Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard
Latest comment: 2 years ago by S Marshall in topic Amnesty International
Archive 365←Archive 369Archive 370Archive 371Archive 372Archive 373→Archive 375

Decider.com / Jimmy DiResta / Naomi Wu

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this.

Background: Social media has been blowing up about Jimmy DiResta's Netflix show "Making Fun" teaching children to use power tools in an unsafe matter.[1][2] Of course we ignore all of that -- what someone writes on Reddit or Twitter is not an acceptable source for adding negative information to a BLP.

But what about Are Jimmy DiResta’s Builds On Netflix’s ‘Making Fun’ Safe? This Self-Proclaimed “Sexy Cyborg” Doesn’t Think So?

Would that be an acceptable source for something along the lines of "Naomi Wu has criticized the show's misuse of power tools."?

06:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:3CAE:6306:8B34:1600 (talk)

  • Decider is a website operated by the New York Post (RSP entry), which was determined to be generally unreliable in a 2020 RfC. The claim in question concerns living persons, so Decider is not reliable for the purpose of inserting this claim into a Wikipedia article.
    Decider does quote Naomi Wu's Twitter posts, but these tweets are also not reliable in the context of the Jimmy DiResta article, since WP:ABOUTSELF does not allow self-published claims regarding third parties. — Newslinger talk 05:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I did a search and no other source has covered this, so unsourced and not usable it is. Good call. Maybe we should create a TwitterFightPedia where we can cover things like the president of the united states picking a twitter fight with a 16-year-old girl[3][4][5][6][7] and losing badly (smile). 08:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:2D70:A1E3:9521:34F5 (talk)
      • Just to clarify, BLP is not an issue in this as almost all of the tweets concerned are about the technique and safety protocols. Not the person. Its fairly common for shows that are centered around a single personality to fall into this trap, as any criticism of the show ends up being levied at the personality and will often bleed into their biography article. The only real question here is 'Is Naomi Wu a significant enough expert on workshop safety that her criticism isnt undue weight?'. I would say probably not. And absent any other experts taking public offense.... She would be worth including as part of a body of criticism should other reliable sources take issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
        • I strongly disagree. If it's in the Jimmy DiResta article then not acceptable to include it if it's SPS. If we had an article on the show perhaps we could, but not when it's in the Jimmy DiResta article since it has no relevance to the Jimmy DiResta article if it isn't a commentary on Jimmy DiResta in some way. If this is ever added with SPS, I'm taking it to BLPN and strongly fighting to keep it out. We have the same problem where people try to add nonsense about someone's book or something based on SPS, it's not any acceptable there either. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

RS for Board Games- Board Game Quest, Ars Technica, Kotaku and TechRaptor

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I am currently working on the board game article Scythe. Should the following be considered RS for articles covering games: Board Game Quest (which seems somewhat unreliable), Kotaku, TechRaptor and Ars Technica (the latter is an RS but for 'tech or science related' articles)? Many thanks.

Note: In error, I originally and accidentally placed this in an archived noticeboard page (337). I have reverted it now myself and corrected the mistake. Apologies- VickKiang (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If they're listed as an RS at WP:VGRS, they should be usable for board game articles as well. Mlb96 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Kotaku and Ars Technica are listed so, but TechRaptor is not listed as so and Board Game Quest is merely an article pertaining board games. Could you please inform me more about your opinions on those websites (I think that the latter might likely be unreliable)- VickKiang (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
VGRS is not applicable since you’re talking boardgame, not videogame. I think any publisher second-party account is reasonable to use as RS. A publisher-run view is at least somewhat professional and going to be around for the cite to work. If it’s a SELFPUB review, I’d say not really usable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Boardgames and videogames are close enough that I would assume good faith if someone attempted to use a source commonly used in one in the other. It is not like they are trying to use an astronomy source to discuss zoos or something like that. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
In addition, there is lots of crossover between the mediums (board games that become video games, video games that become board games), and design principles piggyback off both. Any VG site reliable for VG should also be for boar games. --Masem (t) 21:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
A VGRS listing is simply not applicable for board games. First because those listed are simply not reviewing board games, so there is not going to be board game reviews there to pull from, and it is unlikely that video games are always based on board game or faithful to that board game when it is. Second, their focus and expertise is on electronic non-board game topics — on soundtrack, animation, fps, qualities of bot opponent(s), operating systems, computer accessories, their relationship to programming companies, etcetera. This seems like saying use a movie or tv reviewers versus a book reviewer. It just has no edge over any other publisher second-party account. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
About Board Game Quest lists most of its staff as "reviewers", which I think makes it clear that they are mostly in the business of publishing subjective opinions about games. The website could be a reliable source for the reviews published by its staff, but it's not clear to what extent a mention of their review would be WP:DUE. The home page shows that the site publishes some "Board Game News", but all of the news article are written by Tony Mastrangeli, who is also the publisher. I could not locate any editorial policy, so I think the news articles are not reliable to source factual claims. JBchrch talk 18:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: So is there a consensus on the general reliability of Ars Technica and Kotaku to be listed as generally reliable in the WikiProject for board games, situational for TechRaptor, and unreliable for Board Game Quest? Thanks for all of your help and suggestions and I will subsequently list the reliabilities once this thread is archived. VickKiang (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

German hard cover to ePub

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Book title: Zwettlers großes Buch der Bullterrier, Bulldoggen und Molosser (Pt 1), publisher: Verlag Ulmer Manuskripte (2007), isbn: 978-3-939496-43-4, authors: Walter & Marlene Zwettler. It appears they published an electronic version of the hardcover via self-published epubli.de as seen here. From what I gleaned via online searches, they publish different topics such as agriculture, and various other types of books. Is there anything more in German or in libraries that might be available? After reading the Introductory, it appeared to me the book was reliable per CONTEXTMATTERS. The author(s) appear to have a good understanding of cynology and of Hauck's (veterinarian) contributions. Sometimes, because of the rarity of these older books, we must depend on sources that publish old articles, and/or re-publish hardcovers as self-published ebooks. I would appreciate a yes or no as to its use for this information, (which I've removed until consensus tells me otherwise). Any helpful information you have time to provide about RS in other languages, and getting access to rare books will be greatly appreciated. Atsme 💬 📧 18:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume this is related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Atsme (Don't blame for the bad section title I did not name it that). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
No, it isn't related. In fact, it's related to this, and the kind of work I'm accustomed to doing on WP. Atsme 💬 📧 19:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, will strike my comment. Carry on the good work you are accustomed to. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
As long as you are reasonably certain that the ebook is essentially a facsimile of the print version, I would consider it to have the same reliability as that book. If you are asking for someone to procure a copy of the print book to verify the citation, you want WP:RX. If you are asking whether the publisher is trustworthy, I shouldn't comment because I can't read German, although I am inclined to assume German publishers are trustworthy unless there is evidence otherwise. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • What makes the authors of the book reliable, or experts on the topic and the like? The only thing i could find about them was that they owned dogs for 30 years and use them to hunt as well as breed. Surely that is a self description as well. Not specified what kinds of dogs they breed (potential conflict of interest in their work?). I cannot find much detail about the publisher either, only what they claim about themselves. Not that they seem unreliable. This looks like enthusiastic hobbyists publishing with a small publisher. Even the publisher says published authors range from hobbyists to scientists. And in their 'how to' to use them as a publisher, they also make no note of needing any specific expertise on any given topic. The publisher does claim specialist editing (fachlektorat in german), but how much in that about self statement is true for any given thing they publish seems questionable given the range of topics and small size of the publishing house. The 'about us' does claim they try to work with experts and try to avoid publishing 'bad information', to protect their brand and so on. And yes, i am a native german speaker. This seems a little dodgy to be honest. Just people writing about a hobby and perhaps source of income, with a potential conflict of interest due to it, in a very small publishing house on which i could only find what they claim about themselves. No secondary source about the publisher at all after a quick search, no indication on how they are viewed in the field. Again, not saying they are outright fabrications or lies either. Just that there is no indication that any of the claims the publishing house makes about themselves are true, or false for that matter, and there are no secondary sources talking about the publisher i could find after a quick search. Only claims about themselves and nothing else. The authors just seem to be hobbyists though. But not up to me in the end. Have a good one anyway. 91.96.24.109 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
As i see the source is in the article now. Atsme, you surely have looked at the source, who is the specialist editor that has edited the book written by two amateurs? Surely that infromation would be in the book, both hardcover and e-book. The specialist editing would be the only thing making this book by two amateurs with a potential conflict of interest reliable. So, what is their claim to topic expertise? 85.16.41.223 (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

lostarmour.info

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313

Source: [8]

Background: lostarmour.info is a Russian-language intelligence project to catalogue the loss of various types of military equipment.

Articles: OTR-21 Tochka

Content: "The Ukrainian Army continued to use ballistic missiles throughout the conflict, until February 2015 when the second Minsk Accords were signed. In total, no less than 43 missiles were launched, with both fragmentation and cluster warheads, only two of the latter achieving hits on military targets."

Discussion: I am hoping to create a consensus as to whether lostarmour.info is a reliable source or not.

I will argue it is not, as it is clearly biased with a pro-Russian slant. For example, there is this line in the article:

"Думаю, не слукавлю, если скажу, что она даже не стремиться, а просто-напросто РАВНА нулю. В молоко запустили, как говорятся. Никакого ущерба не нанесено, даже по домам гражданских не попали (что ВСУ умеет делать лучше всего), а с точки зрения пропаганды, польза явно отрицательная."

Machine translated as I don't read Russian:

"I think I’m not lying if I say that it doesn’t even strive, but simply IS equal to zero. They launched into milk, as they say. No damage was done, not even civilian homes were hit (which the Armed Forces of Ukraine can do best), and from the point of view of propaganda, the benefit is clearly negative."

Emphasis added is mine.

I shouldn't need to explain that a Russian source that claims that the Ukrainians are only good for killing civilians is not a reliable source, particularly where it pertains to the Russian-Ukraine conflict.

For the record, this section has been removed by myself and another user several times, before being added back in.Kylesenior (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please. Obviously this is not WP:RS. I dislike deprecating sources. Not sure if that's needed here or not. Users should know better than to try to use this. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, someone feels the need to keep undoing the removals.Kylesenior (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Then it becomes a behavior issue. ANI if it’s chronic (or urgent, but I can’t see that myself). As for the source, I have seen it mentioned as the propagator of a hoax, but can’t remember the source. I was having problems with sources in that article so it could have been anything from a pretty good Ukrainian newspaper to an angry activist blog. If it still matters, ping me and I will try to find it in the article for you. Don’t know if that’s helpful. Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments12 people in discussion

Are independent, secondary sources considered reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier"? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Background. It has been claimed none of the below sources are reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by any of the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier". Further, it has been claimed that citing them is WP:OR, [9][10][11][12]. Discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Merger proposal: Bull and terrier and WP:FRINGEN#Staffordshire Bull Terrier have failed to reach a consensus.

Sources that directly support the former names
  • Beaufoy, James (2016). Staffordshire Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd. ISBN 9781785000973.
The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier!
  • Billett, Michael (1994). A history of English country sports. London: Robert Hale Limited. p. 39. ISBN 0-7090-5238-3.
... a new breed known as the bull terrier, or the 'half-and-half' breed. It was also called the pit dog and eventually the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
  • Coile, D. Caroline (1998). Encyclopedia of dog breeds. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series. p. 146. ISBN 0-7641-5097-9.
The result [of crossing Bulldogs with terriers] was aptly called the Bull and Terrier, later to be dubbed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
His [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's] ancestors are believed to be the bulldog and English terrier and he was known as the Pit Dog or Pit Bull Terrier.
He [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was first known as the Bull-and-Terrier ...
Quite apart from the name “Bull-and-Terrier” used freely in literature for many decades [for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier], respected authors like Pierce Egan in the Annals of Sporting (Vol. I.), 1822, refer to result of these crossings for the first time as “Bull Terriers”.
The first recorded name of this dog [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the Bull-and-terrier. It has also been referred to as the Bull-dog Terrier, the Pit dog, the Brindle Bull, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Pit-Dog.
  • Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1989). Atlas of dog breeds of the world. Neptune City, N.J.: TFH Publications. p. 811.
This [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the original “Bull-and-Terrier.”

These sources are further corroborated by almost all kennel clubs that provide an historical summary of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier:

The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases.
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original Bull Terrier", simply a renamed version of the "Bull and Terrier".
The Bull and Terrier might have disappeared if not for a group of fanciers led by Joseph Dunn, who appreciated the dogs for their own sakes and persuaded The Kennel Club (England) to recognize the breed as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier...
Does not really address the issue but the below brochure does.
Unfortunately for the historian tracing a nice straight line is not easy when examining the background of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier if only because it comes under quite a few names. They might be called Bull & Terriers in some journals and at other times the dogs are called Pit Dogs, maybe Staffordshire Terriers, half-bred dog, or simply come under the general umbrella of the Bull Terrier.

The below sources and specific quotes have been claimed to refute the sources above.

Sources claimed to refute the above
... when dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis, all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870.
Basically the hybrid of its day, the bull and terrier wasn’t a bona-fide breed. Rather, it was a rough outline, a starting point for several breeds, including the dogs that today we call “pitbulls.”

Some ambiguous language used by the United Kennel Club, an explanation is provided here.

Today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England.
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's.

