange. They have an editor and they have writers. There's the gate and there's the keeper. Chetsford (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Is it? Hiring reporters from other outlets isn't an editorial policy. It's a hiring policy. Their editorial policy says "[e]ach news story requires at least one (1) link to another reputable news source with respect to any research", suggesting that they don't even regard themselves as reliable. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, and they also say "Staff writers at Grit Daily conduct their own fact checking and adhere to our ethics policy", and that "We may do additional fact checking from time to time" (emphasis added). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• I hate to break it to you, but that's the case with almost all local media in the United States. Very few still employ editorial factcheckers (very few even still employ copyeditors). Pre-publication factchecking almost never occurs except on landmark stories. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well, maybe that (which may or may not be true; I have no idea) means we shouldn't rely on local media. Certainly doesn't mean we should rely on Grit. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"means we shouldn't rely on local media" If you want to deprecate all local media from WP you may need to bring that up at the Village Pump. There are a few million articles we'll need to update if that suggestion gets a consensus. Chetsford (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This thread is about Grit Daily, not every local media organization in the US. I happen to think an organization that specifically disclaims checking facts is not an organization we can consider generally reliable. Moreover, I have no sense of whether your blanket assertion that local media (a rather vague category, I might add) don't check facts is, in fact, true. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Gatekeeping simply means content does not go out unfiltered as with a blog, that a second key needs to be turned. The presence of two or more staff persons, one person identified as managing editor, and the specific clause in their editorial guidelines identifying pre-publication review ("it must be approved by an editor beforehand" [15]) demonstrates the presence of this standard. Chetsford (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  I am not inclined to rely on this site as a source for facts if it explicitly tells us it doesn't always fact check articles before publishing them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly your right. You may find that there are very few sources you will be able to rely upon, however, since routine pre-publication fact-checking is only customary in long-lead media. But, obviously, individual editors can choose to action or ignore whatever sources they like in their individual editing. Chetsford (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• The idea that having an editor makes a site reliable, absent any other indication of reliability, confuses me. I mean, the Weekly World News had editors. Heck, they could even have printed "fact checker" on their business cards, that wouldn't have made WWN a reliable source. The mere fact that a website isn't an anonymous textboard doesn't seem to demonstrate reliability; if they are routinely saying stuff that's total dreck, that would seem to be a more important indicator one way or the other. jp×g 21:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• "The idea that having an editor makes a site reliable, absent any other indication of reliability, confuses me. " Hmmm ... that's not an argument I made. Perhaps you mean to address this to someone else? Chetsford (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

RSP listing for Vice Media

Informal question: is it possible the listing of all Vice Media segments together at WP:RSP is too broad? The umbrella organization owns Vice (magazine), the Vice News imprints (Vice News, Vice News Tonight, and Vice (TV series)), and then multiple spinoffs or acquisitions such as Garage Magazine, Refinery29, i-D, and Motherboard (though the old url Motherboard.TV now redirects to https://www.vice.com/en/section/tech). Right now the entirety is listed at WP:RSP under "no consensus". IHateAccounts (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that the current RSP categorization of Vice Media is too broad. We have three listings for Fox News, a single organization, based on topic, and more for its subsidiaries. We have several separate listings for ABC subsidiaries. Surely we don't need to lump every cutout and spinoff of Vice into a single line on RSP. Loki (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we don't list Vox Media collectively, neither should we do for Vice Media. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar:, @Hemiauchenia: thank you both for replying. Would either of you have ideas on a good way to split them up? I feel like the Vice News imprints should be separate from the rest of the Vice Magazine parts at minimum. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly not that familiar with the Vice ecosystem, but I would say Vice the Magazine, Vice News, and anything with a completely distinct name should all be separate categories. Loki (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, but then what should it say? Which one did the previous discussions apply to? If it said "reliable" or "not reliable" or "depreciated" I could understand this concern, but it says "no consensus" - should it just say that the other categories haven't been discussed at all? We have three categories for Fox News because extensive discussions among it resulted in a lot of split decisions that revealed editors judged different versions differently - we haven't (yet) had a discussion about Vice that split the same way, so we don't really have anything to say if we split it beyond "no consensus" or "hasn't been discussed." I suppose technically "no consensus" is stronger than "hasn't been discussed" in that there's a general presumption of reliability for stuff that seems generally respectable-ish and hasn't been discussed, while "no consensus" is usually taken as a warning to try and avoid using a source, but I suspect that now that there has been discussion of Vice where the issue wasn't raised, we're going to need to have discussions for any parts we want to peel off and judge separately, or at least have a more formal-ish discussion specifically considering which parts to peel off and in which directions. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Vice Media (RSP entry) currently has a combined listing because there is no consensus on the organization as a whole, or on any of its subsidiary publications. If one of Vice's publications would be classified differently, it can be split into a separate listing, similar to BuzzFeed (RSP entry) and its subsidiary BuzzFeed News (RSP entry). If one of Vice's publications is a "no consensus" source, but has a substantially different entry description, it can also be split into a separate listing, just as Dotdash (RSP entry) is separate from its subsidiary Investopedia (RSP entry). All listings still need to meet the inclusion criteria after any splits, or splitting would not be possible.

On a related note, I find Motherboard (now part of Vice News, but originally located at motherboard.vice.com) to be a generally reliable source for technology topics. Motherboard has published excellent in-depth investigations on high-profile information security controversies, such as its 2020 exposé of Avast Antivirus's data mining (researched in collaboration with PCMag) and its ongoing reporting on Amazon Ring's police partnerships. I have no opinion on other parts of Vice Media at this time. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: In your opinion, would a larger RFC about this topic be warranted? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

​I don't think so, since there are too many publications under Vice Media, and some of them (including i-D, Refinery29, and Garage Magazine) are acquisitions that have distinct histories. An RfC would likely result in "no consensus", which is the same as the current classification. An RfC that examines all of Vice Media's properties separately would also be difficult to manage, since each of them specializes in a different area. — Newslinger talk 05:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Journal

Reliable source for news on Judaism and the jewish communities in LA and NY or not? Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, since this discussion is not set up as a formal request for comment. Please see WP:RFC for details. — Newslinger talk 07:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to The Jewish Journal (Boston North), The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, or another publication? — Newslinger talk 07:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, generally reliable-- The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is considered to be one of the most acclaimed Jewish publications in the country. It has won multiple awards from the American Jewish Press Association [16]. In addition, it is frequently cited by the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and academic institutions: [17], [18], [19], [20],[21], [22], [23]. Apply normal guidelines for opinion/commentary. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Latin Australian Times

I've noticed a large uptick in articles, Australian related, that use a newspaper called "The Latin Australian Times" as a reference. This is across multiple articles such as Maurice Novoa, Lucia Hou and others. The thing is I can find almost no references for this newspaper. They used to have a web presence in 2016 for a very short period (here's an archive version I found) but it was short lived. As far as I can tell it seems to be just one of those niche community newsletter type publications and not a full on proper newspaper. Note it is a Spanish language paper, but uses "The Latin Australian Times" as its name. The fact I can't find any real references to the paper, it seems to have never made an impact on the web in any way other that Wikipedia mentions and mirrors, and no other reliable sources seem to ever mention or use it, suggests to me that this is not a reliable source. I could be wrong, but I can't shake the feeling this is just a community newsletter type publication that just published anything in the community and not a newspaper and therefore not a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 13:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities

Because of the discussion on a RFD, I'd like to bring the question here as to whether the editions of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities stands as a reliable Tertiary Source for Fraternities/Sororities/Honor Societies including chapter lists. There is also an auxiliary question as to whether or not it is appropriate to create a Wikipedia article entirely based on the information in Baird's for a Fraternity which had enough chapters to be notable.Naraht (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• The very nature of GNG requires multiple, reliable, secondary sources. I am willing to grant that maybe the manual can stand as one of the reliable secondary sources, but it should never be the lone reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Is mothership.sg reliable?

Looking at their about us page, there's nothing too suspicious, though the site didn't stand out as clearly reliable to me either. While the site is referenced across Wikipedia many times, I've haven't found any discussion of it here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: "Jihad Watch", should it be deprecated as a source?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was quite an acrimonious RfC, with many editors criticising it on procedural grounds and extending that criticism to the proposer there being some criticism of the proposer. While the former is of course the prerogative of editors, the latter is unnecessary and counterproductive. This is an RfC, not a matter of life and death. However, of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable, with many condemning the source in (much) stronger language. As deprecation requires an RfC to be held, the previous discussion was inadequate to deprecate the source. Given that most participating editors either consider the source to be de facto deprecated or believe that it should be so, there is a consensus that it should be deprecated. (non-admin closure) Sdrqaz (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC) edited 17:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Should "Jihad Watch" as a source be deprecated?