Question. Are the sources detailed in the top box considered reliable and specifically are they reliable to cite the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

wbm1058, there has been no determination on the reliability of the sources. This is just to seek a determination about whether the the community considers these sources reliable, I believe the discussions have broken down because of a refusal to accept their reliability (or potential lack of). Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
  • Wow - a malformed RfC improperly worded to get the answer you want? The fact that you already failed to gain consensus at 2 other venues over this same issue needs an admin's attention. If this isn't forum-shopping with a splash of TE, then I don't know what is. I've seen editors get t-banned for far less than what you've been doing for over a week now. Atsme 💬 📧 06:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of the sources in the first box are WP:TERTIARY (Atlas, Dictionary, Encyclopedia). These are down-scale quality. Some are also quite old. It may be there are two perspectives: traditional cultural understanding, and scientific/DNA analysis. Thus it is possible both are right, depending on context. Stuff like this is best handled with careful prose. Report what we know including contradictions. -- GreenC 03:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment(invited by the bot) You basically have wp:RS's saying somewhat conflicting things. IMO your solution isn't going to come from deciding on inclusion or exclusion of sources based on policy. I certainly would not knock out either claim or source based on that. Most likely you'll need to say both with attribution. North8000 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes that the sources are reliable for saying the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly called the sundry names given above. This has been hashed out a few times now, and I'm familiar with the arguments out forth. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Trout and close. Why is this RfC even here? It's as if this page didn't have instructions at the top about what it's for` and how to post. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, these appear in reliable secondary sources. There are a few sources that disagree, so they should be referenced as well with their point of view.--Seggallion (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • More or less. Quite a few of these are clearly tertiary sources, including Coile, Jones (both books), Morris, and Wilcox. Beaufoy is probably a primary source. That said, all of them except maybe Beaufoy (depending on whether he has a reputation as an expert) are probably reliable enough for the facts at issue. I agree with complainants here, however, that these facts should not be at issue on this page, after just being discussed on another noticeboard and being subject to an ongoing thread at Talk:Bull and terrier#Continuing from where we were on the fringe theories noticeboard. Cf. WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the question here is to evaluate the sources, I would say that the first group of sources appears to include more in the way of books about the subject, which is a point in its favor, but the sources on both sides of the disagreement are largely reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, albeit with the caveats about tertiary sources noted above. This is not a decision between reliable sources and junk/deprecated sources. Since the underlying question goes beyond source reliability, to which POV should be reflected by the page content, I'd agree with some of the other editors here that the best resolution of the ongoing dispute is to acknowledge both sides, with attribution, and not to come down strongly one way or the other in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a waste of time. Why can't Cavalryman and Atsme work out a compromise wording that explains both sides of the dispute? Why do Cavalryman and Atsme feel the need to start these noticeboard discussions? The sources are disputing the facts. As others have said, say both with attribution. This is an AN/I thread in the making because neither one of you feels the need to compromise and you are both adamant on your correctness. How hard is it to just write the article acknowledging that there's a dispute in reliable sources? For what it's worth, the dog breed doesn't have to be proven to exist as a separate dog breed to have its own article. Look at the Khorasan group. This group may or may not exist as a separate cell of Al-Qaeda, although many reliable sources have said that it does exist many have said it doesn't. It gets a separate article because many reliable sources have covered it as a separate entity, and then in the article itself we go into detail on the dispute over its existence. Dog breeds should be less controversial than international terrorism but for whatever reason it was a whole lot easier to adopt a compromise wording in that article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    Is the Greater Khorasan the parent breed of the Afghan Hound? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment, it is certainly not my intention here to recontest the close of the merge proposal, there is a pretty clear process for how to do so and it does not involve this noticeboard. My intention here was simply to gauge the community's views on the sources listed because their reliability has been continuously denied throughout the two other discussions, this noticeboard is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. That being said, if general feeling is this is a waste of time I have no objections to it being closed. Cavalryman (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - in summary, the sources have been assessed as being reliable by the vast majority of editors here. That established, it is now time to close this thread. 182.239.144.134 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thomas B. Costain

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

A cursory search of the archives brought back nothing. This particular book is used in Eleanor of Provence. Any thoughts?

60+ year old popular history by a non-historian. Not utterly inaccurate, but way out of date and not academic. We don't have to only use academic sources, but when the non-academic sources are this old, we shouldn't. We can have much better sources and should use those. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, Margaret Howell's Eleanor of Provence: Queenship in Thirteenth Century England is cited in the article and is both forty years more recent than Costain and academic. In the world of popular history, Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe by Nancy Goldstone is from this millenium and at least is by someone with undergraduate-level history training; The Two Eleanors of Henry III: The Lives of Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor de Montfort by Darren Baker is from 2019. I'm not a medievalist, so I defer to Ealdgyth's expertise on the specifics, but I would imagine either of those would at least be more up-to-date than Costain. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
My sincerest thanks to both of you for this information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
And I said the above even though Costain was one of the influences on me in getting interested in history - my parents had copies of his paperbacks and I read them while still in grade school and loved his style and engaging way of making history interesting. They are probably still good reads even now, but they aren't going to be as good for our purposes as Goldstone or Baker's works. (Eleanor of Provence is a bit later interest than I normally edit here, but I've read some of Goldstone's book and it's at least aligning with what I've read of the academic sources for the period. Haven't run across Baker's book yet.) Ealdgyth (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Global Firepower Index

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think this is unreliable because

1) A one dimensional index is not sufficient to measure firepower. For example the military are generally far more powerful when defending their own country.

2) User:Femkemilene/crime against significant digits - for example 0.1382 for UK is different from 0.138 or 0.14?

3) January 2022 is out of date in showing Russia second most powerful as they have lost significant power since then.

Chidgk1 (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

GFI is part of the Military Factory ecosystem (which includes GFI, militaryfactory.com, WDMMA.org, WDMMW.org, SR71blackbird.org, etc). The entire ecosystem is deeply unreliable and primarily consists of information which has been scraped from other sources (including Wikipedia). Unreliable or worthy of deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty International

Latest comment: 2 years ago101 comments40 people in discussion
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.
In this discussion Wikipedians evaluate whether the British human rights advocacy group Amnesty International ("A.I." hereinafter) is a reliable source. Just to explain what's happening here to any non-Wikipedian from A.I. who might read this, in this discussion we are using the term "reliable source" in an idiosyncratic and somewhat technical way. Nobody claims that A.I. puts out false information; the question is, rather, exactly where A.I. falls on a continual scale of reliability. On that scale, Wikipedians hold A.I. in a higher regard than most national newspapers.
On Wikipedia, whether A.I. or any other source is reliable for any particular claim is context-sensitive: in other words, it depends on the claim. But some sources come up so frequently in this venue, our reliable sources noticeboard, that we find it helpful to have one central conversation that's divorced from context, in an attempt to reach an overarching consensus that helps us make quicker and simpler decisions on article talk pages. This is such a contextless conversation.
In the discussion below it would be easy to get caught up in the words in bold, attempting to count them to determine which view wins. But this is a red herring. The right way to close this discussion is to start by asking which options are mutually exclusive, and when you do that, the consensus is easy to find.
The community applies both options 1 and 2: Amnesty International are generally reliable for facts, and additional considerations apply. In other words, Wikipedians agree that A.I. has a reputation for getting its facts right, but it's still a single-issue advocacy organization, and this affects how it presents those facts. So it's perfectly OK to cite A.I. as a source but it's not necessary to copy A.I.'s exact language, and, because policy constrains Wikipedians to a neutral point of view that A.I. will often not share, Wikipedians will often want to consider tempering A.I.s word choices. Where A.I. makes surprising or disputed claims about human rights, consider using in-text attribution as well as the inline citation required by WP:V.
I hope this helps. Any comments, criticisms or complaints about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance, and I leave it to others to update the colour-coded table in WP:RSP.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There are reasonably frequent discussions about Amnesty:

2019 - Is research by Amnesty International a valid source for Wikipedia?
2021 - Amnesty
  • Option 1: Generally reliable for facts
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for facts
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated

Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Amnesty International)