Apparently this has never had a formal RFC to actually deprecate it, though the previous discussion in April 2020 [24] seemed to indicate a clear consensus that it should be deprecated. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why? Is someone trying to cite it as if it is reliable? (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw this edit by @LaundryPizza03: [25]. I looked back to the last discussion [26] and it seemed pretty firm towards deprecation, and yes, it still seems to be used for citations [27]. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:Also I note that your response in April 2020 was "It's not The Daily Stormer, but not reliable either. Deprecate because of problems with accuracy.". IHateAccounts (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Support There was near-unanimous support for deprecation in the last discussion, and as noted by MarioGom (talk · contribs) in that discussion, various RS have described Jihad Watch as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Also blacklist, per IHateAccounts' findings. There are 320 pages that link to Jihad Watch, including 38 articles that use it as a source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Really? This is getting silly. If we have to have a formal RfC for every obviously shit source out there, this will be a never-ending task. The RSP initiative is in danger of becoming an attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Really? I think Alexbrn is spot on. Why would we bother for a source that isn't being used. This again is a problem with the way deprecation has evolved from a tool for a very specific case into something that seems to come up every time someone sees something they don't like. I would suggest this is closed as unnecessary. Springee (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Please withdraw this. Under normal circumstances I'd just close this, but because you've put a formal RFC tag on it it needs to waste our time for 30 days unless you withdraw it. Deprecation is a tool for a few, very limited, situations in which there's a source which we deem unreliable but which has the appearances of a legitimate publication or website and consequently people try to cite it in good faith. If someone is seriously trying to cite something called "Jihad Watch" as a legitimate source, that's a competence issue not a matter for RS/N; we don't need a formal RFC for this any more than we need a formal RFC on whether Star Trek is a documentary. ‑ Iridescent 14:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  I believe it would do a disservice to Wikipedia if I were to withdraw this RFC. Per my reasons and those by LaundryPizza03 stated above, the reasons stated by Hemiauchenia below, and the fact that the site is used as a source on multiple WP:BLPs currently. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  If it's used as a source (on a BLP or otherwise) for anything that seems even slightly dodgy, you should remove it -- neither deprecation nor an RfC is necessary for that. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's already listed as unreliable at Perennial sources. There's no need to deprecate it. TFD (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate I think some commenters don't understand how prominent Jihad Watch used to be, it's not just some random conspiracy blog run by a nobody, but a prominent website, associated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which publishes the deprecated FrontPage Magazine. Jihad Watch has even drawn comment from one of Pakistan's prime ministers, and its author is described by the SPLC as "one of the most prolific anti-Muslim figures in the United States". The website is currently cited 38 times in article space per jihadwatch.org  . I that stripping out the non-aboutself references to this source is something that needs doing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have aborted this unnecessary RfC -- the number of possible unusable sources is infinite, they do not need to be run through RfCs one-by-one. Find something useful to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Newslinger: Given that the April 2020 discussion wasn't a formal RfC, can it be used to deprecate the Jihad Watch without going through another discussion, given how strong the concensus was? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  The world is not divided between "sources that are usable" and "sources that are deprecated"; there are categories such as "sources that are so clearly unsuitable for basic factual statements that to hold structured discussions about them is a pointless waste of time" and "sources that no one has ever seriously proposed to use to source anything" and "sources that are already listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP". Absent a clear need, the world is not made better by formally deprecating things in these categories -- running an RfC to confirm an existing and unchallenged consensus is a pointless waste of time. --JBL (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: I said exactly the same thing during the Zero Hedge deprecation RfC at which time Zero Hedge had around 20 Wikipedia citations which I felt was really more about making a point rather than a useful source deprecation. The real need is to strip out non-aboutself references to Jihad Watch, which I have done to several citations already. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

​By definition, deprecation does require a formal RfC (i.e. one using the {{rfc}} tag). — Newslinger talk 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate, if it isn't absolutely clear yet. I note the associated FrontpageMag is expressly deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  It is absolutely clear, and that's why I've removed the RfC tag, again. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, if this site is being repeatedly spammed across article and there is indisputable consensus that it is generally unreliable, shouldn't this just be referred to WT:BLIST? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, of course, this RfC is a waste of time, which is why I've removed the tag again. IHA, please notice how almost everyone is saying the same thing. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  @JBL Hi, IHA's adopter here. I have been silently watching this RFC in order to provide offwiki feedback. I was not planning on making any comment to avoid accusations of canvassing or tag teaming, etc. However, I feel the need to say, as an outside observer, that it is incredibly clear that people are not saying the same thing here. Some people are saying it shouldn't be depreciated, and other people are saying it should. Both sides agree it's a bad source, but I still see a good faith disagreement as to what to do about it.
  If you have an alternative means for IHA to get the result that they want (ie. depreciation, blacklisting, edit-filtering, or auto-reverting), then please feel free to suggest that. Until then, IHA seems to be following the only method laid out within Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to achieve their desired outcome. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  I concur that it's a reasonable RFC to raise here, and ask that the RFC tag not be removed again. We've seen before (e.g. Mail on Sunday) when an apparently-gratuitous RFC had to be run, just because some people insisted the obviously terrible source closely associated with an already deprecated source was great actually and kept putting it in. If we have to nail this one down, we might as well - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  So far, there is a clear consensus among the people who have participated in this RfC that it should never have been opened, and zero people arguing that Jihad Watch is an acceptable source (which is, of course, further evidence that an RfC is not needed). The situation of the Mail on Sunday is completely incomparable in all respects. If a couple of you want to jerk yourselves off to the accomplishment of officially deprecating a source that no competent editor would ever use or defend, I guess I can't stop you, but it's an utterly idiotic waste of the time of everyone. MJL, maybe you can explain to your mentee that they should not edit war and not waste community time and also learn what the hell a personal attack is. Please no one ping me back to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Withdraw this While Jihad Watch is in no way an acceptable source, we only deprecate sources that are cited enough by editors to be a problem. Compared to Newsmax or Occupy Democrats Jihad Watch is far less prominent. I would not be against blacklisting the source. funplussmart (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate It is currently being used in BLPs such as Hani Ramadan and we should deprecate. There's no need for it to drag this out any longer. Spudlace (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Spudlace, I went to Hani Ramadan, to check whether the jihadwatch link was actually being used to mislead readers about a BLP individual. I found JW had quoted what looked like a legitimate article from swissinfo.ch. While it is less than ideal to reference a mirror, it is not a BLP violation as you implied. JW's link to the swissinfo article was 404... But it took me about fifteen seconds to find that swissinfo had merely moved that article to [28].

The simple excision of the JW reference without looking for the original legitimate article it mirrored was disruptive, in my opinion. I realize someone else followed up to your hint here. But you could have performed the same check I did. So I encourage you too to be more careful.

In my opinion, the argument you advanced here falls short, and should be ignored by the closing admin. Geo Swan (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate per comments above and last discussion. User:JayBeeEll, instead of disruptively removing the RfC, how about getting it blacklisted if you don't think this RfC is necessary. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller:, I have nothing more to add here. --JBL (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Withdraw-- I fail to see who is actually trying to insert "Jihad Watch" into an article? It's currently listed in only about 30 articles, mostly for aboutself reasons. Unless there is widespread abuse, deprecation is clearly not needed since Jihad Watch is already listed as unreliable at WP:RSP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Withdraw per Alexbrn and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Doesn't allow for context and point to disputes about diffs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate blatant propaganda site. Should be removed from wherever it is used. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC Who really use it? --Shrike (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate -- not a usable source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate or blacklist. Major promoter of the Love Jihad conspiracy theory, as seen in https://www.jihadwatch.org/category/love-jihad. Frequently cited by other unreliable sources, including OpIndia (RSP entry), as a "Western" source for specious anti-Muslim claims. — Newslinger talk 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Point of order the article Love Jihad may describe this phenomenon as a "conspiracy theory". Unfortunately, anyone who as followed the relatively rare instances of female converts to Islam who become radicalized, their trials show that it was quite common to find they were targetted by what that article called "Jihad Romeos". See Jihad Jamie. I did a lot of work on the Brides of ISIL article, so I read about many of these women.

Newslinger, thanks for directing my attention to the Love Jihad article, as it may require a bias-ectomy.

Please, no one should the Love Jihad article's characterization of the phenomenon as a conspiracy theory as a reason to deprecate jihadwatch.com. Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. See below (emphasis added):

High-quality academic sources describing "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim

This chapter examines the conspiracy theory of "Love Jihad" across traditional and social media discourse in India as a way to show how affective strategies promoting Islamophobia are employed through logics of "digital governmentality" (Badouard et al., 2016). "Love Jihad" is a campaign started by right-wing Hindu nationalists in 2009 (Gökarıskel et al., 2019) alleging that Muslim men feign love to lure non-Muslim women to marry them in order to covert them to Islam (Rao, 2011). The exponents of this conspiracy assert that innocent Hindu women are converted to Islam in order to increase the Muslim population, thereby waging jihad or holy war against Hindus (Gupta, 2009). By evoking demographic fears and anxiety, this campaign demonizes Muslims and works to advance the patriarchal idea of saving Hindu girls from an imagined Muslim menace (Das, 2010). The case study of "Love Jihad' showcases how propaganda and emotionality have, through digital media, come into a now digital discursive configuration, one which has been ideologically named the "post truth era," dominated by online trolls and conspiracy theorists. Farokhi, Zeinab (3 September 2020). "Hindu Nationalism, News Channels, and "Post-Truth" Twitter: A Case Study of "Love Jihad"". In Boler, Megan; Davis, Elizabeth (eds.). Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-16917-1. Retrieved 19 September 2020 – via Google Books. The "love jihad" is a bizarre myth about a Muslim campaign to conquer Hindus by stealing their girls, one heart at a time. The story goes that a handsome young man appears in the community and woos away a Hindu girl with his seductive charms and promises of a better life. He has been schooled in a madrassah, but possesses the wherewithal for modern courtship, like a motorcycle and a mobile phone. Only after she has run off with him does he reveal himself as a Muslim, either forcing her to convert or selling her into slavery. Like all good propaganda, there is a molehill of fact somewhere within this mountain of fiction. Love often does blossom between young men and women whose matches are deemed unsuitable. Sheer probability dictates that most of these scandalous liaisons involve Hindu couples of different castes or classes; relatively few are interreligious. Some of the couples elope; some are forcibly, even fatally, separated—including through the infamous practice of "honor killings." George, Cherian (September 2016). Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and Its Threat to Democracy. MIT Press. pp. 83–109. ISBN 978-0-262-33607-9. Retrieved 19 September 2020 – via Google Books. Muslims form about 15% of India’s population and have suffered severe marginalization in education and employment, since the partition of Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan in 1947 (Alam, 2010). They have since faced recurrent riots (Varshney, 2003). Other hostilities include false accusations of love jihad (a conspiracy theory claiming Muslim men feign love with non-Muslim women to convert them to Islam) and attempts to convert Muslims to Hinduism by Hindu fundamentalist organizations (Gupta, 2009). After the rise of a right-wing Hindu nationalist party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014, hate crimes against Muslims and Dalits have spiked for allegedly consuming or transporting cows (considered holy in Hinduism) (Human Rights Watch, 2018). Nair, Rashmi; Vollhardt, Johanna Ray (October 2019). "Intersectional Consciousness in Collective Victim Beliefs: Perceived Intragroup Differences Among Disadvantaged Groups". Political Psychology. 40 (5). Wiley: 917–934. doi:10.1111/pops.12593. Retrieved 19 September 2020 – via ResearchGate. The fake claim by the Hindu right that there is a “Love Jihad” organisation which is forcing Hindu women to convert to Islam through false expressions of love is similar to a campaign in the 1920s in north India against alleged “abductions”. Whether 1920 or 2009, Hindu patriarchal notions appear deeply entrenched in such campaigns: images of passive victimised Hindu women at the hands of inscrutable Muslims abound, and any possibility of women exercising their legitimate right to love and their right to choice is ignored. Inter-religious love and marriages are a tricky terrain. They challenge various norms and customs and arouse passions of religious fundamentalists. The “threat” of such intimacies has often resulted in “constructed” campaigns, expressing the anxieties and fears of conservative forces. In India, the Hindu right particularly has been a master at creating panics around expressions of love, be it the Valentine Day, homosexual love or inter-caste and inter-religious romance, posing them as one of the biggest threats to cohesive community identities and boundaries. The latest in such constructs by the Hindu right is the alleged “Love Jihad” or “Romeo Jihad” organisation, supposed to have been launched by Muslim fundamentalists and youthful Muslim men to convert Hindu and Christian women to Islam through trickery and expressions of false love. Gupta, Charu (19 December 2009). "Hindu women, Muslim men: Love Jihad and conversions" (PDF). Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (51): 13–15 – via ResearchGate.

Additionally, you have not provided any reliable sources showing that Jamie Paulin Ramirez's marriage was an instance of "Love Jihad", which involves a Muslim feigning love with the intention of converting a non-Muslim. According to the sources in the Jamie Paulin Ramirez article (including Reuters), Ramirez had already converted to Islam prior to meeting and marrying Ali Damache. The Ramirez case is an instance of radicalization, not an instance of "Love Jihad". Jihad Watch has published 18 articles promoting the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory. As a persistent publisher of false or fabricated information, Jihad Watch should absolutely be deprecated. If Jihad Watch is so obviously unreliable that an RfC is not necessary, as some editors in this discussion state, then blacklisting is the most appropriate solution. — Newslinger talk 02:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bad RfC - The website is only being used on one article where it backs up its own claim, Other than that it's used no where so as such I see no real reason to formally deprecate something that isn't being used and as far as I can see has never been a hot topic of debate. –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• No deprecation, no blacklisting

In 2017 Jarble started Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_228#Jihad_Watch with an assertion that more than 60 articles cited jihad watch. [29]

Well, currently, it seems to be cited by just one article - Islamophobia in the United States. Is that citation appropriate? Neutrally written? I don't think there is any question it neutrally written, and appropriate.

Deprecating potential cites, blacklisting potential cites, should not be done for frivolous reasons. As someone else said above, if there isn't a history of problematic citations from this site then deprecating or blacklisting is completely inappropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010:, @Geo Swan: When I filed this initially, the list of pages it was used on was much, much longer. It appears a set of editors took this filing as impetus to try to remove many uses from pages, which is I guess fine on its own, but does not change the fact that the site was used extensively in the past (as noted by @Hemiauchenia:). Given that the previous discussion while not an RFC itself was nearly unanimous in favor of deprecation, I felt that having the RFC and nailing it down would be good for prevention of future problems involving the site, especially as it is owned by the same organization that publishes another already-deprecated source. I think it's entirely unfair for people to say "well it's not used now" when it was when the RFC was filed, and unfair for people to claim there's "no problem" when it took the RFC to get them off their asses to do a cleanup. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Intelligent contributors use RS intelligently.

First, even the most highly regarded RS occasionally publish bad articles. Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post have had rare occasions when they trusted and promoted brilliant new writers, who turned out to be plagiarists, who unethically copied other authors, and confabulators, who just made stuff up. Intelligent contributors who use the recommended caution and neutrality when citing sources can cite a bad source in a truly neutral way, so their citation of a brilliant but dishonest journalist is not an embarrassment, because they used the neutral voice.

Second, intelligent, reliable contributors will be just as able to recognize when a particular RS might be unreliable, they can be just as careful as you think you are.

You say you had a list of problematic usages of jihadwatch? Well, if editors have since fixed all those usages, so we now can't find a single one, then doesn't that prove formal deprecation or blacklisting aren't necessary? I suggest we reserve deprecation and blacklisting for rogue sites so tricky they routinely fool even experienced contributors, and they fool contributors so often they can't be controlled through normal quality control.

I have a concern that deprecation and blacklisting can turn out to be editorializing - an attempt at censorship.

Because you didn't list a single problematic article third parties, like me, can't actually confirm the site is being used in a problematic way. Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

At the time, I thought linking the list of citations was sufficient. Clearly I didn't account for people who would uncivilly assume bad faith later on. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comment indicates that Jihad Watch had been inappropriately inserted into articles at least 59 times, and that the use of Jihad Watch is inappropriate in nearly all cases. Domains are regularly added to the spam blacklist after being inappropriately linked in articles just a few times, so Jihad Watch exceeds the threshold for blacklisting by an order of magnitude. — Newslinger talk 08:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate. This is only cited in 11 articles at the present moment, but... Vive Charlie miscites it as a primary source that the author of the cited article works for Vive Charlie, Eurabia cites it as a primary source to showcase the views of its authors, it's cited in David Horowitz Freedom Center as a primary source to indicate that it's a blog run by Robert Spencer, Islamophobia in the United States cites it as a primary source to show that it is an islamophobic hate site... if it can only be cited as a primary source, and that mostly just to say it shouldn't be trusted as a reliable source, we should really deprecate it. It's abundantly obvious that it is among "highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances" per the beginning of WP:DEPRECATED. Why would we want to wait until a problem occurs with content cited to this obvious hate site? FalconK (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• It is ALREADY deprecated - JW is listed at WP:RSP as being “unreliable for facts”, this means it has already been effectively deprecated. Are we discussing some form of further deprecation? If so, I am not sure what that would be. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: please see WP:DEPREC, the source has not been deprecated as of yet. Deprecation is a necessary requirement to place an edit filter warning anyone who tried to use the source in the future. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Meh... It look to me like it WAS deprecated ... is this just about getting approval to add the tag that generates an automatic warning? Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

RSN Archive 293 says "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page." Hemiauchenia's "concensus" [sic] note which was added on December 12 is worthless, as is the deprecation page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate* Not only should JihadWatch be deprecated, but it should also be included in WT:BLIST. Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• I concur with 'It is ALREADY deprecated - JW is listed at WP:RSP as being "unreliable for facts"'; things like this do not need to be RfCed, just proposed for RSP addition (and or blacklisting if misused often enough that they need to be prevented).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Really? Is there any evidence that there's large-scale usage of JihadWatch on Wikipedia or that people frequently seek to add it to articles? Proposing every fringe source there is will clog the deprecation editfilter. At this point let's go ahead and deprecate The Onion Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Closure

I have placed a closure request for this RFC. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that this is now at 32 days.IHateAccounts (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

39 days. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2021 (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.

Extratime.ie

Hi, I wanted to know if Extratime.ie can be considered a RS? It came up in the GA Review for Denise O'Sullivan. Many articles regarding association football in Ireland reference their articles. Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

For soccer and Irish soccer players, yes. While not a soccer fan myself, it pops up in my newsfeed quite often and seems to have a good reputation. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree it is a RS (and I am a soccer fan). It is owned/run by a guy called Gareth Penrose who is a professional web developer and journalist who used to run Shelbourne FC's website. The news editor Dave Donnelly is another pro journalist. I know the site asks for volunteer writers, but that's not quite the same as being 'user generated' in my opinion. It seems the other contributors all have some sort of journalistic credentials and expertise in Irish soccer. Evidently they are accredited by the FAI and LOI, while the fact that would-be volunteers have to apply to Penrose in writing with a CV suggests to me that there is a degree of editorial oversight there.

For comparison one of the most widely-used soccer sources on Wikipedia remains the late Neil Brown's stats pages, which has a long list of acknowledgments and asks for volunteers to send info and corrections. Even RSSSF which has a very high reputation is made up of volunteers. I've even sent them some stuff myself, which just proves they'll take it from anybody! On here a worrying number of Scottish football stub bio articles are pegged solely on John Litster's stats compendium, which (I think) is a self-published Excel spreadsheet on a CD-Rom. That's not to disparage Neil, John or any other hobbyists but just to show that the WP:RS bar is set relatively low at WP:Footy. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

GlobalVoices.org

Does anyone have any experience with globalvoices.org? I am trying to figure out whether it is a reliable sources to write a few sentences about fake news in the War of Afghanistan [30] in relation with this AFP release and this NYT article. Given their editorial policies, does it qualify as WP:SPS?--JBchrch (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable I can't find any evidence that it's been cited or quoted by RS and it appears to be only one step up from user-generated content [31]. Chetsford (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Global Voices (about) is an advocacy group. There seems to be some degree of editorial oversight of submissions (no WP:UGC), but I'm not sure it would qualify as WP:RS. --MarioGom (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable. It's a well-respected, if unconventional journalism organization which began in Harvard's Berkman Center. It's all about citizen journalism, but it's not just a citizen journalism site where anyone can post whatever they want. They seek out writers in parts of the world where citizen journalists play an outsized role in the information ecosystem (due to infrastructure, government control of media, etc.) and translate and amplify their reporting. The writers may be volunteer citizen journalists, but GV has their own paid editorial staff. It's an important resource for us, too, because it's exactly the kind of service we need (finding the writings or writers, translating, evaluating, and republishing them) to write about regions of the world underrepresented on enwp. GV also publishes its own material about citizen journalism, including a project which it calls "advocacy" -- advocating for citizen journalists who face censorship or worse from oppressive governments. It is considered an authority on the subject. To be clear, I'm not saying all of the citizen journalism material should be used in every instance. It should be taken case by case like most other sources. But if we're looking at a determination of reliable/unreliable, I'd go with the former, and especially true for the organization's research and associated people's books (Ethan Zuckerman, Rebecca MacKinnon, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable. I agree with Rhododendrites. It has a good reputation and brings journalism on topics that might be neglected in the media of the global North. Obviously, it's not as strong as legacy media or scholarly content and each use needs to be assessed case by case, but it should not be dismissed wholesale. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

India Times

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.

---

Which option best describes the reliability of The Times of India?

• 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

Note: Covered by WP:TOI.

Firestar464 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply. I think there may be issues with bias in some areas. So case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• At the top of the page it says: Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source. Please do so before we proceed with this - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• There was an RFC on the TOI less than a year ago (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#Times_of_India_RFC). Unless any new evidence has appeared since then, this should be closed. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2021 (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.

The Independent

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.

---

Which option best describes the reliability of The Independent?

• 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

Firestar464 (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply The indy is one of the UK's top line papers, I need to see a reason why its not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: A bit lefty but one of the UK's most well known and reliable papers. What's the reasoning behind this straw poll? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• At the top of the page it says: Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source. Please do so before we proceed with this - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• This is already listed at RSP. Is there a reason to re-litigate? There's no point in engaging in this unless there is a specific editing dispute or query. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Before starting a new discussion on a source, the recommended practice is to search the archives (using the "Search the noticeboard archives" box near the top of the page) for previous discussions that can answer the same question. The perennial sources list has an entry for The Independent, which lists three significant past discussions. Is there a specific angle you would like this discussion to go that is not covered by the prior discussions? For example, is there a specific article in The Independent that you are asking about, or did you find evidence that The Independent is not a generally reliable source? — Newslinger talk 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• No reason given for a discussion. Unless some is provided, this should be closed. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Jlevi (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2021 (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.

Ofsted school inspection reports

This questions concerns Ofsted school inspection repoorts [32]. These government inspection reports are written for all state maintained schools in England and many/most non-state schools. It has been asserted at AfD that these reports are independent sources for establishing notability of government schools.

Recent AfDs this concerns are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putteridge High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etonbury Academy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrybergh Academy. I am posting a link to this thread in the AfD threads.

Question: Should Ofsted inspection reports be considered independent sources for establishing notability for schools?

Thanks,  // Timothy :: t | c | a   01:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well , they are independent reliable sources regarding the schools inspected in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  Atlantic306, How is a government report about a government school considered independent? the question is not about reliability for content, its about independence for establishing notability.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   02:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment If Ofsted reports are considered independent sources to establish notability, basically all government schools in England will be notable, and similar government reports in other countries will have a similar effect on establishing notability.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   02:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Ofsted is independent of the schools themselves and frequently critical of them which shows its independence as a source. This board is for determining the reliability of a source not for determining AFD results, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable but does not establish notability. To be truly independent and count for notability, the source needs not to be commissioned to produce the report, imo. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable primary sources (for their own findings), that do not establish notability. Would need secondary coverage for that. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment- All of this has been explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putteridge High School. If the confusion is based on the idea that the source needs not to be commissioned by the subject of the article, that is simple to counter. The school has as much control over the arrival of Ofsted as a bolt of lightening.ClemRutter (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Government reports about government schools are not IS.
• Government reports are primary, not secondary sources.
• Government reports that all government schools receive are not IS RS for demonstrating notability.

These reports are RS for facts and content, they are not IS RS to demonstrate notability. // Timothy :: t | c | a   12:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, of course they are independent reliable sources and also help to establish notability. Just because they are government does not mean they are primary or affiliated with the school. They are run by entirely different bodies. You'd want one or two other sources to be able to construct a meaningful article, but there's no doubt that the ofsted report counts.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable primary sources but do not establish notability for an aricle or noteworthiness within an article because there is one for every school. Saying an Ofsted report's exsistence establishes notability is like saying a TV listing establishes a show's notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• It seems to me that these are primary sources since they are based off of the personal observations of inspectors. As such, they don't move the needle when it comes to the GNG. They may or may not be independent, but that just gilds (or, more accurately, paints) the lily. It's also worth noting that a contrary position would make secondary schools de facto presumptively notable, which is contrary to that oft-cited 2017 RFC. And where would it stop? Would every restaurant be notable if a Board of Health inspection report could be produced? Surely not. Ofsted reports may be reliable for content, but they should not in my view contribute to notability. (I do agree with Atlantic306 that this is probably the wrong place for this since it isn't about reliability.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that this is probably not the place to discuss all this, but this has been rumbling on in various setting over Wikipedia for year, and the 2017 RFC imo was just one failed attempt to put it to bed.

It may be helpful to read this paper Twenty years of inspecting schools to understand the nature of the organisation and the types of reports it issues, it also discusses the governance of the entity we call a school in the UK. User:TimothyBlue often keeps referring to government schools- which have never existed outside British India. All schools are separate legal entities and since 1944 have received funding from the state through local government. Saying they are state-funded schools is also misleading, as capital funding is provided by local government, or a faith community, our article State-funded schools (England) does a good job of describing the structures In the 1944 model, the deeds of the land remained with the Church in VC schools and with local government (the county Council) in VA schools. More recently the schools have been divested further and are not on the local council terrier of property. For most of the period, Ofsted, the organisation contracted out to competing companies the inspection, but by 2012, the three companies doing the inspections were selected by geography. Ofsted inspections are done against published criteria School inspection handbook and deviations from this standard have landed Ofsted in court- (see Resignation of Chris Woodhead) and another case pending.Impington Village College).

• The primary secondary source discussion raises extra problems. Some section 8 inspections involve no observation they are paper inspections. Over time the nature of the inspection has also changed. Then we have the problem of whether the inspection is the work of Ofsted (the commissioner and publisher) or the inspection team of the company commissioned to do the observations. The primary/ secondary nature of the source is very blurred. As it says in WP:PSTS- this is complex and relies on context.

For example, Bramhall High School Section 5 Inspection 2017 Page 1- A judgement:primary, Summary- A report on the report:secondary. Page 2-A recommendation:primary Page 3-6 mainly primary but containing reports of surveys and statistics collected elsewhere thus secondary. Page 7 contains numbers and contact details:primary, and then a description of sociology of the school repeating data first published elsewhere:very much secondary. Page 8: has a description of the inspection, a report on the reporting:either secondary or primary.

I have read Ofsted reports as part of my duties as a governor. A Primary Source. I have read it as a parent it was a secondary source, I have received them as an appendix a member of the LEA for the budget debate- where they were secondary. As a wikipedia editor, I can use it fill the infobox in a primary role or to verify the existence of opinions of parents, politicians and professional in a secondary role. For Notability purposes it is more than adequate. A section 8 report sample section 8 is a monitoring report, it is one inspector reporting on the school:primary source; while giving opinion on (analysing) the previous section 5, thus a secondary source. Thank goodness for WP:AGF and the use of 'may' not 'must'. ClemRutter (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/2466317

• Nope They are reliable for inspector's views on schools, but they have to inspect every educational establishment that falls into certain parameters. Some schools, especially small schools of a religous nature or for specialist SEND children, will not be notable. Here's an inspection report on a school that has two pupils. Edit: Here's one with a single pupil! Black Kite (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• This question about notability is off-topic here at the reliable sources noticeboard. ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Apple Maps and Bing Maps

Should we prohibit the use of Apple Maps and Bing Maps as a source? Both contain a lot of errors and are very unreliable.

For Bing Maps see this photo. Compare it with Google Maps and Google Street View and you'll notice that Bing Maps has screwed it all up. This isn't a one off as there are many errors like this.