  • Comment I would ordinarily consider Amnesty a reliable source for facts and with attribution for opinion. Nevertheless, its use is not infrequently contested and there have been more than a few discussions in the past. Recently, at the Israel article, it has twice been referred to as questionable. The purpose of this RFC is to clarify usage. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I would go with somewhere between option 1 and option 2. Their statements are notable, but I would attribute what they say, "According to Amnesty International". --Jayron32 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 because we shouldn't even be asking this of a source with Amnesty's reputation, and of its book-length study, the result of 4 years of research, with 1,500+ footnotes meticulously sourcing virtually every statement. What is contested on the Israel page from Amnesty is a fact, furthermore, not Amnesty's opinion.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    I wasn't aware we were assessing a specific publication. The OP does not note any specific publication. I'm not sure why you changed the topic of the RFC from a general assessment to one of a specific publication, which may be more or less reliable. than a general assessment of the organization. --Jayron32 15:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    We are not, although Amnesty in an Israeli context has come up recently at both BDS and Israel articles. People might think that Amnesty is unreliable in an Israeli context but it is I think usual for the targets of Amnesty reports to not agree with them as a matter of course, even the UK and the US do so. What I would like is agreement on the way to treat Amnesty as a source in general, rather than in any given setting (unless people think it is appropriate to comment on a given setting, that is). Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    see here. I didn't change anything. I don't think there is much point in framing this request in terms of AI's general reliability. It has always been accepted here that it is a top-ranking human rights organization known for careful research. The only point here is to ask whether when Amnesty's remark, not exceptional (B'tselem/Human Rights Watch and dozens of scholarly papers have made the same general observation)- can be used for the details about the known fact that Palestinian Israelis are 'restricted' in their access to land, and find themselves confined to '139 densely populated towns and villages' in just 3 areas of Israel. No one contests the fact from Israeli official statistics that they live predominantly in 139 towns and villages, in three areas, that Israeli land regulations do not allow any significant expansion of those areas, hence 'densely populated', as opposed to the prerogatives for ethnic-exclusive landuse accorded the Jewish majority population. AI's report, based on a huge number of sources, states the known facts succinctly. Some editors do not want it as a source for this page, ergo, they call it, weirdly, 'questionable'. It is national governments, as noted above, from China to the US and GB, that contest AI's work, not scholars. What is 'questionable' is what any reader of Israeli newspapers will find regularly reported in the national press. Go figure. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    It doesn't really matter if you want to frame the question in terms of general reliability, the OP did. If you want to assess the reliability of a specific document, that should be a different discussion. It's not helpful to steer the discussion into a different direction. --Jayron32 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    Jayron, you're right and that is why this discussion is misleading from the start. The only reason we're discussing Amnesty now is because the OP wants to use a specific Amnesty report to claim that Israel is an apartheid state. That particular report has been widely disputed by many democratic governments. So to frame this discussion as being about Amnesty in general, when the OP himself states on the talk page of Israel that he started the discussion because of the report, is very misleading, to the point of being dishonest. Selfstudier, you should either start a discussion about the specific Amnesty report you want to use, or accept that the opinion on Amnesty in general does not give you a carte blanched to use that particular report. Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    I refer you to my reply below.Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1, with an asterisk. Amnesty International is an authoritative human rights advocacy group with a long history. They are generally reliable with respect to the facts. Their opinions are highly respected but sometimes controversial; they should generally be included and attributed in-line. Amnesty International's decisions regarding what to cover should be understood to may reflect a left-wing bias; in particular, they should be considered partisan in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    To skew human rights, which is inscribed as a constitutional right in all modern democracies and constitutions, underwritten by founding fathers who were republican, liberal, democratic etc., as 'left-wing' is unacceptable. Indeed it is a term applied to Human Rights bodies simply because the job they do is unpleasant for most governments that violate elementary principles of humanity. That is not a concern which is the exclusive preserve of some (radical/Marxist/extreme) 'leftists'. The left, in regard to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, has a notable record of criticizing those agencies for underplaying or ignoring human rights issues in Israel and several other countries. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. Respect for human rights is a decidedly centrist position; disrespect, an extremist position present in both wings. I was merely observing that Amnesty International's reporting consistently favors Palestinian perspectives versus Israeli ones, a tendency that is consistently associated with left-wing politics in the United States and, from what I understand, Western Europe also. Perhaps if we were to examine other controversial conflicts, we would find a similar bias. I don't know, I am not an expert in Amnesty International, merely reporting my impressions like everyone else here. If it helps, I have edited my statement that they "should be understood to" show a bias, which implied more consistency than I had intended. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Amnesty International consistently states what its field reporters, and the general consensus of Israeli academics who study their own area document. That Palestinian complain, and Amnesty reports their grievances is no more 'left-wing' that would be the case if the Uyghurs or Tibetan or any other indigenous population had their complaints addressed by an external analytical human rights group. Amnesty like B'tselem and Human Rights Watch regularly criticize abuses by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and lone wolves ( and the standard 'left-wing critique of their reports on Palestinian violence takes exception to the way all three groups address Israeli accusations). They are neutral to the kind of one-eyed partisanship we associate with right/left wing. Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 with an asterisk. As an advocacy organization, Amnesty's views should be attributed, as they can be controversial. Amnesty is highly critical of some governments but less so of others, which some say makes them biased. Pious Brother (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment.We should exercise care when describing groups as 'advocacy' organizations. AI advocates, globally, for human rights, i.e., due respect for law and the fundamental values of the UN charter, and modern democracies. Huma rights are a universal principle, not a partisan cause. I'd rather see a distinction between advocacy that evinces a rigorous call for the former and advocacy which is only for a specific human group, ethnos, nation, national interest etc. That is a different kettle of fish, since the militancy of the latter is primarily to vindicate a sectional interest. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, examine those results. You will see that reliable sources cite material from Amnesty International as a matter of course and that when they make an accusation they discuss it to show that the NGO carries weight for just their opinions. But yes, often for facts. nableezy - 23:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Widely respected organisation, they can be used without attribution when dealing with uncontested factual assertions. Where they are contradicted, or where they draw inferences from factual data, they should be attributed. The same as any other Reliable Source really. They should, of course, be understood to have a bias in favour of human rights and against organisations which violate them. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 if we (=wikipedia) were not to cite them, we would be about the only ones (outside right-wing Israeli sources) not doing so, so yes; of course we can cite them, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1; widely trusted as a reliable source. Whether they can be cited for facts should depend largely on whether there are other sources that disagree with them, but their reputation is sufficient that when they state something as a fact and there's nothing to contradict it then we can generally report that as fact ourselves. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to consider them generally biased - if a government disagreeing with AI's conclusions was enough to make it biased, then there would be no unbiased sources describing any governments. As someone said above, if people think it is biased I'd want to see scholarly sources (or, more specifically, sources we can reasonably consider unbiased ourselves) saying so. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I think that it's pretty clear that there is a bias with Amnesty when it comes to the Middle East. It's not just Israel (or the US) that repudiated their report. Many countries, and even Arabs within Israel have repudiated the report. Arab party leader in Israel rejects Apartheid label, they have shown that they look at things with a predetermined outcome. As such, they should not be deemed reliable in this area. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
With respect, we are not being asked whether the source is biased. All sources are biased. We are being asked whether it is reliable, nothing you post above contradicts its reliability. The suggestion that if an individual or government disagrees with a statement the source it comes from can not be reliable does not hold much water. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 All indications are that they are generally reliable for facts. Their inferences, evaluations, position statements, etc., should be attributed, since they are the organization's own work. That's just giving intellectual credit where credit is due. XOR'easter (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Amnesty checks all the important boxes of reliability in my opinion. Like XOR'easter has noted above, personal opinions and collective positions are to be attributed. Some research services that Amnesty offers are trusted across the board by reliable sources: for example, in the wake of the Pegasus Project (investigation), it released a peer review of the investigation in parallel to uToronto's Citizen Lab [13], which was widely cited by the RS that led the investigation, such as the Washington Post, Le Monde, and Die Zeit. Pilaz (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable for facts, attribution required for evaluations and position statements. "X journalists were assassinated in country Y in 2021" is a factual statement. "Media freedom in country Y is restricted" is their own position and must be attributed. Of course both facts reported by them and their opinions may or may not be DUE in any given article. The discussion of the bias is out of the scope of this noticeboard but it certainly exists: they report (relatively speaking) more on open and democratic societies and focus on the recipients of the US aid (see Amnesty_International#Country_focus). While it's understandable as they want to maximise the impact of their work, we should keep it in mind when assessing the relevance of the AI reporting and positions. Alaexis¿question? 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
What bias? Amnesty International's remit (bias?) is to report accurately and reliably on human rights abuses anywhere. That is why has regularly denounced systematic abuses of human rights and violation of the rules of war by the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas, Israel's adversary. As to the distinction re facts, versus opinions, many Israeli sources state international laws, on which AI relies, are opinionable. Are they?Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Look, I've myself used their reports when writing about various post-Soviet conflicts and I consider them reliable in general. The bias criticism in Amnesty_International#Country_focus is about varying levels of coverage. To give an example, they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. Being generous to them, the reason is probably that it's easier for them to get information about the Israeli abuses and also because they consider it more likely that their reporting with make an impact there. My point is that we should not let this imbalance skew the coverage in Wikipedia. We have WP:NPOV and they don't. Alaexis¿question? 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
If you want to argue that AI is reliable for every other country except for Israel then argue for that. If enough agree, then a special exemption can be carved out as was done with the Jewish Chronicle where it was decided that it was reliable except for some areas. That the Israel situation has more reports is not at all surprising, I don't know why you would think otherwise, Israel also gets more attention everywhere else not just at AI, this has been going on for a long time.Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's mostly reliable but biased in its coverage. As you rightly note, many media outlets have the same problem. Alaexis¿question? 13:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, accepting that there is a bias, as is the case with all sources, is this bias of a nature sufficient to justify excluding the source for the case of Israel? I think it is not.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. - Who said that? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
No one. It's a rhetorical question which served to emphasise my point about the level of coverage not correlated with the level of violations. Alaexis¿question? 12:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:GREL and WP:BIASED, so attribute the source. There are obviously claims that the group makes that are indeed opinions—that The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment or that Governments have a duty to prohibit hateful, inciteful speech are two such examples—unless we are going to start trying to define WP:RS for claims of moral fact and natural law made in Wikipedia's voice. I think that doing so would be a bad idea and would be contrary to WP:NPOV. There's evidence that Amnesty carries substantial weight, but at its core the group is focused on human rights advocacy through its own particular lens. There's little question the group leans left in certain areas—the legalization of prostitution, opposition to capital punishment, and resolute support of abortion rights without any restrictions all are stances on controversial issues involving human rights where Amnesty falls to the left side of the political divide. I'm hard pressed to find a human rights issue with a left-right divide where Amnesty leans hard right. That being said, WP:BIASED keenly notes that sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for certain sorts of information and that when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. WP:BIASED also indicates that a strong bias on a topic may make in-text attribution appropriate. Amnesty is a highly respected organization that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as well as a substantial review process for its at-length reports, so its reports seem to be WP:GREL where it's independent from the topic it is covering. I'm not so sure about using Amnesty's website more generally, particularly its opinionated "what we do" pages, but I don't think people would seriously try to cite the equivalent of Amnesty International's "about us" pages in a contentious manner when its detailed reports exist, are publicly accessible, and contain higher quality information. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
To repeat, concern for human rights, at least historically, was a liberal concern. The word 'liberal' itself came to mean 'communist-leaning' exclusively in American right-wing discourse, and 'liberals' are now bunched in with 'leftists', who in any case, can't agree who's on the 'left'. Such branding is pointless, esp. in this case, where it functions in right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
If we’re going to attempt to trace the history of human rights activism, there are real and profound splits among campaigners over things like prostitution, abortion, and capital punishment. I do not see anywhere where I am saying that Amnesty International are communists—they aren’t. Certainly center-left and left-liberal groups exist, are not communist, and fall to the left of the left-right divide. I’d find it really odd to deny that If you are arguing that the idea of left-liberal ideology is centered entirely in the USA (it’s not) or that describing a group as center-left is mere right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy—I am going to have to sharply disagree with you there. There are indeed times when “left wing” and “right wing” get lazily thrown around to discredit an argument without backing up the substance of one’s claims—the comment above this one is a good example—but I don’t think that noting that the lens that Amnesty looks at human rights is a left-liberal lens. In areas of controversy regarding what human rights actually are, it is proper to attribute to Amnesty when they are stating their stances on issues, such as Is abortion a violation of the right to life? No. This sort of stuff is key to WP:NPOV—just as attribution to the ADL that Amnesty’s report on Israel creates fertile ground for a hostile and at times antisemitic discourse is something we should do rather than putting the generally reliable ADL’s claim in wikivoice. Attributing sources on these sorts of issues is exactly what WP:NPOV calls us to do—avoid stating opinion as fact. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
You introduced the idea of a source evaluative benchmark, the left-right distinction.I think this is meaningless in the context of human rights. As I noted on the talk page, Yossi Sarid, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Michael Ben-Yair, Ami Ayalon and A. B. Yehoshua have drawn the same comparison as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch (both frequently the targets of what some in this schema might identify as ‘ leftist’ criticism regarding Israel) comparison, over a decade before those NGOs finally accepted the idea. Are they all identifiable with some ‘left-leaning viewpoint? No. Israeli NGOS like B'tselem and Yesh Din idem. Does it throw light on their reliability to regard those two as ‘leftist? No, such accusations just shift the goalposts from analysis of their data and inferences, to insinuations that their work‘s conclusions are predictable because it fits a ‘leftist’ mindset, whatever that is. It's the impression 25% of American Jews have,that “Israel is an apartheid state”.(Ron Kampeas, ‘Poll finds a quarter of US Jews think Israel is ‘apartheid state’,’ Times of Israel 13 July 2021; Chris McGreal,Amnesty says Israel is an apartheid state. Many Israeli politicians agree The Guardian 5 February 2022) The figure is more dramatic if we take into account The Jewish Electorate Institute poll last year which found 38% of American Jews under 40 concur with that interpretation, while 15% were unsure. Only 13% of the over 64 bracket entertained that view. This means it is a generational divide in Jewish American opinion. (Arno Rosenfeld , Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel,' The Forward 1 February 2022) Do those 25% vote for Ralph Nader or even the Democratic Party which is rumoured to be, somewhat laughable, leftwing? No.Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 . Generally reliable for facts; their work is on a par with much serious scholarship. That what are clearly opinions should be attributed is a given - it attaches to any publisher or author. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 and dubious discussion start. Given that the discussion starter launched thus discussion with the sole purpose of claiming that Israel is an apartheid state, I find the discussion misleading as it pretends to be about Amnesty in general. Amnesty's recent report about Israel has been debunked by most leading democracies in the world (the US, the UK, Germany etc.). Given that this discussion is about that specific report (see the long discussion at the talk page of Israel where the discussion starter explicitly admits starting this discussion for the purpose of using that report), the question is rather whether Amnesty is infallible. So for me it's option 2. I generally trust Amnesty. If Amnesty puts out a report that is widely discredited in the Democratic world, that report should not be used as a neutral fact, pretending all the criticism of it doesn't exist. Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    I did not add the Amnesty material to the Israel article so your premise is just false. I initiated one of the prior discussions on Amnesty linked in the opening. I also referred in my opening to the fact of Amnesty having been twice referred to at the Israel article as a questionable source, said assertion being given as reason to revert material which was not added by me. Since Amnesty validity as a source has been questioned on a number of occasions, it is logical that we establish it's status, that is what this is about and not your offensive innuendo, for which an apology would be in order. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify, whether or not Amnesty are a Reliable Source (and all the evidence suggests they are), the governments of Israel, Germany, The UK and the USA absolutely are not. Nor are any other governments. Their statements of opinion on the Amnesty report on Israeli apartheid have no bearing on whether wikipedia should consider Amnesty to be RS. Also, the word "debunk" indicates a systematic and convincing rebuttal. The governments in question have not done this, nor has anybody else. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Jeepiz. This arose when I cited it for a specific, and uncontroversial datum about residential confinement of Israel's minority,- which no one doubts since it comes from Israeli statistics - and an immediate war of expunction flared up. I presume because it contained the word 'apartheid' in the discreetly footnoted title. Neither the US, nor Germany nor the UK have 'debunked' what is the result of a 4 year long 280 page study, with 1,564 footnotes. Two official foreign spokesmen dismissed it on the day it was issued (I presume they didn't read the whole study in one day - to digest it has taken me a week) echoing outrage in Israeli government circles. The only valid criticism of whatever inadequacies or inaccuracies it may be found to contain will come from scholars or policy wonks who take the trouble to tackle the intricate details and show where AI's report is, in their view, flawed. Therefore official reactions by allied states are meaningless. No such overnight hysteria greeted Gunnar Myrdal’s groundbreaking American Dilemma (1944) when its detailed analyses, anti litteram of quasi-apartheid segregation policies in the United States came out in two massive volumes, and over time, esp. after Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton’s book American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, 1998, (' the singularly most influential study of segregation in the United States' Gershon Shafir , From Overt to Veiled Segregation: Israel's Palestinian Arab Citizens in the Galilee, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Volume 50 Issue 1 February 2018, pp.1-22 p.3, who uses such works and models to examine comparable Israeli demography) sociological studies of things like ethnic profiling of residential patterns as a US variety of apartheid are commonplace. The Report collects a huge range of data bearing on patterns of discrimination which echo a vast range of articles and books in Israeli and diasporic scholarship. Rather that provide 10 scholarly sources for each assertion, a synthesis as we have it in AI’s report, or the very similar HRW report, is textually easierWhy is it that, anytime even a hint is made that Israel fits some pattern, or has institutional arrangements best understood in comparative perspective since similar things are evidenced in many other countries, all on the basis of quality scholarship and its sourcing, people get nervous and argue for exceptionalism? Or accusations arise that ignore the substance and dwell on political fallout as a criterion for reliability? The question is rhetorical, since the answer is that Israel is a Jewish state, ergo, given the toxic longevity of anti-Semitism regarding Jews that makes us extremely careful of bias against them, anything regarding Israel can be construed as offensive to Jews. Any critical thought will lie dead in the water, stillborn, if that specious premise becomes ubiquitous. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Option 2,3 and Option 5 UNDUE WEIGHT for Israel article Also dubious discussion start. The question was incorrectly presented (see talk page on "Israel article) AI report claiming Israel is apartheid state was cherry picked and inserted into an article that is basically supposed to be primarily apolitical. There are thousands of NGOs and tens of thousands of opinion's regarding Arab-Israeli conflict, so prioritizing one report of one NGO is cherry picking. AI is as much reliable as other NGOs and political parties when their views are presented with proper attribution, DUE weight and in WP:NPOV fashion. Nothing of this was done in this particular case. The report was rejected by some government's, ignored by all others and defined as antisemitic by other NGOs. What makes this report so special that it should go to every article related to Israel and what gives it special WEIGHT over others to go into the main Israel article? Is AI a legal authority to define any state as genocidal or apaprtheid nation? Its just their highly contested opinion in the same way as claiming Israel as perfect place, only remaining multicultural and multiethnic democracy in Middle East, only country where minorites are rapidly increasing in numbers that gives the highest standards of democracy and freedom to all minorities in that part of world, is opinion of some other NGOs. I would understand mentioning it in the article regarding Israel/Apartheid analogy but here this report is fully UNDUE . I see same group of people going from one to another article and adding negative opinion's about Israel and although such opinion's could be worthy for Wikipedia, cherry picking a highly contested and controversial report of one particular NGO and presenting it as an established fact in an article that is not supposed to cover that topic is against Wikipedia policy of neutrality and fully out of DUE in this particular case. The "Israel article" shouldn't be based on the claims and contra-claims of countless NGOs and particularly not on opinion of just one that fits someone POVs. User Selfstudier ignored my and concerns of others regarding UNDUE weight and went to this noticeboard to open question regarding AI reliability. I hope that he dosent see this as the easiest way to overrun the DUE problem with his edits.Tritomex (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Weight is decided by the amount of coverage something receives in Reliable Sources, not who agrees with it. The attention given to Amnesty International's report by reliable sources was immense, therefore it is notable for the Israel article. To use wikivoice to state "Israel is an apartheid state" would clearly be inappropriate. However, something like "Human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tsalem consider Israel to be committing the crime of Apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank." followed by those who reject this view is clearly entirely WP:DUE. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
As an example, take Forward's coverage where they give over a substantial space to the argument that there is a global consensus among human rights organizations on this issue, it's not just AI opinion. Arguing for UNDUE doesn't hold water. As I said above, by all means make the case for an exemption on Israel but so far I have not seen that case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
You mean a 278 page report with 1,564 sourcing notes lacks nuance, compared to other RS? Most of our RS are newspapers without footnotes. Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Nuance is not synonymous with detail. While they might accurately report events, they are not jurists or historians and their moral, political and legal judgements can be unsophisticated and overstated. This is not a criticism of them per se and similarly applies to other advocacy groups.AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
There are two major problem here. First a political advocacy group is not a legal authority that establishes legal facts. So this claim is just an assertion of one NGOs that was ignored or rejected by all major international players (mostly ignored). Second, and in this case even bigger problem is that there are m dozens of events weekly related to Arab-Israeli conflict that are covered by some and in many cases even larger number of RS, it doesnt mean that all of them should be inserted in any article related to Israel. Especially not in the main Israel article. There are many reports of NGOs and political groups whose position could be added to many Wikipedia article's tackling issues of Apartheid analogy. Here we have a case of cherry picking one report of one political advocacy group whose claims are elevated into the level of facts and than inserted without any WEIGHT into the body of article regarding the State of Israel. Tritomex (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
We attribute opinion, claimers and deniers alike, that is not in dispute, therefore irrelevant. That there is a literal worldwide consensus of NGOs both in and outside of Israel on this issue is also not in doubt so that argument falls flat. The only way to achieve your goal here is to make out a case that Amnesty has an exceptional bias in the case of Israel and I see no evidence for that, other than your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
"A literal worldwide consensus of NGOs" Common, please, there are millions of NGOs worldwide, thousands just in Israel, 2000 in my small country of Serbia and 99,999+% of those NGOs never herd about this report, not to mention giving consensus to this report. Very few NGOs even reacted, mostly accusing AI for bias, although what would give some weight to this article would be reaction of states, international bodies and institution's which was with few rebuffs equal to zero. Tritomex (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Sweeping Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel
14 Israeli human rights groups back Amnesty International's 'apartheid' report
I have sources to support my view, do you? Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 Regarding I/P conflict one of the number one antisemitism experts Deborah Lipstadt call amnesty reports as “ahistorical and unhistorical.”. [14]We cannot really trust what it says in it report regarding Israel as it has clear agenda in its mind. Amnesty have a bad record regarding AntiSemitism [15]--Shrike (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Lipstadt has no specialist knowledge here, so her comments are irrelevant, as revelaed by the comments themselves. The crime of apartheid is not a matter of history, it is a matter of international law which is in place at this time.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Lipstadt is specialist on antisemitism and her desription about the report quite telling It seems that amnesty have jewish problem [16] Shrike (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
A specialist on antisemtism is not an expert on international law. The crime of apartheid was criminalized by the Rome Statute, and there is nothing "historical" about it. Shocking development, Israel advocacy organization itself accused of intolerance and racism (eg here) objects to human rights organization criticizing Israel's actions. And this has what exactly to do with Amnesty's reliability again? nableezy - 19:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
So, it is established that Lisptadt is not an expert in the matter at hand. Seems we are now talking about the SW centre's criticism of AI not opening a separate investigation into antisemitism in the UK in 2015. That criticism is exceptionally weak, it presupposes either that antisemitism was more prevalent in the UK than any other form of racism, or that it was more important than any other form of racism. Disagreeing with those premises in good faith can not be reasonably construed as antisemitism. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for facts but with attribution needed for when this strays into advocacy and opinion. AI is, after all, a group that is involved in advocacy, lobbying and campaigning. However, their research and publications are very robust and the findings are usually backed up by other reliable orgs. The idea of "left-wing" bias doesn't make sense really considering the actual history of AI. Perhaps editors are here are too young to remember, but AI angered left-wing groups by not giving Nelson Mandela the prisoner of conscience title. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 wrt to facts. If used to source an opinion, attribute it, but AI is a stellar source in most context. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Stellar source. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Extremely reliable for what it does, which is extremely considered secondary research, in consultation with teams of humans rights lawyers, of the facts on the ground in humanitarian situations around the globe and their relationship with international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3: Amnesty is a political advocacy organization, so views it expresses on political questions should be attributed to Amn esty and only used in situations where Amnesty is relevant. For example, regarding Amnesty's latest Israel report, many countries disputed Amnesty's claims including the US, Germany, the UK, Austria, the Czech Republic, Australia, Ireland, Canada, and Israel. This is not to disparage Amnesty as an organization, it's just their opinions are fundamentally not suitable encyclopedic sources. OtterAM (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
What relevance do political declarations by countries have in assessing a scholarly report concerning another country? None.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)
  • Option 1, as always if there is disagreement or incoherence with other WP:RS then statements/opinions should be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Since it's an advocacy organization that often takes controversial positions, I'd say its claims should generally be attributed in text, especially if disputed by other sources. (I'm deliberately not choosing an option on the 1–4 scale because I don't think the scale is particularly useful in this case.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • None of the above AI is a very notable advocacy group, and as such it’s claims and accusations are worth mentioning… HOWEVER, because it IS an advocacy group it’s claims and accusations should be stated as OPINION (with in-text attribution) and NOT stated as fact (in Wikipedia’s voice). Once that is done, we can cite them as a primary source for that opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    Option 2 then? Attribute everything, even facts? Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Of course, attribution for its interpretation of the facts. If the interpretation looks like a circle, then it is the huge number of fact dots that make up the appearance of roundness that warrant our attention, not the issue that Amnesty and every major human rights group tend to call the arrangement a circle, as opposed to those who state it may be a skewed rectangle. Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions - which is what we should do with any opinion. Whether Amnesty's opinions are DUE is not something that can be determined here beyond saying "sometimes yes, sometimes no". Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 They have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when it comes to human rights issues. Just today I stumbled upon this while working on the torture article: "Because of its extensive quality control procedure, which includes research teams of subject and area experts as well as approval by veto players, AI is agreed to produce credible allegations (e.g. Clark, 2001). This reputation for credible reporting has not only made AI an effective advocate, but also made its reports a source for content analysis by researchers generating data " (Conrad, Courtenay R.; Hill, Daniel W.; Moore, Will H. (2018). "Torture and the limits of democratic institutions". Journal of Peace Research. 55 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1177/0022343317711240.) (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • An advocacy group that is reasonably accurate for facts, so: generally reliable for facts, attribute for opinions. If there are questions about a specific report they have published, then the reliability of that report should be considered individually and not bundled into a discussion about general reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 – "Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions" per BilledMammal, Buidhe, Thryduulf, et al. seems to be a good summary. Davide King (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3: for the apparent context of reporting on Israel. Factually, they are an advocacy group - and such are not supposed to be objective. Publications from advocacy groups are commonly intended to achieve a goal, to sell a POV. In the case of “apartheid”, obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate. So may be cited with attribution as a WP:BIASED source, but should not be treated as fact. See also the prior discussions about advocacy. Googling them and Israel does find criticisms of method and accusations of a bias do exist to minor extent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Here you are in effect arguing that anybody who has an opinion is not reliable. All sources are biased, but some are careful not to publish false information. The Guardian, Telegraph, Haaretz and New York Times all have very strong biases, but we treat them as reliable sources as they are careful not to publish factually inaccurate information. Do you have any reason to believe AI publishes inaccurate information?
In terms of the apartheid analogy, the crime of apartheid has a technical legal definition which AI states, in a very closely argued report, Israel are in breach of. Now, you can disagree with their reasoning, which is why everybody who votes Option 1 states their opinions should be attributed, but characterising this as "emotional phrasing" aimed to sell a POV is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate, pure fantasy. AI is discussing the crime of apartheid and its technical definition and saying it applies. That is their view, and it should be included as their view. But it is fantasy that the phrasing is intended to incite or not technically accurate. nableezy - 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