For Apple Maps, I can go trying to find errors in Sydney all day and I still won't be done. I will do a website soon with some of the errors on it. I'll upload the screenshots of it here

AussieCoinCollector (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Google Maps probably deserves a WP:RSP entry, given that it seems to have come up numerous times [33]. Ideally I don't think we should be citing mapping software at all, including Google Maps, per WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs) 03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Google Maps are somewhat reliable. Infact, other than OpenStreetMaps, it is the only one to not screw up this bit. As G maps say B59 (which is correct) but Apple and Bing say A40. Most of the time, google uses sources for verification while apple doesn't. AussieCoinCollector (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Google Maps (RSP entry) does have an entry on the list, and it's currently classified as a situational source. I would avoid citing user-generated content from these mapping platforms. Although Google Map Maker was shut down in 2017 due to moderation issues, it still accepts new user-generated data, and at least some of it appears to be user-moderated. Apple Maps accepts user-generated submissions through Apple Maps Connect, although I am not sure how these submissions are vetted. The equivalent for Bing Maps is Bing Places for Business. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I definitely don't think Google Maps is a reliable source by our standards. I often encounter errors on it – just last week it directed me to a supermarket that turned out not to exist. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of these mapping platforms are reliable under Wikipedia's standards. They are useful resources, but it is difficult to determine where the data is coming from, and which parts of the data are user-generated. — Newslinger talk 22:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Maps, like photos, are not sources that can be cited: the act of looking at a map and drawing some conclusion from it is an act of research and we should leave that to secondary sources. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

So why not ban all these sources. AussieCoinCollector (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to have a formal RFC for every unreliable source out there. Are they being used in any articles? If so, please link the articles here and we can deal with them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Maps are useful for many things; they are just not useful as reliable sources. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, For me, the only reliable map are these UBD street directories. Google Maps might be something I use a lot but I don't fully trust it and it isn't that reliable. However, nevertheless to say, better than Bing, Apple or OpenStreetMaps. AussieCoinCollector (talk) wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :) 06:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like kind of a stretch, to me, to say that maps aren't reliable sources in general. The major issue with Google/Bing/Apple is that they don't provide stable versions of anything. As far as I know, there is no way to reliably archive "what Google Maps put at such-and-such street corner in 2016", either on the map layer or on the image layer, so if for example a building gets demolished, or an error gets corrected (or introduced!) you are completely SOL. The issue of user-generated content is also present, i.e. I have put businesses on Google Maps which were subsequently moved or disestablished; there is also nothing that stops disgruntled schoolkids from listing "Principal Skinner's house" as a rodeo clown service and certified toilet paper depository.

That said, there are plenty of map publications that don't have these issues; a copy, for example, can be procured for any given year of a print atlas's publication. And plenty of articles can be referenced to United States Geological Survey publications. Even though they sometimes have a bit of dreck in them (GNIS is an example of a source that is generally trustworthy but is usually taken with a grain of salt; there are lots of GNIS-based articles that erroneously list former train stations etc. as populated areas, although we can still basically trust that something called "Jerkwater Junction" once existed at the coordinates in question). But it doesn't make sense to me to shitcan sources just for being maps, as long as the attribution is "this is what such-and-such map said" (for example, our article on the Toledo Strip cites them without issue, as well as plenty of secondary sources that are obviously also based on maps). If we were going to arbitrarily decide that maps (current and historical) weren't permissable as sources, I think there would be some pretty wide-ranging consequences (and lots of articles currently seen as well-referenced would have to be either rewritten or nuked). jp×g 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources that contain textual information derived from maps are potentially reliable sources, just as secondary sources that contain textual information derived from photographs are potentially reliable sources. But a map (or a photo) is not. The reference you mention at Toledo Strip is obviously inappropriate, in several ways -- it obviously does not include the information in the sentence to which it is attached, someone has performed an act of research to convert the visual information in the map into a sentence about it, in violation of WP:OR. --JBL (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A 1773 map of India¹ labels Sri Lanka as "Ceylon I."

Okay, I think it might be helpful for me to come up with an example, and see if you and I agree on it. Here is a hypothetical example of a map being used as a source (let's say that we want to talk about the time period when Sri Lanka was referred to as "Ceylon", and this map from 1773 is our source for it being known under that name in the 18th century), embedded to the right -- assuming arguendo that the British Museum is a WP:RS (i.e. we have textual content from their description page confirming that the map was made in 1773 and depicts India etc), do you think the text in the image caption (i.e. the claim that it labels Sri Lanka as "Ceylon I.") would be valid content or WP:OR? jp×g 21:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, anyway, the only article I see with Google maps being used is List of road routes in Western Australia to measure out distances. Anyway, I'm only a minor contributor to it so idk who put them in there. AussieCoinCollector (talk) wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :) 00:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: That map would be a wonderful illustration; the accompanying British Museum text presumably would be a RS for the information it contains; but if the British Museum text does not make the observation that Sri Lanka is labeled "Ceylon" and that that was common at the time, I personally do not think that the combination map + BM text would represent appropriate sourcing for that claim. -JBL (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: Hmm. Well, since we can both agree that this is a clear example of something which [should / should not] be excluded from consideration as a source, I think that makes it as good a place as any to articulate what we don't agree on. I'll start: I think that typing out what a map says in an article (and then citing the map) is virtually the same thing as typing out what a book says in an article (and then citing the book). Sure, you have to be careful that you are being faithful to the source material (and someone can always argue that you misread it), but I don't see how a map is any less reliable for that than a book or a newspaper. Poking around to find policies/guidelines specifically about maps, I wasn't able to come up with anything; there is WP:MAPCITE, which seems (to me) to generally say things which are smart and correct. Thoughts? jp×g 01:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Virtus Scientific Journal - Ukraine

I came across this journal when checking a reference for Shabo language, which was followed in the text of the article by a warning that the author of the source linked is not a professional linguist. The source makes a very bold claim, that Shabo is linked to Austronesian languages and Sumerian., and is, to my reasonably trained eye, a load of old tosh that doesn't follow the standard practices of modern (or ancient) linguistics. The author is not a professional linguist, but is an academic.

This led me to look at the journal in detail, it seems to have a reasonable editorial board, it's free which might be ok, it charges contributors, which is not unknown in RS journals (unfortunately), but there is no mention of peer review or extensive editing on the site's requirements for publication.

Should this journal be classified as vanity/self-publishing and deprecated, or should it be considered as possibly RS for some subjects?

The help of Ukrainian and Russian speaking users would be particularly useful here. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a grand claim! No mention of peer-review does not not bode well for a reputation for fact checking ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's so exceptional that I was really taken aback. I kind of hoped there was something in it! Boynamedsue (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It advertises the bunk sjifactor.com and sindexs.org metrics, doesn't mention peer-review... It's not a good look. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I will delete the dubious claim from the article, as if this is not RS (and I feel it probably isn't) I don't think the fact this theory exists is notable. I'll note up the talk page. If there is reversion I will direct the reverter here, it may be they know more than us. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Mark C. Yerger

A look at this search indicates that many articles about the SS cite this hagiographer, specifically this volume. Do we need to get rid of those citations? Courtesy ping Sandstein, who created this article and noted at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark C. Yerger that this could be a problem. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on Yerger's article, which I translated from de:, I'd prefer to also get rid of content sourced only to Yerger, and the citations are the only way to track such content. Therefore I recommend against removing the citations without also removing the corresponding content. Sandstein 15:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

For a start, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS-Oberabschnitt Süd. Sandstein 18:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Tibetan Political Review

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

---

This discussion is an offshoot of Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism, where Normchou, Esiymbro, and I agreed that the Tibetan Political Review does not appear to be a reliable source. This is disputed by Pasdecomplot on the basis that it has not appeared at RSN yet.

Tibetan Political Review is self-hosted on Google Sites, has no affiliation with any academic publisher, is not listed in major journal indices, has no evidence of academic peer-review, and does not appear to be reviewed or discussed by established RSes (that we could find). It only existed for 7 years and often reads more like a blog than a research journal (e.g. the first article).

As such, it does not qualify under academic and peer-reviewed publications (WP:SOURCE) or reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and likely falls under has not been vetted by the scholarly community. This is much closer to:

journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Perhaps someone else could shed further light on the usability of Tibetan Political Review though, or draw a broader consensus on its reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC); strike-out editor who didn't comment directly on TPR 02:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Appears to be a collection of opinion pieces? Run by a poet and a couple of lawyers, so definitely not a scholarly journal. They accept unsolicited submissions. Doesn't appear to even have been discussed before. I don't think this can be used for anything other than what they themselves are saying, and since neither the Tibetan Political Review nor the writers appear to be notable, I'm not sure why we'd ever even be quoting/attributing them. At any rate, not an RS for anything other than their own opinions, attributed. —valereee (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• To clarify the dispute, both the independent scholar Warren W Smith and Tibetan Political Review are being challenged at Nyingchi. I propose that the focus of this RSN be broadened to include Smith as an author, as well.
• Tibetan Political Review was founded in June 2010, and its editorial board is comprised of academics and jurists in the U.S and India. These include Nima R.T. Binara, Wangchuk D. Shakabpa, Bhuchung D. Sonam, and Tenzin Wangyal. Their web site was [34] as listed on the Tibetan Political Review page at fr.wikipedia [35], but is presently [36]. Their Wikipedia page doesn't list the editorial board's other professional interests, even if they are published poets.
• It's cited by Courrier International[37] which is published by Le Monde; included in University of Minnesota's Human Rights Library[38] for reliable accounts of conditions in Tibet; listed in Oxford University's Press Oxford Handbooks' Scholarly Research Reviews [39]; cited by Harvard Kennedy School Asian American Policy Review [40] and by Harvard Law School [41]; cited by Tibetan Review[42], and by World Tibet News/Canada Tibet News Network[43] as well as by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for reliable accounts of conditions in Tibet[44]. The list could continue, but might be seen as "bludgeoning" the issue that Tibetan Political Review is effectively peer reviewed, is cited, and definitely found very reliable by both academic institutions and a governmental agency vetting reports from Tibet, MarkH21 and Esiymbro and Normchou.
• Warren W Smith has a scholarly piece in Tibetan Political Review, and it's what led to this RSN; a very knowledgeable and respectable piece covering modern history in the region [45]. Any editor with the same knowledge base would agree, regardless of its "hosted" url. That's why it was provided as RS. Amazon's bio says,Warren W. Smith Jr., an independent scholar in Alexandria, Virginia, received his Ph.D in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.[46] Smith's specialty is "Tibetan nationalism, Sino-Tibetan relations and the issue of Tibetan self-determination". Smith also has a page at fr.wiki[47], where it's noted that a critic Barry Sautman is himself criticized in his own page's lead for espousing PRC views[48], as in Ses positions sur le Tibet sont jugées comme étant proches de celles de la République populaire de Chine.
• At Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism it's clear Smith's scholarly views of China's Tourism policies in Tibet as presented in Tibetan Political Review are an issue. And, Tibetan Political Review has also become an issue, although the author and RS's stability dates from 30october, when it was discovered while digging for RS on the Middle Way Approach. My dispute is not about a lack of RSN on these topics, but the effective silencing of a scholar's criticism of policies due to random issues, such as the URL and such as ignoring the academics on the editorial board and the academic institutions which find Tibetan Political Review reliable - including Harvard University, Oxford University, and the University of Minnesota. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • None of these sources seem to establish peer review, and only the Canadian Immigration Board calls it a journal. As valeree points out, the editors are distinctly lacking in qualifications in the relevant fields (between the four list on the about page only 1 has a relevant degree - a BA in Political Science). Warren W Smith may be an SME, but I personally would not call anyone a SME unless they had an English Wikipedia page. While I generally overlook this, in this case the claim is deeply controversial and the post provides no supporting evidence. The fact that it reads like a polemic, not an academic paper (tourism is aimed at turning Tibet into something like a theme park where Chinese can go to indulge their fantasies about primitive Tibetan society doesn't sound like something I'd see in a serious journal) does not help me. ~ El D. (talk to me) 01:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  Literally only one of the links of citations (the Oxford Handbooks' Scholarly Research Reviews link) is a published academic review, and even then it isn't reviewing the TPR article itself. The rest is a mix of student publications, a mention that an alum is on the editorial board in an alumni spotlight, raw links on a library page, non-academic Tibetan diaspora journalism, and a Canadian immigration board's response to an information request. If that is all that can be found for the 837 articles published by the TPR then it definitely does not qualify as being vetted by the scholarly community.

  The other editors here also bring up a valid point about the editorial board being self-described as poets, writers, and lawyers without academic affiliations. That's not the kind of editorial board that you find with scholarly journals. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  The points Smith makes about Chinese tourism policies in Tibet are widely shared, by residents throughout Lhasa and visitors to its spiritual sites, at monasteries, and are found as related to the demolitions and forced displacement of nuns and monks at Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar. Other sources go further to state tourism policies in Tibet are used as a form of ongoing cultural genocide. Smith's informed and pithy statements are supported by Tsering Woeser and many others, as I've learned while editing. It's rather shocking, certainly, but the information is a proven reliable account of current conditions in Tibet, by an academic specialist. Thus, it is something you'd find in an academic journal, and it appears long overdue in being cited widely.

  Smith has a page in French Wikipedia, and is cited in several French media outlets - additional diffs can be provided. El D's opinion about English wiki pages for authors is an opinion not supported by RS. Additionally, El D also happens to find Chinese state-run Xinhua accurate in a current RSN [49] yet has issues with Tibetan Political Review? Xinhua's reporting in 2008 alone revealed it as a complete disinformation outlet.

  Another editor opines views, picked up by MarkH21, but those views aren't supported by diffs. My source says the board has academics. Is there a list of board members and their professional affiliations for each academic RS, or even for each RS that can be used for comparison? Probably not.

  The highly prestigious and academically stringent Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Law School citings, characterized as "student publications", indicate that current scholars and future leaders have confidence in the reliability of Tibetan Political Review. Their confidence signifies an academic standard within the student body and professorial body that Tibetan Political Review meets.

  All of which makes the continued dispute on the author and on the journal seem somewhat out of balance with RS standards. I might point out that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia, in contradiction to those editor's previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313. What the replacement indicates is RFA is considered more reliable than Tibetan Political Review. (Wording changed per request by Girth Summit)Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  What other sources say about other issues in Tibet are irrelevant. If they back up the claims of the TPR, then use them in the article instead. If they simply claim that Tibetans are undergoing political genocide, then they are irrelevant to the claim that Nyingchi is a "fake village". My statement against it being the sort of thing that would be found in an academic journal was an issue with the wording, not the meaning.

  I doubt that student publications can be considered part of the scholarly community. Here is the editorial board of the IJCP (being used above as a source against Xinhua). This is what an editorial board of a scholarly journal should look like. (on the subject of Xinhua, I do not believe my views on Xinhua are relevant. If you would like to dispute them, take them up on the relevant RSN.)

  My request for an English language Wikipedia page is my personal interpretation of WP:SPS. I am happy to give a lot of leeway on it for non-controversial claims, but this one is clearly quite controversial. If the TPR is reliable, then it is clearly not needed. But if it isn't then I would like, on controversial issues like this, the involved source to have a Wikipedia page demonstrating their notability. ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  IJCP is a completely different source. We're not saying all academic journals need boards comparable to IJCP. The issue is reliability, as evidenced by academic usage, review, and academic credentials of those involved.

  The "personal interpretation" for pages is noted, but is not RS policy from my understanding.

  []Harvard Law#Rankings|Harvard Law]] and Harvard Kennedy School are considered part of the US, and the world's, scholarly community.Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  The rankings and reputations of the schools at Harvard are not relevant here. A Harvard Law School alumni bulletin that says that someone is on the editorial board of the Tibetan Political Review and a Harvard Kennedy School student publication that cites the Tibetan Political Review once do not tie the reliability of the Tibetan Political Review to the reputation of Harvard as a whole. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Pasdecomplot: Your assertion that people in Tibet share Smith's views does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that he is a subject-matter expert or a reliable source. If his view is repeated by reliable sources, then use those reliable sources. Whether someone has an article on some version of Wikipedia doesn't demonstrate that they are a subject-matter expert.

  The article you describe as from the Harvard Kennedy School describes itself as A Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication. Student publications are not established RSes regardless of the home institution, just as masters theses and doctoral theses-in-progress are not considered RSes per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The article that you describe as a citation from the Harvard Law School is literally an Alumni Focus bulletin that only mentions the Tibetan Political Review once: says Tenzin Wangyal, a Boston lawyer and member of the editorial board of the Tibetan Political Review. That is anything but a citation of the Tibetan Political Review and says literally nothing about its reliability.

  The Tibetan Political Review Editorial Team page describes them exactly as Valereee did, e.g. a poet, writer and translator living in New York City, a writer living in Dharamsala, India, He is admitted to practice law in New York and Massachusetts. The fact that they graduated with bachelor's degrees and law degrees from universities does not mean that they are academics.

  You're going off-topic by pointing at another editor's views on other sources and suggesting hypocrisy. You're also going off-topic about Radio Free Asia and also make vague references to editors; I did not suggest replacing the text at Nyingchi that was cited to Tibetan Political Review with a citation to Radio Free Asia, nor did anyone else here to my knowledge. I only removed the text referenced to Tibetan Political Review because it's not a reliable source, and so far five other editors have agreed with that view except you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no suggestion of hypocracy. The point on RFA is germaine as a comparison, given the current edits at Nyingchi [50] where the text via RFA (as edited by Normchou) remains after several reverts, including a revert earlier today by MarkH21. The point is this RSN demonstrates Tibetan Political Review is included as a reliable source of current accounts in Tibet as versus RFA, which is not seen as a reliable source for the same accounts, and is described as a source that should only be used as an inline source per the RSN. If it wasn't used to replace Tibetan Political Review, I agree it would be off-topic. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There were two paragraphs; one referenced to the Tibetan Political Review and one referenced to RFA. In this edit, I deleted the paragraph referenced to the Tibetan Political Review and did not replace anything with RFA. There also isn't a single participant in this RSN discussion who said that RFA was unreliable in the archived RSN thread that you refer to. You're misrepresenting the comments of other editors with something that is totally off-topic. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a text quote about RFA from RSN archive 313 I suggest this section be closed henceforth. Radio Free Asia, which actually purports to be a news agency, can be the subject of the first separate discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a blocked editor who has not commented at this RSN thread and cannot comment at this RSN thread. That's also not an example of your full claim that editors here also support the previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia. Are you still standing behind it or can you just drop the false claim? — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• The other RSN thread is completely immaterial here; none of those sources were deemed reliable. The most common comments I can find in that thread was that the sources needed to be examined individually rather than as a group, and that the thread was trying to argue about too many sources at once. I'm not sure anyone but PDC even commented on Radio Free Asia there. —valereee (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To make sure inaccuracies are corrected for the future archive: Here's the text from the closing at Archive 313, Sources should be discussed individually. I may be one of the users who was "canvassed" to this discussion. In any case, I watch this page and would have noticed. I think sources should be taken one by one. WP:USEBYOTHERS may be relevant to some of these. Between the (possibly innocent) canvassing and the joining of eight sources in this discussion, I'd suggest starting over with one or two of the sources in separate discussions. Adoring nanny. So, for the record, the statement above none of those sources were deemed reliable is actually not accurate as per closing, but the discussion does supply other general use guidelines. Another innaccuracy I'm not sure anyone but PDC even commented on Radio Free Asia there was already clarified above, where the only comment on RFA by CarasdhrasAiguo has been provided here, and note the coment was not addressed by the other editors. I only requested the RSN on RFA and other sources, after repeated reverts of those sources by CaradhrasAiguo. Although that editor is not participating in this RSN, their non-summarized revert at Nyingchi of Tibetan Political Review [51]began a series of reverts which then led to this RSN. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