How is it a RS issue? AI reports are tautologically reliable for the position of AI. The inclusion of the said position in any given article should be determined by WP:NPOV, specifically the due weight considerations. Alaexis¿question? 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the question people are really asking is whether 1. AI is usable for facts (ever), or solely for its own attributed opinion, and, 2. is it biased in the I/P area specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, the second question should be asked at WP:NPOVN probably but I see your point. Alaexis¿question? 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah the question is on things like AI saying things that are not their position but are reporting as fact. Like, to take one totally hypothetical example, AI saying that of the Palestinians in Israel 90% of them dwell in 139 densely populated towns and villages restricted to the Galilee, Triangle and Negev regions, with the remaining 10% in mixed cities sourced to one of their reports and removed as one-sided propaganda that cannot be RS. nableezy - 21:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Its not just propaganda it is factually falls. Just in Jerusalem there are close to 400 000 Palestinians who are counted in Israeli Arab population and who themselves represent 20% of population. Nazareth, Rahat, Um el Fahem, Akko, Lod, Ramle, Tel Aviv-Yaffa,...are not villages, but towns and and just those place that I mentioned are home to another 300 000 Arab people (cc 15%) which means that the 90% claim is nothing but falsification.Tritomex (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Source saying it is false please.Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Just Jerusalem had last year 350 000 Arab inhabitants which is almost by itself 20% of Arab population counted by Israeli CBS. [17]. So just apply WP:COUNT and you see that the 90% out of 1.9 million claim in 139 villages is falsification. Off course I can give source for each localities I mentioned above and for other as well. Tritomex (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Except the portion in Jerusalem is not in Israel? East Jerusalem being considered by Amnesty and nearly the entire international community to be in the Palestinian territories, not Israel. I get that you dont like Amnesty or the positions it espouses, but there is zero evidence that they are unreliable in any way. You disliking their positions matters for a blog maybe, not for our articles. nableezy - 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
How many of the Arabs in East Jerusalem are citizens of Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
2020 figures from this source gives Israeli pop as 6.87 million Jews, 1.96 million Arabs (Muslims (1.67 million) Druze and Christian Arabs) and 0.46 million others for a total of 9.29 million. The Muslim 1.67 million includes the Muslim Arabs living in East Jerusalem, who are not Israeli citizens. "It can therefore be concluded that there are 1.3 million Muslim citizens of Israel (author’s calculation based on the Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020c)." (For "Muslim", you can read "Palestinian").Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
They are Israeli residence card holders and are counted in all Israeli demographic reports, by Israeli CBS and every single source plus everywhere here in Wikipedia (without anyone even questioning it) without single exception. In all article's, including this one. Otherwise the number of Israeli Arabs wouldn't be 1.9 but more like 1.5 million and their share in population wouldn't be 21.1% but somewhere between 16-17%. The 1.9 million and 90% claim falls already in Jerusalem, but there are many many other towns and cities from whom I mentioned few above. You raised a good but off-line question which is on my mind for very long time. Why we always count Jerusalem and Golan Arab population in Arab population of Israel without any notes or explanation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)
There are ongoing discussions about this at the relatively new article Palestinian citizens of Israel Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Spatial Segregation in Israel says "The vast majority (90%) of PCI live in around 140 Arab towns and villages, while around 10% live in the so-
called “mixed cities”, including Haifa, Acre, Lod, Ramla and Natzeret Illit." June 2021
Fact Sheet: Palestinian Citizens of Israel says "Most Palestinian citizens of Israel live in three areas: the Galilee in the north, the so-called “Little Triangle” in the center of the country, and the Negev desert (Naqab to Palestinians) in the south." So "most" rather than 90%, March 2021 Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
These figures must surely hinge on whether, as a baseline, East Jerusalem is interpreted as being within Israel or as an occupied territory, with the former obviously lacking the support of international law (presumably AI's position). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - What are these "with an asterisk" !votes? The question explicitly regards facts and reliability as a source is as a matter of long-standing policy a thing we recognise even when the source is also known to have biases or be partisian in some respects. We do not ask that reliable sources reflect a view from nowhere. If the "with an asterisk" opinion don't document actual reliability concerns, I recommend the existence of the asterisks be disregarded by the closer. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • In general, comments on whether or not a source is WP:BIASED on a particular topic do wind up getting reflected in closes, especially if this would render in-text attribution for the source to be a best practice in controversial topic areas. There are real reasons to consider the asterisks and to not artificially limit discussion to something narrower than what normally is permitted in the standard 4-option RfCs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


  • Sceptre, you forgot to sign your close and I do not think closing this a week in was a good idea. It is arguable whether "with an asterisk" applies or not and the discussion isn't an obvious snowball so I think you should undo your close. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that this isn't a good case for a snow close, not least given that the "with asterisk" perspective is currently a minority position compared to unequivocal "option 1". The close language also seems to imply that AI's Israel report is not reliable, which does not appear to be a consensus position here. I would also expect a close for a discussion like this to address and evaluate the specific arguments made and their relative strength, which the current close does not. If the close isn't self-reverted shortly, it should be challenged formally. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
previous close
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's clear after just a week that there won't be a consensus to take Amnesty International, as a whole, below "generally reliable (with an asterisk)". However, several editors have noticed that because AI are necessarily partisan on certain issues, it's a good idea – but not necessarily mandatory – that anything cited to Amnesty should be attributed to them (i.e. "According to AI, country X executed N prisoners in 2021") just to cover our bases. If certain publications by AI are questionable (e.g. their Israel report), then those should form another part of the discussion, but GREL does allow for the quality for some of its work to be below the usual standards as long as it isn't habitual (at which point, of course, they'd be susceptible to being knocked down to MREL). Sceptre (talk)

Um Sir Joseph, everybody agrees that when AI presents their own view it should be presented as their own view. But what they report as factual is reliable. And you should read that link, the AI Israel head didnt actually dispute the findings of the report, only that it overlooks the work of human rights groups within Israel and the accomplishments of some Palestinians in Israel, and that she does not generally find the report helpful in advancing any cause. That is certainly fine for her to feel, but that has nothing to do with is Amnesty a reliable source. nableezy - 22:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspected Webhost-based "Gerontology" sites

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I discovered some gerontology-related sites on the internet that are suspected of being webhost-based.