But, to return to the topic and comments: The Harvard Kennedy School AAPR journal cites Smith twice, and Tibetan Political Review once - the same Smith article on the Middle Way Policy previously edited into Nyingchi. The Harvard Law Bulletin quotes Tenzen Wangyal, a Boston lawyer and board member of Tibetan Political Review, in its article on Lobsang Sangay of Central Tibetan Administration and a Harvard Law alumnus. The IRB's citing of Tibetan Political Review in its background on an immigration case signifies their position on its reliability, as indicated by their absence of disagreement to the information. The Oxford Handbooks Online scholarly research reviews and peer reviewed abstract entitledTibetan Buddhist Self-Immolation by Kevin Carrico cites at least four different articles from Tibetan Political Review in its references, which are cited alongside Robert Barnett, Janet Gyatso, Tsering Woeser, Jamyang Norbu, Elliott Sperling and others. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, if you're referring to my comment as "inaccuracies" that you're correcting for future archives (it would be so much easier if you stopped playing this little game of yours and just addressed me directly, but whatever): The text you are quoting is not the closing statement in that discussion. That text is a comment from a single editor, Adoring nanny. It just happened to be the final comment made in that discussion. That does not make it the closing statement. That discussion never received a formal closing. The statement I made is correct: in that thread, which was never formally closed, none of the sources addressed were declared reliable. None were declared to be not-reliable, either. None were declared anything. —valereee (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Berlin's Humboldt University's South Asia Chronicle includes an abstract by M.N.Rajesh, which cites Tibetan Political Review and Smith[52], and Reed University's Anthropology of Global Tibet appears to include Tibetan Political Review on its reading list (included on searches). Author, editor and translator Tenzin Dickie is published by Washington Post Online, edits at Treasury of Lives, and edits at Tibetan Political Review [53]. Woeser as a RS cites Smith [54]. And, here's a Courrier International's reprint of Tibetan Political Review [55]. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, Again, none of these makes Tibetan Political Review a reliable source for anything but their own opinions. They may very well be informed opinions. Academics may very well put them on reading lists and even cite them. None of that creates editorial oversight. And, yes, academic journals and other reliable sources DO provide a list of their editorial hierarchy, that's one of the things we check for when we are assessing a source for reliability: some sort of masthead. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee is correct. For TPR's 837 articles, our searches has turned up two citations of TPR articles from any peer-reviewed scholarly publications. That is paltry and worse than several known predatory journals, let alone reputable peer-reviewed sources that have been vetted by the scholarly community (WP:SCHOLARSHIP again). The remaining evidence does not demonstrate much in terms of reliability:

• A Canadian immigration board (IRB) information request citation
• A student publication (AAPR) citation
• A alumni bulletin mentioning that a Harvard alum was on the TPR editorial board
• TPR appearing on reading lists
• Verification that one of the writers on the TPR editorial board (Tenzin Dickyi) is indeed a writer
• The author of a TPR article being cited in a blog post by another writer (Tsering Woeser)
• Being reprinted in a newspaper

It appears that there is no stronger evidence for reliability, and even a couple more additional genuine citations from peer-reviewed academic publications would be too few to really bring this to general RS status. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

{Replying to MarkH21's refractor}

• As WP:SOURCE states, If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..., but doesn't say they are the only reliable sources. We've established that the board provides professional oversite, and we've established that academic authors in peer reviewed journals cite Tibetan Political Review as in WP:USEBYOTHERS.
• Warren Smith, the author of the article in Tibetan Political Review, is also established as a respected and notable specialist in his field. This adds further reliability to the article that's specifically contested with edits at Nyingchi [56]. He and Tibetan Political Review are properly cited inline, and the quotation's accuracy is reinforced by an excerpt added to the citation:

Historian Warren W. Smith states in his 2015 review of the model villages, included in his "Origins of the Middle Way Policy" for Tibetan Political Review, that tourism is turning Tibet into a theme park, and used Nyingchi's "fake Tibetan 'model villages'" as an example of Chinese "fantasies about primitive Tibetan society".

• To address another aspect of the importance of the author and source, related edits on Nyingchi were also reedited, but based on other RS. Possible related informational aspects with Smith's article is that those RS and sources state Tibetan nuns forced into political re-education centers/camps in Nyingchi have been documented as forced to sing and dance on a stage in Nyingchi. Which might or might not tie into "where Chinese can go to indulge their fantasies" since Nyingchi is a popular tourist destination, only more RS will tell.
• For the record, the published author Woeser is cited by BBC and other first rate news agencies, and her blog is a famous record of Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet, and cited by those agencies.
• Sorry for the repetition, but the IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board) citation is extremely notable as to the reliability of factual information in Tibetan Political Review regarding current conditions in Tibet.
• I've provided at least six individual citations of different articles from academic settings, and there are more for Smith alone, for Smith and Tibetan Political Review together, and for the journal with its other authors. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) MarkH21, I think items reprinted in RS would probably be usable as items from that reliable source (rather than from TPR), but the one PDC has linked to is published by Courrier International as an opinion piece, so again only a reliable source for Tenzin Dorjee's/TPR's opinion, with attribution. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Editor MarkH21 has stated that the edit above describing editorial "support" for RFA is "a false claim". While Esyimbro and Normchou both used RFA as an editing source, MarkH21 did not, but the edit history includes 5 reedits around the RFA source as Tibetan Political Review was being challenged as a source [57]. The interpretation of "support" stemed from WP:SILENCE in this instance where numerous edits and reverts around RFA were being made, but no deletions of RFA occurred. I don't believe a "false claim" was made, although MarkH21 has clearly restated they don't feel SILENCE is applicable. Thus, this note respectfully clarifies MarkH21's position on RFA. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally not reliable. This is just WP:SPS op-ed material, not from a reputable publisher, and not from reknowed writers. I.e., it is low-quality WP:PRIMARY material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The seriously off-topic edits below should be refractored to the user's talk page. A request has already been made. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

requests re reformatting

Pasdecomplot please stop reformatting my replies. You changed the indent so that it looked like I was replying to a different post than I intended. I have changed it back. I have asked you not to do this many times before, and if you do it again I am going to have to ask someone else to please ask you to stop. Stop now. Do not reformat any of my posts ever again. Please respond. —valereee (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot I've struck the section of my earlier post that I think you must have been referring to, and I apologize, I do see how that could feel like a personal attack. Now please respond to this one and assure me you understand that I am asking you to never reformat one of my posts again, even in an attempt to be helpful. —valereee (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) PDC, it's not off topic. You were reformatting my replies in this discussion. That makes my request you stop reasonable to include here. If having it visible is going to bother you that much, though, I'll collapse it. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting close

• So, it's clear we don't have consensus for TPR to be considered a reliable source (other than for its own opinions, attributed, of course; it's perfectly reliable for that.) But I think we'd need a formal close to declare it not-reliable for anything other than its own opinions, attributed, as that's not as immediately clear. Should we request a formal close? —valereee (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Update —valereee (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Four editors have participated here, with three calling it not reliable (outside of WP:ABOUTSELF) and one calling it reliable. Another editors (plus a now-blocked editor) also called it not reliable at the original Talk:Nyingchi discussion. The consensus seems pretty clear, but a formal close doesn't hurt. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

    I've requested one. —valereee (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Still hoping for eventual formal closure. —valereee (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Requests for closure has a bit of a backlog... —valereee (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Still hoping —valereee (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Valereee: Your patience has been rewarded –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:53, 24 January 2021 (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.

Nature editorials as guides for articulating existing consensus

When there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors that a scientific consensus exists on a certain topic, should we consider Nature editorials reliable sources to guide the language we use to articulate this consensus in our articles? Or are Nature editorials somehow unreliable for this purpose? I would have thought this straightforward, given that e.g. WP:RSP states that "the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like Nature and The Lancet, are entirely missing from this list, most likely because they are so clearly reliable that there was no need to discuss them at all", but I have encountered some rather strenuous resistance at Talk:Race and intelligence.

In this case the statement in the article is "Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups", part of the lead paragraph of Race and intelligence. Similar language is presented in the body and in other related articles following an RfC last year which concluded that "There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory". [58]

Two of the sources I've used to explain this consensus to skeptical editors are [59] and [60]. The first is a recent editorial in Nature stating that "the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races". This editorial is un-bylined and Nature describes such un-bylined editorials as their "collective voice". [61] The second is a bylined piece by two recognized experts in the field which states that "There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences." This editorial is one of the main sources used to guide the language in our lead statement quoted above. Note that these are far from the only sources used to back up the current language on the scientific consensus, but they have the virtue of being very clearly stated. Which is why I thought that it would be uncontroversial to use them to articulate that consensus to other editors and to our readers.

I won't give you the blow-by-blow of the current dispute, but you can take a look at the relevant thread here: [62] (the relevant bit comes about halfway through the thread, when a different editor comes in and takes the discussion in another direction). This previous thread is also referenced: [63]

Note too that issues related to race and intelligence are subject to discretionary sanctions because of a long history of contentious behavior and WP:SEALIONing. For anyone who's unaware (and interested), here's an off-Wiki article that discusses some of the issues that have plagued the topic area: [64]

Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No single source should be considered adequate to establish so strong a claim that there is a consensus in a discipline about something: that is something that would need several sources. But Nature editorials are certainly the kind of source I would be looking for in putting together the case that there is such a consensus. They are not technically peer reviewed, but the editorial controls compare favourably to those of newspapers we consider solid RSes. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Without looking at the specifics ... Editorials are not WP:MEDRS so shouldn't be used for any non-trivial biomedical claim; they can be used for unsurprising claims in other fields. If something weighty is truly "accepted knowledge" of the kind Wikipedia is meant to be reflecting, it would not be found just in a Nature editorial; better sources would be needed. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Race and Intelligence, as a broad topic, does not (generally) fall under Wikipedia:Biomedical information, so MEDRS doesn't apply, outside of perhaps a few very specific claims about heritable diseases or environmental factors on human health as it relates to knock-on effects on intelligence. --Aquillion (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just a procedural point. As the OP says, there was an RfC on the question last year, and the editor the OP is debating with refuses to accept the judgment reached. Unless something major has changed since last year concerning racialist claims about intelligence, there's no need to re-litigate the issue with every editor who comes along who doesn't agree with the consensus. It suffices to refer the editor in question to the earlier discussions. One of the purposes of a strong closing of an RfC, as in this case, is to avoid the time sink that comes from having to debate the same issue again and again. NightHeron (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Seems to me like an editorial in Nature would be one of the most golden sources out there. If it was another, uncontroversial claim, like "moderate exercise provides health benefits", then I don't anyone would have objected to it being sourced to a Nature editorial. And that most scientists don't believe that genetics explain the differences in IQ test performance between racial groups, I think, absolutely is an uncontroversial claim. ImTheIP (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Seems to me like an editorial in Nature would be one of the most golden sources out there." ← Think again. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the Wikipedia:MEDASSESS page. I hadn't been familiar with that Wikipedia guideline, but it directly answers the question under discussion. In the graph on the left, when evaluating quality of evidence, editorials are ranked second from the bottom, while most of the categories of actual studies are ranked higher in the pyramid. Gardenofaleph (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn's response here referenced the (perhaps) overstated claim that an editorial in Nature would be one of the most golden sources out there, not the question under discussion in my OP. The issue is not whether there is a scientific consensus on the matter. That has already been established by the RfC. The issue is whether Nature editorials are reliable guides to wording when consensus is already established.

Also: WP:MEDASSESS is a subsection of WP:MEDRS, an important guideline with wide buy-in from the community. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the whole thing. The Procter & Gamble pyramid does indeed place editorials below systematic studies, at the same level as "expert opinion", but we still evaluate such sources relative to the overall quality of editorial oversight provided by the journal in question. Generalrelative (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Without looking at the dispute in question, I agree that a Nature editorial is indeed one of the most golden sources out there. While most editorials are low-quality, Nature editorials are not; they are authored by some of the most respected scientists and peer-reviewers in the world. As an example, this is why we can use one as the sole source for the lead paragraph of Traditional Chinese medicine. Scientific statements made in Nature editorials can be assumed to be summaries of the evidence. I would also argue they could be considered position statements from national or international expert bodies as described in both MEDASSESS and the lead of MEDRS. Sunrise (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally not a good argument, especially when it conflicts with an established content guideline.

Now that I see there's a community-written guideline about this overall principle, it seems strange to have to defend the guideline's applicability to specific journals, but I guess I'll go ahead: there's no reason to assume Nature is different from any other journal in this respect. As I said on the article talk page, the point of peer review is to have one's ideas vetted by other experts in the relevant field. It's impossible for the editorial board of a generalist journal like Nature to be an expert body on a technical topic, because it doesn't have experts in every possible field. Editorials written by an anonymous author are not actually peer reviewed by experts in that field, as Charles Stewart said.

I also agree with Charles Stewart that editorials in academic journals are better sources than newspaper articles. But in the case of the Traditional Chinese medicine article, an editorial in a medical journal such as The Lancet would be preferable as a source over one in a generalist journal, because for an article that wasn't peer reviewed, The Lancet can provide a stronger guarantee that it still will have been vetted by experts in medicine. And citing a clinical practice guideline, or a peer-reviewed meta-analysis or literature review, would be even better. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that, while "anonymous" editorials published in Nature are not strictly peer-reviewed, they do in fact speak for the editorial board and are planned by the editor-in-chief. This piece by Nature's current editor-in-chief, the geneticist Magdalena Skipper, gives some details about the process: [65]. This doesn't speak directly to Ferahgo the Assassin's point about "experts in the field", but I think it's clear that such experts are consulted wherever necessary. And I image that this would be especially true of the first editorial I cited above, "Intelligence research should not be held back by its past" ([66]), which really exists just to comment on a contemporaneously published meta-analysis in Nature Genetics ([67]). Generalrelative (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any sources that directly support your claim that Nature's editorials represent the views of the journal's entire editorial board. The article you just linked to doesn't say that either. Here's what it says: "Straight after that, I have a meeting with two colleagues to plan editorials for the next few weeks [...] We also look to see whether any news has broken, or any announcements been made, that are relevant to research; and we consider whether there are any key events or anniversaries that we want to mark in our editorials section."

The phrase "editorial board" does not appear anywhere in that article. This source says that the decision what to say in editorials is made by the editor-in-chief and two other people. It doesn't say anyone else besides those three people are involved in the decision, let alone the entire editorial board, which is comprised of over 100 people.

Instead of posting several more links, and repeating your statement that lots of sources show Nature's editorials are written by the journal's whole editorial board, can you please quote one or two sentences from a single source that directly says that's the case? Please just one source, with a single short quote from the source that states what you're claiming in direct terms, without any your own commentary. If you actually were correct that the journal's editorials are written by its whole editorial board, the thing I'm requesting should be very easy to provide. Gardenofaleph (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument. Even if the "entire" board is not involved in each editorial, they are still attributable to the collective. This is not an obscure phenomenon requiring verbatim attribution. And in any case I supplied a reference above ([68]). The full quote is: "Editorials represent Nature's collective voice on the week's news". In the case of the editorial in question here, the relevant news is the meta-analysis published in Nature Genetics on the same day (22 May 2017). Thus the editorial represents Nature's "collective voice" on the meta-analysis, QED.

Also, why skip the part of the quotation in Skipper's piece that says "We go over what we heard earlier that day [i.e. at the News & Views and magazine meetings], and over other things that we know are in the pipeline, not just in Nature but in other Nature Research journals"? This shows that the process of choosing and composing editorials that appear in the "generalist journal" Nature is done with knowledge of what is going on at specialist journals published by Nature Research like Nature Genetics. And of course it would have to be for Nature to coordinate the same-day publication of the editorial and meta-analysis I just mentioned. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The argument you've been making for the past several days, both here on the article talk page, was that "The first one (from 2017) is indeed written by the editorial board of Nature", "'This Week' is indeed written by the editorial board.", and consequently "it's not 100% clear to me that we shouldn't take this as a statement by an "authoritative editorial board" per the MEDRS subsection WP:MEDORG." But if Nature's editorials are written by just three people to represent the journal's "collective voice", then WP:MEDORG doesn't apply. Your claim that their editorials are written by the journal's editorial board was the whole premise for this argument that they should be given more weight than would normally be given to an editorial under the Wikipedia:MEDASSESS guideline.

If you're no longer making the argument that Nature's editorials are written by an "authoritative editorial board", then that means Wikipedia:MEDASSESS applies to editorials in this journal the same as it would to editorials in any other journal, so I guess there's nothing left to discuss. Gardenofaleph (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I self-reverted that argument yesterday soon after posting it ([69]) because I realized it went beyond what is needed to address the question in my OP –– and I suspected that it might open up further semantic rabbit holes such as we now find ourselves in. Once again, my question is whether Nature editorials can be considered reliable guides to wording when the underlying scientific consensus has already been established, as is the case here. Establishing whether they count as "authoritative editorial board" statements per WP:MEDORG may be worth doing in a separate thread, but this would only clutter the current conversation.

On the matter of "written by the editorial board" (my claim) versus "written by its whole editorial board" (your mischaracterization of my claim), consider an ordinary-language analogy. E.g. we say "the Lakers won the basketball game" even when some of the players sat on the bench. This is a completely normal way for collective attribution to work. No one objects by saying "it wasn't the entire team that won the game, therefore it is false to say that the Lakers won". The difference between the Lakers and the editorial board of Nature here is merely the higher proportion of editors "sitting on the bench" when they aren't needed. And if this higher proportion leads us to doubt whether Nature editorials speak for the collective, we can simply defer to the journal's own statement that such editorials represent its "collective voice." So yes, perhaps there's nothing left to discuss wrt this particular objection, though certainly not for the reason you seem to imply. Generalrelative (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)