If any of these websites use webhost, please tell me down in the comments and tell which one (s) is/are it/them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPEEDYBEAVER (talk • contribs)

Well, for an easy no-brainer, that last one is at NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, a seller of webhosting services. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
How exactly is this an issue for this noticeboard? None of the websites listed are cited on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, if someone decides to add links to these sites, I wanted to learn which one (s) are reliable or not. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Please don't clutter the noticeboard with hypothetical questions. That isn't its purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Capital FM, Interrobang, The Music Man, seeitlive: Reliable Sources?

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

A bit of context, about a week ago, I created an article (for the song and dance craze Coincidance), which was proposed for deletion. To summarise the discussion so far, essentially, the arguments hinge on whether or not the sources used in the article are reliable. While I believe one of the sources was established to be reliable (Cartoon Brew) during a previous discussion on this noticeboard, the others, namely Capital FM Network, Interrobang, The Music Man and seeitlive, I don’t believe have been discussed previously. The actual citations used in the article are:

https://www.capitalfm.com/features/most-popular-tiktok-songs-playlist-2020/

https://www.themusicman.uk/handsome-dancer/

https://theinterrobang.com/the-hot-new-summer-dance-craze-is-the-coincidance/

https://seeitlive.co/two-dancers-coincidance-video/

If these sources are or are not reliable, please do let me know why. Thankyou!

HenryTemplo (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say that CapitalFM, the website for a chain of radio stations in the United Kingdom and run by a leading media and entertainment company, should be reliable for noncontroversial edits. However, the reference to the song in that link is too trivial to support notability. Ditto for the Cartoon Brew link. The Interrobang is a comedy news and discussion website. It's hard for me to tell whether it has a proper fact-checking process or not, and I would be interested in others' thoughts on this. The Music Man and See It Live do not appear to have appropriate fact-checking and editorial processes. In any case, since you have at most one nontrivial article (on Interrobang) from a reliable source, that would not appear to support notability. John M Baker (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment. I would dispute the triviality of the mention in the Capital FM article and Cartoon Brew article, quoting the GNG: “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material”. Both of the articles discussion on the subject is more than a trivial mention, even if it’s not necessarily the main topic (at least I think so, you may disagree, it is sort of subjective). HenryTemplo (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, if there is any further, positive input on Interrobang, you can take that back to the AFD discussion and see if they think that you have enough. Without getting into a substantive discussion on notability here, it seems obvious that the brief amounts of coverage in the Cartoon Brew and CapitalFM articles are insufficient to show notability. John M Baker (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Houseofnames.com

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments10 people in discussion

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#RS hasn't had much success, so it's time to have a discussion about a few sources which are used regularly in "name" articles, but which I believe are not reliable. I'll start with one specific example:

Houseofnames.com is used in some 500 pages[18]. The site is a completely unreliable vehicle to sell stuff by giving people the false impression that they descend from a major family, no matter what their name is. Compare e.g. this to this and this. An attempt to get rid of some instances was reverted[19], so I'll let other editors decide if the source is acceptable or not. Fram (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable book sources on this topic such as The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, but WP:SOURCEACCESS means there is some work required to get hold of them. I had a look at houseofnames.com and it seems very obvious its primary purpose is to sell merchandise, not to be a trustworthy repository of knowledge. They do cite some sources occasionally, such as the entry for Schiltz, which cites Passenger and immigration lists index : a guide to published arrival records of about 500,000 passengers who came to the United States and Canada in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. 1982-1985 Cumulated Supplements in Four Volumes, but that only cites that a person with that name emigrated to the US, nothing more. So, as a general rule of thumb I would say it is unreliable because there's no possible way of knowing where the information came from. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Jeez, houseofnames.com is utter garbage, I suspect the content is generated by AI. At least, I can't think of a better explanation for this page. [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh my... I thought it was bad enough with Flemish names, but indeed, such ones are even worse. Similar examples are e.g. Shankar or Tolkien which turns out not to be German/Prussian as always thought, but from Normandy... Fram (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
See also 'Smurf'. [21] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, that made me smile :-) Fram (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with everyone else, unreliable on it's face. A great place, however, to get a coffee mug with a made-up family crest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It's weird, I remember these types of sites in like 2005? They still have the same design team for their products (with the whole parchment aesthetic) but their web design is seriously good. Anyways, I agree with above the source does not seem reliable. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Originally, the Spanish people were known only by a single name. The process by which hereditary surnames were adopted in Spain is extremely interesting. Surnames evolved during the Middle Ages when people began to assume an extra name to avoid confusion and to further identify themselves. Very interesting, indeed. People used a second name to avoid confusion and to further identify themselves. Also, Santacruz Settlers in United States in the 19th Century Francisco Santacruz, who landed in Peru in 1853. Peru, the secret United State. Although it's nice to see that Jon Radish made it to Virginia in 1633. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It was briefly mentioned here, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Family_website_and_geneology_sites and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Miscellaneous_name_sites_as_sources. Doesn't appear reliable. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTESAL (which I'd imagine the name articles qualify as) says "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." That kind of implies multiple reliable sources to start with. And as User:Uncle G/On notability put it, if you didn't do this, you would end up with an article of every last name in the world, which would result in a directory instead of an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Most name "articles" don't provide encyclopedic content, but merely serve a navigational purpose: WP:NAMELIST. You don't need sources or notability for those any more than you need sources and notability for disambiguation pages. – Uanfala (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There are several other sources that I was relying on. Are nay of them acceptable as WP:RS for WP:IC?

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/about
https://www.surnamedb.com/Home/about
https://www.ancestry.com/
https://www.name-doctor.com/about-us.html -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Ancestry.com is discussed on the list of perennial sources, which says "Ancestry.com is a genealogy site that hosts a database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts user-generated content, which is unreliable." Another way of putting this would be that Ancestry.com does host many citable primary source documents (as well as newspapers, which are usually secondary sources), but its user-generated content (which I imagine is what you would be looking at, for this purpose) is not RS. Preliminarily, the other sources do not appear to be RS, since they look more like hobby or business sites without a clear fact-checking process. John M Baker (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As User:Uanfala stated above WP:NAMELIST are for navigational purposes. For me {{Anthony}} {{Charles}} are fun endeavors. I thought they would be a lot less fun without sourced facts, but I just use the challenged sources to determine what pages are relevant. NAMELISTs with unsourced facts seems to be common. For those of you who aren't aware, {{Anthony}} is fun for me because of my name Antonio (and Username). my first edit explains why {{Charles}} is just as fun for me. Charles was originally suppose to be worked on from 10/25/19 to 10/25/20, but COVID interfered with my editing patterns. I finally have time to get after it. sourced or unsourced, it is still fun.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech Xplore and Self-Published College report reliability?

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Two related questions for comment:

  • Is Tech Xplore a reliable source, or a non-reliable "news aggregator" that re-publishes press releases or similar, as suggested in a comment here[22]?
Where wiki-used several times: [23]
  • Is a study report (self-) published on a professor's web page at Trinity College Dublin a reliable source, or a non-reliable self-published source?
Where wiki-used several times: [24]

More context:

They are being used to support statements such as "Analysis of data traffic by popular smartphones running variants of Android found substantial by-default data collection and sharing with no opt-out by this pre-installed software.[253][254] Both of these issues are not addressed or cannot be addressed by security patches." at Android_(operating_system)

As explained in a talk page here[25], IMO the self-published report is unreliable; this is partly based on the fact The Register published a correction[26], and partly on additional information which is probably "original research" by wiki-standards. Therefore, IMO, Tech Xplore demonstrates itself to also be unreliable by uncritically re-publishing excerpts or press releases from a university that published a flawed report. As there were no responses at that talk page, and the report results have been added (uncritically) to several articles (above insource search links), comments or consensus on these questions would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy for self published sources is WP:SPS. Such sources are reliable dependent on the acknowledged expertise of whoever has written it, but they are not unconditionally unreliable. It would depend on who "Nervuri" is.
As to making corrections that is the mark of a reliable source. Being perfectly correct everytime is an unreasonable high bar. However in regard to The Register I would regard it as not unreliable, but not the greatest source. It was formed as a red-top for tech news.
The about us page of Tech Xplore directs towards this page, which goes into detail about their editorial process. It certainly looks reliable, although if the article is aggregated I would reference to the original source. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 23:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Re: "acknowledged expertise" and "It would depend on who "Nervuri" is." I agree and go farther: Nervuri demonstrated expertise by bringing attention to issues that were ignored or overlooked by the report by Professor Leith, causing gitlab issues to be filed, and status updates to report (lack of) progress on fixing the issues; however, it is doubtful many wiki-editors would acknowledge this expertise, and while factual, the forum and gitlab sources supporting the preceding statement would be WP:OR and not considered wiki-reliable.
Do you agree it also depends on who "Professor Leith" is, how they chose to publish the particular report, how it was publicized, and how The Register published a correction questioning a report methodology and conclusion?
I agree the correction by The Register increases their reliability in comparison to others; my point was that particular correction detracts from the reliability of Prof. Leith's (self published) study report. Yes, nothing is perfect.
Thanks for looking at Tech Xplore About! There *is* a subtle difference in how they publish or re-publish articles, based on whether they state copyright. For this article they say "Provided by Trinity College Dublin" and link to a "partners" page.[27] Search digging finds the original Trinity College Dublin "Media Relations" article that was re-published by Tech Xplore verbatim with format changes.[28]
It appears there is really only one source in this instance - the study report and what the authors said or wrote to their "media relations" person. After that, Except The Register, this is an example of wiki junk sourcing, as the media relations article was uncritically propagated to "news" sources, which are then considered "reliable" by some editors at wikipedia.
So what is the proper wiki-course? Reference The Register article and the Media Relations article, and note the conclusions are called into question? Or conclude the report results are questionable and consider the whole thing unreliable, or just another example of controversy? -- Yae4 (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The Russian news outlet “Interfax” is not rated for reliability on Wikipedia (or WP) and should be. Help needed

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Interfax is a widely known news outlet in Russia, yet it is not rated for reliability on WP.

There is also an “Interfax - Ukraine” but I don’t if it is connected to the Russian Interfax or not.

Both should be rated for reliability.

I have NO experience (or time for this). Help from experienced editors is requested.

Thanks in advance.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no pressing need mentioned, and it has not needed a RSP listing as a ‘perennial’ RSN topic, possibly because WP-English favors English-language sources. When I used the search at top of this page, I did get a few hits for it. Saying in part “reliable for reporting facts mainly concerning routine internal politics (Vladimir Putin yesterday appointed Ivan Ivanov a Minister of Truth); not reliable as far as some opinions, mainly concerning foreign policy are present (the US troops attacked freedom fighters in Syria using lethal gas; the Boston professor and world famous analyst John Smith predicted that the US would not survive as a state until 2021)”. Also seemed reputation better than Interfax-Ukraine. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Like ANNA News and Ruptly, Interfax is a Russian news agency (or a Newswire), similar to the Associated Press and Reuters, providing news collection as a commercial service to news organisations. As a recent example, Interfax broadcast confessions of Russian Lieutenant Colonel Krishtop Maxim Sergeevich [29], which was rebroadcasted by news organisations [30] [31]. The Russian censor office can't really restrict the work of news agencies, as their news organisation clients are liable for misinformation they rebroadcast. Newswires are typically on the "front line" of news media, and since there is no WP:NORUSH on Wikipedia, we should wait for more trusted new organisations to cover stories on Wikipedia. LondonIP (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    The Russian censor office can't really restrict the work of news agencies, as their news organisation clients are liable for misinformation they rebroadcast This massively misrepresents the nature of censorship in Russia. Most censorship is self-imposed, as agencies avoid broadcasting content which is politically unpallatable. [32] [33] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    I agree about the self-censorship, but newswires are generally not as restricted as news organisations, as they usually provide just the raw footage and reports. LondonIP (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - I do not know enough about Interfax to give an opinion as to whether it is reliable or not… however, I do not think it should be placed on the RSP list.
That list is for sources that have repeatedly been discussed here at RSN (this is why it is called “Perennial”) - and Interfax has not been repeatedly discussed. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

About Fandom wikis

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

After all this controversy, should we add Fandom wikis like amazing-everything.fandom.com, gerontology.fandom.com and archicentenarians.fandom.com to spam blacklist?SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPEEDYBEAVER: I see no reason why Fandom wikis should be added to the blacklist. They haven't been used for spam or promotional purposes (and if they have I haven't seen it) which is the reason the spam blacklist exists. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@SPEEDYBEAVER: I concur with Blaze wolf. Please read the relevant guideline for blacklisting sources. Do you have a valid rationale for adding Fandom to the blacklist with compelling evidence that their wikis are being abused in such a manner on Wikipedia and that no other action is sufficient? Keep in mind, The Daily Mail and National Enquirer are both controversial, but that doesn't mean we have to blacklist them. Deprecation has proven to be sufficient. Even then, this should not apply to Fandom wikis. The policy for external links allows wikis if they are stable and have a significant number of editors (e.g. Minecraft Wiki), making either blacklisting or deprecating Fandom problematic. Marking it as unreliable, which we already have done, should be enough. Lazman321 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Lazman321: I would say that the Minecraft Wiki is sort of an outlier since it used to be the official Minecraft Wiki so of course it would have fairly high standards. I don't know of any other Wiki that wasn't considered an "official" Wiki that is still stable and has a significant number of editors, but the same principle still applies. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Memory Alpha perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
And Wookieepedia. Canterbury Tail talk 13:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Plenty of fan-wikis are reliable (in the small r sense) because they have a community dedicated to keeping the information up-to-date. The issue is that all of their information is from the primary source itself. The good fan-wikis note where this is information is from (referenced) the bad ones dont. Ultimately there should never be any need to reference a fan wiki because if we wanted to use information contained on one in an article here, we would use the primary source as we use primary sources generally for creative works. However plenty of the good wikis (MA, Bulbapedia etc) are absolutely useful external links as they contain far more detailed and correct information than we would ever include in an article here, so blacklisting would be inappropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Should we blacklist them? If it any of them gets spammed then that can be considered but otherwise it isn't necessary. That said, let's get this clear that fandom sites are open wikis, i.e they are user-generated sources and generally unreliable. Even if one believes a particular piece of information to be correct, it can't be used because they fail to meet the standards of WP:V. At best, things like about pages can be used a primary source for information on themselves. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: ANNA News

Latest comment: 2 years ago24 comments14 people in discussion
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.
Consensus for option 4, deprecation. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


Which of these best describes the reliability of ANNA News? RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Survey (ANNA News)

  • Do not rate This appears to be a site with very limited uses in Wikipedia. It can be handled on a case by case basis and it would be far better to discuss rather than go right into trying to rate the source. Absolutely should not be deprecated because it is not widely used on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (ANNA News)

  • I found this peer-reviewed academic publication that covers ANNA News, formerly known as the Abkhazian Network News Agency (emphasis added):

Because these semi-state Russian groups are shadowy and protean, it can be challenging to find reliable information about their activities. They are surrounded by rumors, and some of the prominent individuals involved with them have been caught in direct lies.

[...]

The existence of at least one Russian PMC [private military company] seems to have been completely fabricated, for unknown reasons. Ruslan Leviev of the Conflict Intelligence Team (a group that describes itself as conducting open-source, devil’s advocate, big-data intelligence on Russia’s wars in Ukraine and Syria), demonstrated through comparative photographic evidence that the group, “Turan,” a supposed Muslim Russian PMC in Syria, was fake. A different “journalist,” Oleg Blokhin of two pro-Russian-state news organizations (the Abkhazian Network News Agency, http://anna-news.info/about/, and Russian Spring, http://rusvesna.su/about), who “broke” the news about Turan, actually created an elaborate photo-shopped hoax, starring himself and a colleague in combat fatigues.

Marten, Kimberly (4 May 2019). "Russia's use of semi-state security forces: the case of the Wagner Group". Post-Soviet Affairs. 35 (3). Routledge: 181–204. doi:10.1080/1060586X.2019.1591142 – via Taylor & Francis.

I now see that it's already cited in the ANNA News article, which has more examples of ANNA News's publication of false or fabricated information. — Newslinger talk 08:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Please see these discussions: Talk:Timeline of the war in Donbas (2021)#Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020). In both cases, editors assert a right to use ANNA News, and ANNA content continues to be inserted into these timeline articles, as you can see by glancing through them. Hence, I opened this discussion. However marginal this source may seem from the outside, it must be properly considered here to prevent further distortions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Please look at the discussions linked above. Attempts to deal with this source on obscure article talk pages have repeatedly resulted in certain editors continuing to place this source into articles. In fact, one editor even claimed that precisely because RSN has not yet deprecated it, it should be considered a 'partisan source, reliable in certain contexts', despite the fact that this source is well-documented in scholarly works as participating in fabrication. Therefore, as I said above, it is absolutely necessary that something be done about this source here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan saw this discussion before "voting" here. See diff. Renat 16:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and I posted that because I believe it can be appropriate to notify talk page participants when a thread's subject has been brought to a different forum. I also believe it might be appropriate to ping the "certain editors continuing to place this source into articles" whom RGloucester refers to, but RGloucester hasn't identified them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The goal of opening this RfC was to attract uninvolved participants, not rehash arguments among involved parties (and please note, that discussion is a year old, and I didn't participate in it). I haven't pinged or canvassed anyone to this discussion, no matter their opinion. Your suggestion of impropriety is no less than casting WP:ASPERSIONS. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Take your accusation to WP:ANI where you'd have to show evidence, I won't engage further with you here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

www.kreiszeitung.de

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is https://www.kreiszeitung.de a WP reliable source?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: - see WP:ANI#Gutting of articles at AfD for background info. It would appear to be a German regional news site. On the face of it, it appears to meet RS. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Mumbai Theatre Guide

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it reliable? 14:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's always best to identify an article and specific content per the instructions for this noticeboard, but given [37], [38], and [39], I'd say be very careful in considering it for anything at all. --Hipal (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sant bhindra wala was not a terrorist.

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Team,

Just want to make sure that i am not on any side but want to request morefacts to a page on the name of sant Bindrawala on Wikipedia. It claims that sant bhindrawala was having parellel govt. and he was establishing his terrorist group in golden temple and it leads that he was a terrorist. i don't think ever any govt of india or any other contry has any declaration of that. I have one old article of real insident and on the bassis of this and the fact that what ever people keeps on saying is not true but fact matters i request you to checkh review and edit this kind of statement. for reffrence: please check the only one article there is no govt or court or police orders that he was a Terrorist. So i request you to remove that. Thank you. [1] the wikipedia link of page:[2]

Gurdeep84 (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/court-seeks-publishers-response-on-terrorist-reference-to-jarnail-singh-bhindranwale-1731080
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarnail_Singh_Bhindranwale

Is the “Right Web” or the “Militarist Monitor” an RS for Nina Rosenwald

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

See the changes here. I’m also a bit confused as it seems the Militarist Monitor replaced the Right Web. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  • According to Media Bias / Fact Check MM is a left leaning advocacy site that opposes what it believes to be interventionist / militaristic policies, especially on the part of the US Government. That said, they give it a high rating for factual accuracy. To me, this suggests that what it is reporting, is probably factually accurate, as far as it goes. But I would not look to this site for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They have an ideological axe that they are grinding and may not present facts or opinions inconsistent with the view they are pushing. In summary I would accept them as RS for noncontroversial claims of fact, i.e. a date of birth or that Congressman Smith is a Republican from Iowa. But I would be very reluctant to accept any claims or characterizations that might be controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    MM isn’t a reliable source itself I believe. But it appears that the original source was Right Web, wasn’t it? Doug Weller talk 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    Oops, I meant I didn’t think Media Bias/Fact Chrck was a reliable source, particularly for a site’s politics. Doug Weller talk 23:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    Doug is correct. I would not trust Media Bias/Fact Check. It is an unreliable blog. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It's BLP so we should be careful I have take a look at the site it seems it doesn't have editorial board its not clear who writes the articles and so on. I would avoid Shrike (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Yes, I consider it a reliable source also, but over at Azov Battalion they are currently voting that it isn’t. Also sources aren’t reliable unless they are in English, did you know that? I would normally just move on, but this unit is currently keeping the Russians out of Mariupol under heavy fire, and we can’t even put that in the article currently.

Please, the article badly needs fresh eyes. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This post is not accurate. Whether DW is a RS is mostly irrelevant to the split proposal being discussed. (t · c) buidhe 23:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
please explain why it would be irrelevant. The editor is being told that Deutsche Welle is not a reliable source and therefore it doesn’t matter what it says :) Did you read the thread?? Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Baidu Tieba

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We have consensus to deprecate Baidu Baike, but as of now we really don't have any consensus for another Baidu product, the Baidu Tieba. Two months ago @大猩猩城: modified Line 6 (Tianjin Metro) with frivolous mentions of Line 8 stations, and when I asked for sources supporting them to modify so, they pointed [40] to me, claimed that their members asked NDRC and provided reasons for saying Line 6 instead of Line 8.

My suggestion is to also deprecate Baidu Tieba, or even we should add it to spam blacklist due to mass user-generated contents, mass copy-paste of copyvio contents and mass release of republic of fake news.

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#Can_we_use_blogs_to_show_that_a_subject_is_discussed_in_cyberspace?. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Older local sports coverage from New York Post

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

While I definitely agree that NYPost isn't a great source today for pretty much anything, is there any chance that it's local sports coverage would have been more reliable about 15-20 years? The two pieces in question are both 2004 articles about a lower-profile NYC basketball prospect who went to DePaul (in Chicago). Hog Farm Talk 15:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In this case, several of us are inclined to accept the uncontroversial coverage from the NY Post for a local basketball player, as that was his local newspaper at the time, and where one would expect to find local sports coverage. We would like to hear more views on whether uncontroversial sports coverage at the high school level from the NY Post from 15 to 20 years ago would be a BLP issue in an FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thomas De Waal

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re-adding this as it was archived.

I would like to propose that Thomas de Waal be regarded as a pro-Azerbaijani source for Armenian-Azerbaijani topics. De Waal has been criticized many times for promoting a pro-Azerbaijani narrative in subtle ways that someone unfamiliar with the conflict will not recognize, and for creating false balances that are to the benefit of Azerbaijan.

Professor Alexander Manasyan of Yerevan State University: "[Thomas de Waal] supports the point of view which is steered by the propaganda machine of Baku...[he] carries out [the] Azerbaijani position by distorting the essence of the problem, masterfully going around all the unfavorable to Azerbaijani position facts and events, skillfully offering lie as believable truth".[1]

Karen Vrtanesyan, an Armenian expert for the Ararat Center for Strategic Research, on de Waal's book Black Garden: "a banal propaganda but not an objective research on [the] Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict."[2] "Black Garden is not an unbiased work, neither can its author be considered a neutral observer."[3]

Armenian analyst and journalist Tatul Hakobyan accused De Waal of quoting Serzh Sargsyan out of context in the Black Garden regarding the latter's comments about the Khojaly Massacre, making it appear as if Sargsyan was boasting about killing civilians when he was actually criticizing Azerbaijan for using its own civilians as shields.[4]

A petition signed by several academics and human rights lawyers was made against both De Waal and Carnegie Europe (De Waal's think-tank employer), accusing both of tribalism, historical revisionism, and promoting Armenian Genocide denial.[41]

De Waal making a tweet in support of Ilham Aliyev during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war that is also passive aggressive against Armenia: "Gives insights into what Pres. Aliyev is thinking. At least he wants to talk about negotiations, although of course the Armenian side sees things totally differently..."[42]

In Black Garden, De Waal refers to Agdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus". He is evidently feels very proud of the nickname, and openly admits to inventing it.[43] It occasionally is mentioned by journalists, often erroneously being attributed to the locals. The nickname has been heavily criticized because Agdam and Hiroshima have nothing in common. Agdam wasn’t hit with an atomic bomb or radiation weapon. On the contrary, Agdam hosted a large military base that was firing rockets at Stepanakert up until its capture.[44]

While De Waal sensationalizes a legitimate Azerbaijani military target into being a war crime, he often trivializes crimes against humanity committed against Armenians. In the 2003 edition of Black Garden, De Waal refuses to call the Armenian Genocide and genocide and refers to it in scare quotes:

I use the term "Genocide" without wishing to enter the historical debate as to whether it is the appropriate term for the mass slaughter of the Armenians. (page 306)
The comparison was immediately felt and expressed with the massacres of 1915, the "Genocide." Memorials were set up to the Sumgait victims. (page 44)

De Waal has called for France to leave its co-chair position in the OSCE Minsk Group in favour of another European country with "more balanced relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan", and suggests Germany as an example.[45] It is a Turkish/Azerbaijani nationalist position to accuse France of having an Armenian bias just because there are about half a million Armenians in France (yet there are over one million Turks). This same criticism of France being pro-Armenian was also made by Didier Billion, a fervently pro-Turkish French politician who promotes Turkish interests within the French Senate and is an Armenian Genocide denier.[46] It is also very telling that De Waal considers Germany, a country with 7 million Turks and Turkey's largest trading partner, to be a "neutral" country.

De Waal makes a biased accusation against Armenians in Black Garden, by claiming Armenians are trying to have the "Azerbaijanis of Armenia...written out of history" (page 80) by referring to the Blue Mosque in Yerevan as "Persian". However, the majority of neutral sources also refer to the mosque as Persian.[5][6][7][8] Yet another pro-Azerbaijani biased and undue position that De Waal has.

References

  1. ^ Manasyan, Alexander (19 February 2007). "Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: on the Frontlines of the Information War, or the Last "Accord" of the Year". International Center for Human Development. Retrieved 30 September 2007.
  2. ^ "Studies on Strategy and Security", compiled and edited, with an introduction and commentary by Dr Armen Ayvazyan, Yerevan, Lusakn, 2007, 684 pp. , p. 657
  3. ^ Vrtanesyan, Karen. ""The Black Garden": In Search of Imagined Balance". Ararat Center for Strategic Research. Retrieved 29 September 2007..
  4. ^ Hakobyan, Tatul (26 February 2018). "Խոջալուի մասին Սերժ Սարգսյանի խոսքերը Թոմաս դե Վաալը ենթատեքստից դուրս է մեջբերել". aniarc.am (in Armenian).
  5. ^ Kaeter, Margaret (2004). The Caucasian Republics. Facts on File. p. 12. ISBN 9780816052684. The Blue Mosque [...] is the only Persian mosque in Yerevan still preserved.
  6. ^ Carpenter, C. (2006). "Yerevan". World and Its Peoples, Volume 1. Marshall Cavendish. p. 775. ISBN 9780761475712. ...only one large Persian mosque, the eighteenth-century Blue Mosque, is still open, now renovated as a cultural center.
  7. ^ Brooke, James (12 March 2013). "Iran, Armenia Find Solidarity in Isolation". Voice of America. In all of Christian Armenia, there is only one mosque: "The Iranian Mosque," restored 15 years ago by Iran.
  8. ^ Ritter, Markus (2009). "The Lost Mosque(s) in the Citadel of Qajar Yerevan: Architecture and Identity, Iranian and Local Traditions in the Early 19th Century" (PDF). Iran and the Caucasus. 13 (2). Brill Publishers: 252–253. doi:10.1163/157338410X12625876281109. JSTOR 25703805.

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The nation

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Is this [[47]] as RS for this claim "Lev Golinkin wrote in The Nation that "Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world's only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces.""? Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This is for Azov Battalion? Well, it looks there like properly attributed opinion. I don't know how Lev Golenkin checked out the armed forces of every country in the world, and I've seen arguments that Russia coddles neo-Nazis too, and it's a statement about Ukraine more than a statement about Azov Battalion. But those would be objections for WP:NPOVN rather than WP:RSN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The objection raised was that it was not an RS, as an involved editor I thought I would ask for a third opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you asking if we can trust that The Nation accurately reproduced the words that Lev Golinkin wrote? Because I have no reason to believe that they didn't. How and where such information belongs in a Wikipedia article is a about due balance and point of view, and that's a discussion for other venues. This board deals primarily with whether or not stuff written in wikipedia is cited to reliable sources. --Jayron32 12:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Let me be clear, another user objected to this partly on the grounds it's not a reliable source. I have no idea what they meant by it (as it seemed to me clear it is an RS), but (as I said) I am an involved party so wanted third-party input on that one issue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
As I said, I have every reason to believe that The Nation has reliably reproduced the words that Lev Golinkin wrote. --Jayron32 13:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Gourdine/Crawford Article for Ancient Egyptian Articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

This is a second section on the previous study featuring Gourdine and Keita. They were cited and included in an peer-reviwed article by Keith Crawford in the African Archaeological Review. The link is here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-021-09453-7

However, other users disputed the reliability of the academic author even though his article is an credible, peer-reviwed article. I believe this study can still be included as a secondary source. Any constructive proposals on this ?.WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you expand a bit on what you are asking here? If your question is "Is African archaeological review a reliable source", then I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be given that it's 1) published by Springer 2) rated as acceptable in various publication venue rankings. If your question is "Does the fact that a review paper published in African archaeological review cites another paper mean that the other paper is reliable", then absent other information, rather likely no. If you have a specific statement you'd like to source to Crawford, it'd be helpful if you listed it explicitly. - Ljleppan (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ljleppan I have a copy of the paper and Crawford's entire statement:
Genetic Studies
"Scheuneman et al (2017) analyzed mitochondrial genomes from a small sample of Ancient Egyptian mummies and concluded, "Our anlyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present day Egyptians..." Yet the authors present the archaeological and historical evidence for migrations of Asiatics, Greeks, and Romans into the region during the Late periods (664-332 BC) from which their samples originate. So why should the genetic data be expected to characterise anyone other than these foreigners ?. Their sample is far from a representative Egyptian sample. The authors acknowledgement that ancient populations in more southern Egypt would be closely related to Nubia, having a higher Sub-Saharan genetic component. Gourdine et al (2018) conducted short tandem repeat's (STR's) analysis of samples from Amarna royal mummies of the 18th and Rameses III of the 20th dynasty. They used published genomic data analyzed by the PopAfiliator tool (Pereira et al.2011) and determined that the genomes had a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of affilitation with sub-Saharan Africans". WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I too have access to that journal through my work. No need to copy it all here. But you didn't answer my question: What content are you proposing to include in the wikipedia article based on the Crowford paper? You seem to be operating under the assumption that everyone on this noticeboard knows the full background of whatever content dispute you are having. This is very much not the case. - Ljleppan (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ljleppan The inclusion of this content "Gourdine et al (2018) conducted short tandem repeat's (STR's) analysis of samples from Amarna royal mummies of the 18th and Rameses III of the 20th dynasty. They used published genomic data analyzed by the PopAfiliator tool (Pereira et al.2011) and determined that the genomes had a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of affilitation with sub-Saharan Africans". This references the study as a secondary, peer-reviewed source. Does that answer your question ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Per my understanding, it was actually Hawass et al who conducted short tandem repeat's (STR's) analysis of samples from Amarna royal mummies of the 18th and Rameses III of the 20th dynasty. They concluded that the Amarna family's genetics originated in the Near East. Gourdine, Keita et al copied some data from the Hawass paper, and ran it through the on-line PopAfiliator tool, which has an 86% success rate, and Gourdine, Keita et al then concluded that "the genomes had a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of affiliation with sub-Saharan Africans". This seemingly implies that the Amarna family originated in Chad, which is not in the Near East at all. If this cherry-picking is to be included at all, it should properly explain exactly what Keita and Gourdine actually did, and that the original Hawass study came to a different conclusion. Wdford (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to admit, with all the back-and-forth about reliability, I am somewhat struggling to see this as WP:DUE for the article. It feels inchoate in some ways -- as if it might be the predecessor to some interesting and useful information, but as it stands, is a bit ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. As ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
While I'd presume African Archaeological Review to be WP:RS, it feels a bit... off, to "circumvent" the problem with the publisher of the original work you appear to want to cite in this way. I'm also not a fan of how this seems to making an implied claim regarding the origins of the mummies without actually committing to stating so. If this a majority opinion in the field, I'm sure you can source better evidence for it. If there's genuine disagreement, I'd assume there to be plenty of RS to state that such disagreement exists. If it's the minority position, this quickly starts to feel like a case of WP:UNDUE especially in the context of all the weirdness surrounding the original source the claims derive from. That said, I'm not an egyptologist, so I'm approaching all this as an outsider. Also, that snippet you posted as the proposed text to include in the articles looks like dangerously close to WP:COPYVIO in my view. - Ljleppan (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@WdfordIt is frustrating having this back and forth, if you ignore my comments, accuse me of "cherry-picking" and mischaracterise what is stated in the study. Hawass did not determine the clade but the haplogroup originated in the Near East. Keita did not imply or even mention Chad as an origin point. They determined the population affinitities not the origin of the haplogroup. The R-V88 which is found in high concentration among Chadic populations is claimed by some academics to be the result of a back-immigration into Africa from the Near East. However, that does not mean those populations were not Sub-Saharan. Please, do not conflate geographical location with ethnicity. There is no direct contradiction in the results as neither of them state this is the case. I do agree that the the Keita study should be featured in context of discussion with the Hawass study.
@LjleppanI'm not sure I understand your point. There is not major disagreement among academics on the origins of the Amarna mummies specifically. Wdford is suggesting there is a disagreement between Keita and Hawass when that is not stated in either of the sources. They examine different things. Hawass has determined the haplogroup but not the specific clade whereas Keita has only examined the affinities to modern-day populations. Those are two separate areas of focus. Also, that snippet sentence would of course be paraphased and just have Crawford as a reference. Can we please reach a consensus view on this ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
WikiUser4020 is ducking the issue once again.
It seems to be clear that Keita et al are using genetic data that was identified – and published – by Hawass et al. Keita did not get his own samples and do his own tests – he relied on the Hawass data. If Hawass "determined the haplogroup but not the specific clade", then how would Keita have identified the specific clade – since his team was working with the published Hawass data?
And since Keita did not have data about specific clades, on what basis has Keita identified clade R-V88?
And since Keita has no data on R-V88, on what basis is Keita determining the "population affinities" of the Amarna family?
Keita stated that their analysis of STRs produced a probability of SSA affinities. He is thus relying specifically on the genetic data published by Hawass, to populate an internet "calculator" – and he reached a conclusion which contradicted that of Hawass. Little wonder they were unable to publish this paper in a proper journal.
If you have evidence from reliable sources that mainstream experts agree that the Amarna family originated in sub-Saharan Africa, then please produce that evidence. Using this mush to stealthily promote the POV of black Egyptians is serious cherry-picking and WP:SYNTH.
Crawford is not an expert in this field. Not even vaguely.
Crawford stated that "Gourdine et al (2018) conducted short tandem repeat's (STR's) analysis of samples from Amarna royal mummies". This is not accurate – Gourdine and Keita merely ran the Hawass data through an internet calculator. It seems like Crawford does not understand the material, and is merely citing Keita's conclusions uncritically. That makes him an unreliable source, does it not?
Wdford (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@WdfordI'm not ducking the issue. I have answered your points repeatedly and explained the difference between haplogroups and population affinitites.
Hawass did not publish the clade of the haplogroup. Keita did not identify the specific clade, I stated this previously. You are clearly not reading my responses. I stated beforehand Keita did not identify R-V88 as the clade. Keita and Gourdine used a PopAffilitation tool to determine its affinity to modern population groups. I have answered all your other points, that this does not contradict Hawass and they purposely chose to publish it in the journals of the contributor who passed away. Other users can determine if Wdford is deliberately being obstructive and mischaracterising the source material and my statements.
There has been no extensive discussion on the genetic origin of the Amarna family among academics as the DNA studies conducted are relatively new. I am not producing WP:SYNTH as Keith clearly states in the quoted sentence above and his work is peer-reviewed in a credible journal.
Crawford is accurate they conducted analysis of STR samples and he mentions they used a PopAffilitation tool. He is not unreliable as Crawford's work is peer-reviewed and in a credible journal. "It seems like Crawford does not understand the material", do you presume to know more about the field of genetics than an academic ?. You keep conflating the origin of haplogroups with modern population affiinities. I have pointed these are not the same areas of study but you have ignored my comments and provided no constructive proposals. I want the final view from users on its inclusion. Please do not waste further time, just give your final view. That is far more constructive than back and forth. WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding "I want the final view from users on its inclusion" you already have my view above: While I'm neither an Egyptologist nor a geneticist, the sources you have proposed above seem dubious for the claims you want to cite. If the position you are seeking to support is a majority position, I'm sure there are better sources you can use instead. If you are using them to support a minority position (e.g. there is very little research on this specific aspect so far, or the position disagrees with the majority position) it's dubious that these sources would warrant inclusion in an article. But this is quickly turning more into a question of WP:WEIGHT and not something that should be discussed on this noticeboard. - Ljleppan (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Do other users have any other final opinions so I can see what the consensus opinion is ?. @Wdford did mention that if it is included then the methodology should be included i.e. PopAffilitation caculator in context ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a vote, and people don't have to repeat themselves. MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm also of the mind that the source seems to be dubious for the claims, and per Dumuzid, they're likely WP:UNDUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid@Ljleppan@Wdford@ScottishFinnishRadish I'm no longer pushing on this topic. It has devolved into a back and forth and a waste of time. I have already cited enough authoritative sources to improve the level of detail across related articles. I anticipate future publications will provide a conclusive view on this topic. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, WikiUser4020, I think this is the right approach. Time may prove you right! But for the moment, I appreciate your willingness to listen to others. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Keita, Gourdine (2020) Publication for Ancient Egypt Articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago58 comments7 people in discussion

I seek to include this source into a number of articles related to Ancient Egypt. This includes:

Ancient Egypt Tutankhamun Rameses III DNA History of Egypt

The source is an academic study featuring a biological anthropologist and geneticist conducting short tandem repeat's (STR) analysis of samples from the Amarna and Rammesside royal mummies of the Eighteenth Dynasty and Twentieth Dynasty dynasties. The authors determine the population affilitation of these genomes.The original source was in a pre-print version in 2018 but has now been re-published in 2020 in an academic peer-reviewed, journal: Ankh, Journal of Egyptology and African Civilizations (n° 28/29): 155–161.

This is listed in the footnotes of the 2020 version: https://www.academia.edu/42844736/Ancient_Egyptian_Genomes_from_northern_Egypt_Further_discussion

The publication is listed in the Ankh journal: http://www.ankhonline.com/ankh_n_28-29_cover%204.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/42844736/Ancient_Egyptian_Genomes_from_northern_Egypt_Further_discussion

However, another user contests the reliablity of this source and argues there is no evidence of it been peer-reviewed even though the sources state the journal and publication date.WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

How does including the journal and date show that the journal is peer reviewed? See [48]. I can’t find evidence for peer review. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Doug, Gourdine's article it is listed in the journal: http://www.ankhonline.com/ankh_n_28-29_cover%204.pdf

The journal lists authoritative editors such as Stephen Quirke, Fred Wendorf, Bruce Triggers and states that "Methodological requirements" are required for contributions in the ANKH journal. Although it first operated as a periodic publication than an online journal. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It only says: Methodological requirements, interdisciplinary relevance, intellectual openings, are required for this new necessary spirit of creative freedom. How does this amount to peer-review? If the journal doesn't even claim to be peer-reviewed, one shouldn't boldly assume that it is. –Austronesier (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I am not seeing a lot there that inspires confidence. Anything else you can point to, WikiUser4020? Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I think that User:WikiUser4020 is confused. I can't even find a list of editors. Trigger is only mentioned in a bibliography.[49] Doug Weller talk 14:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Doug, read my recent comments below on the publication of the Gourdine article in an a second journal, Cahier Caribeens d'Egyptologie which is listed as peer-reviewed in the Gourdine study.WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC) WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@WikiUser4020: that’s not an answer to my question about Trigger. Where can I see a list of the editors? Doug Weller talk 18:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@WikiUser4020: as you can't produce evidence that "The journal lists authoritative editors such as Stephen Quirke, Fred Wendorf, Bruce Triggers" could you please strike through that claim? Doug Weller talk 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doug WellerIt states on the Ankh main page: Authors :
Kossivi ADJAMAGBO ,
Troy. D. ALLEN ,
Hartwig Altenmuller ,
Alain ANSELIN ,
Cheikh Moctar BA,
Moussa BALDE ,
Mario Beatty ,
Ayele BEKERIE ,
Martin BERNAL ,
Mubabinge BILOLO ,
Hamady BOCOUM ,
Jean-Marc BONNET-BIDAUD ,
Bamouan BOYALA ,
Gunter BRAUER ,
Ali Rochmon BRUCE ,
Fatou Physio CAMARA,
Greg K. CARR ,
vanessa davies
El Hadji Malick DEME
Alioune DEME,
Mame Yoro DIALLO,
Ladji DIANIFABA,
Dialo DIOP,
Babacar Buuba DIOP ,
Cheikh M'Backé DIOP ,
Louise Marie Diop
Malick DIOP ,
Samory Candace DIOP
Michel Waly DIOUF,
Salouma DOUCOURE
Philippe Fluzin
Jean-Paul FOUGAIN,
Joseph Lafayette Gaston,
Jean Charles Coovi GOMEZ ,
Jean-Luc GOURDINE,
Jean-Philippe GOURDINE,
Oger KABORE _
Ablay KANE ,
Shomarka OY KEÏTA,
Mpay KEMBOLY
Marc LACHIEZE-REY ,
Aboubacry Moussa LAM ,
Nicolas MANLIUS ,
Jean Paul MBELEK ,
Luca MIATELLO ,
Nathalie MICHALON ,
Maurice NDEYE,
Kimani NEHUSHI,
Gilbert NGOM ,
Justin NOUIND,
Oum NDIGI ,
Adoum NGABA WAYE ,
Wade W. NOBLES,
Vera L. NOBLES ,
Theophile Obenga ,
Stephen QUIRKE
Babacar SALL ,
Moustapha SALL,
Mouhamadou Nissire SARR ,
Diaraf SECK ,
Walid SHAIKH AL ARAB
Lassina SIMPORE,
Yoporeka SOMET
Abdoulaye SYLLA
Mamadou Ibra SY
Wontcheu TCHAMENI ,
Valethia WATKINS ,
Fred Wendorf ,
Bruce WILLIAMS ,
http://www.ankhonline.com/revue.htm WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Minor correction, it is Bruce Williams not Bruce Triggers. However, Fred Wendorf and Stephen Quirke are listed as the authors. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Authors != Editors. Also, please consider condensing that absolutely massive list to something that doesn't take up multiple screens worth of vertical space. - Ljleppan (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
He really needs to retract the claim that these are editors. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doug WellerRetraction, authors not editors. However, we are discussing another peer-reviewed journal which features the results of the study. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The publication is also featured in another journal, Cahiers Caribéens d'Egyptologie, this is co-founded by one of the contributors, Anselin and is listed as peer-reviewed in the Keita study. http://www.culturediff.org/english/ccde.htm The journal also publishes Gourdine's 2020 article here in issue n24/25 (2020): http://www.culturediff.org/english/ccde24-25.htm

The Keita study states:

"Alain Anselin, Ph.D was the editor of the peer reviewed Egyptological journals Cahiers Caribéens d'Égyptologie & electronic papyrus i-Medjat"-p160.

WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Gourdine et al. are cited in this paper[50] which is a peer-reviewed source. I suggest to cite the latter peer-reviewed article as a secondary source (NB cite, not plagiarize[51]). –Austronesier (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Austronesier: the problem that I have with that peer-reviewed source is the author: "Keith W. Crawford Department of Pharmacology, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, D.C., 20059, USA National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, 20852, USA" Doug Weller talk 12:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
While that is ranging pretty far afield, it would seem that the author is a serious person, and the journal saw fit to print the article. Bob Brier, whom I would think is a widely notable popular egyptologist, has an academic background in philosophy (and boy could his page use work). At any rate, while I think your qualms are entirely appropriate, they don't rise to the level of "unreliability" for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The study is already published in the peer-reviewed journal Cahier Caribeens d Egyptologie as mentioned above. I'm aware of the Crawford source, and paraphrased some elements of the sentence but it is secondary source. I'll be more careful in future to avoid any copyright issues.WikiUser4020 (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the Cahiers Caribéens d'Egyptologie is peer reviewed? Like Ankh, it appears to be Diop focussed. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller Did you not read my comments above ?. It is stated in the actual study https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343376604_Ancient_Egyptian_genomes_from_northern_Egypt_Further_discussion
On page 160: "Alain Anselin, Ph.D was the editor of the peer reviewed Egyptological journals Cahiers Caribéens
d'Égyptologie & electronic papyrus i-Medjat (http://www.culturediff.org/english/ccde.htm), and
director of the research group Les Ankhou." WikiUser4020 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@WikiUser4020: of course I read it. That’s evidence someone claimed it’s peer reviewed, not evidence it’s peer reviewed. Do you know anything about how its peer review works? Doug Weller talk 18:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The culturediff website at [52] looks like a New Age blog more than a scientific organisation. Perhaps a bit more research is needed on that. If an astral traveler peer reviews another astral traveler, it doesn't mean the paper is quality science.
Crawford is not an expert in this topic at all. He simply mentions that he once read a non-peer-reviewed Keita paper which impressed him. That does not add "quality" to the paper in question.
The Keita paper in question claims to have poached data on 15-odd mummies from a Hawass paper, run it through an internet "calculator" with a purported 86% accuracy rate, and produced the result Keita wanted with a reliability spread of about 50%. Is that WP:RS?
However, Hawass et al actually reported that "The royal lineage is composed of the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b and the mitochondrial haplogroup K. Population genetics point to a common origin at ca. 14. 000–28. 000 years before present locating to the Near East." Haplogroup R1b does occur in North Africa and Central Arica, as well as being the most frequently occurring paternal lineage in Western Europe, and occurring in many other places in Europe and Asia as well. mtDNA K is found almost everywhere.
The "conclusions" of Keita clash with the conclusions of the Hawass team, on whose data the "calculator" was run. What are we to make of that?
Keita is much published in his own field, but only two very dubious platforms were willing to publish this particular paper. What are we to make of that?
Wdford (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Wdford You are presenting your own POV without any supporting academic rebuttal. Cite academic sources which have directly criticised the Keita study and the evidence presented in their respective study. You are interjecting your own non-specialist views on this. State an academic source which has criticised Keita's study on reliability. Crawford is peer-reviwed and the Keita paper is published in the journal I cited.
The Hawass study did not determine the specific clade of the R1b haplogroup so that could refer to R-V88 which is found in high frequencies among Sub-Saharan populations in Cameroon. "The conclusions of Keita clash with the conclusions of the Hawass team" No, you are factually incorrect as the 2020 paper authenticated the genetic results of the 2010 paper (it is stated in the abstract) from which the Keita study based its study on. The Keita study confirmed the affinities of Rammesside mummies with Sub-Saharan population from which Hawass had established in a separate 2012 group. The 2020 study did not determine the modern-day population affinities of the Amarna populations but only published the haplogroup (not including the clade). They submitted the article to those journals specifically because the co-founder of those journals had passed away. It is even mentioned that the study is tribute to Anselin. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller The authors are academics that are clearly stating that it is peer-reviewed. That is written evidence but to provide further evidence on this. The website states the process of review: "A special feature of these books is that they have been written by researchers specialized in their discipline, reviewed by a Reading Committee made up of referees, finally published by a group of researchers gathered in an association". http://www.culturediff.org/english/egyptology-books.htm WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
'Peer-reviewed' is not the end-all of reliability. Plenty of 'peer-reviewed' niche journals with little or no impact are out there, effectively self published by a small group of academics and without any meaningful review outside of an echo chamber of like minded researchers. Judging from how the journals mentioned in this discussion are published, that looks like it could well be what we have here. MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Something definitely feels off here, which I feel bad saying, because I think WikiUser4020 is trying to do the right thing. I wish we knew more about the referees--because that could be a make-or-break type issue. As it stands, I am not exactly against using this source--but I am definitely not for it. Apologies for being wishy washy yet again! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The nature of the original dispute was that the Keita study was not in a peer-reviewed publication. I have presented evidence that it is in fact featured in a journal which has been listed as peer-reviewed on the main site and the original source material. That should be sufficient for its inclusion.It cannot be presumed that it lacks meaningful review and is "an echo chamber" without imposing subjective views, the only clear fact is that the written evidence states that it is a peer-reviewed source, which was the original source of dispute. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
You'll still need to reach some kind of agreement. If 'it is peer-reviewed so it goes in' were the standard, we'd be citing all kinds of predatory journals and fringe material about UFOs and psychic powers. MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@MrOllie It is not a question of "If", as the written evidence on both the website and the original study explicitly state that it is peer-reviewed and has a review process. It is a bit of strawman to suggest that this study published by established academics is equivalent to non-mainstream or "fringe" material. Yes, if an agreement can be proposed by others then would be be fine. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I feel that you did not understand my point: The mere fact that something is published in a peer-reviewed journal does not automatically mean it will be included in a Wikipedia article. You still have to get consensus on the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@MrOllie I understood the point, and that a consensus needs to be reached. @Austronesier made a suggestion that it could be included with a secondary source. I think it can be included with both the Cashier Caribbean de Journal and the Crawford source. I don't know what propositions other users have to reach a consensus ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
That's not exactly what I said. A primary research paper that only has two citations on Google Scholar is never due for direct inclusion. I recommended to cite the secondary source (Crawford). But then of course considering due weight and with consensus. –Austronesier (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Austronesier Essentially, I was referring to that citation of the secondary source. I included that source a few months ago but its reliability was disputed. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
If the reliability of a peer-reviewed source is disputed by other editors, you shouldn't go "downhill" by citing a source that does not appear to be peer-reviewed at all. Maybe the best thing to do is to close this thread, and open a new one for the Crawford paper. –Austronesier (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Austronesier I'm not sure if you read our recent comments. Both of the sources are peer-reviewed. I have presented written evidence that the Cashier Caribbean de Journal is peer-reviewed and has a review process. I don't think Crawford should only be the source as the Cashier Caribbeans de Journal is a reviewed paper publication. I only raised your suggestion as a possible way to build consensus but I want other constructive views for a consensus. I disagree and don't think this thread should be closed. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I’m not sure what the “main site” is. Url? And without evidence for the mechanism, we have no idea if it meets the standard we expect. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller I just provided it and cited the quoted paragraph. Here it is listed: http://www.culturediff.org/english/egyptology-books.htm The most simple way to determine if a journal/publication is peer-reviewed is if it is clearly stated in the source, which it does. That is clear, written evidence unless you have a more elastic and ever-elusive definition of evidence criteria ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
WikiUser4020 -- I honestly don't mean to keep moving the goalposts on you, but the policy says "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I haven't been able to find much of a reputation for these Cahiers anywhere. Any chance you could point the way? If not, no worries, thought I might ask. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid Yep no problem, the Cahiers Caribeens d'Egyptologie (CCdE) is a joint yearly publication, in paper format, of academic institutions which include the University of Antilles Guyane (France), of the University of Yaounde (Cameroon) and of the University of Barcelona (Spain). WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I've looked through the site, and that is a good self-description. I can't find anyone else referring to them--which could be for any number of reasons. Thank you for your continued efforts. Dumuzid (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the insults and lack of good faith. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doug WellerWho has been insulted ?. I have asked for constructive proposals repeatedly ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@WikiUser: "That is clear, written evidence unless you have a more elastic and ever-elusive definition of evidence criteria ?." You see that as constructive? Doug Weller talk 12:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid It states here the Reading Committee (from which the referees are drawn on) on a sub-section of the journal's site, the link is here: http://www.culturediff.org/ccde.htm

In quotations: "The Reading Committee consists of 18 researchers: Hartwig Altenmüller (University of Hamburg), Alain Anselin (University of the Antilles-Guyana), Nagwa Mohamed Arafa (University of Helouan), Marcelo Campagno (University of Buenos Aires), Josep Cervello-Autuori (University of Barcelona ), Karen Exell (past-curator of the Manchester Museum), Maria Carmela Gatto (University of Leicester), Karine Gadré (Culture Diff'), Jean-Philippe Gourdine (Emory University, Atlanta), Stan Hendrickx (Provincial Hogeschool Limburg, Hasselt ), Augustin Holl (National Institute of Human and Social Sciences), Shomarka Keita (Howard University, National Human Genome Center, Washington), Mpay Kemboly (Faculty of Philosophy Saint-Pierre de Casinius, Kimwenza-Kinshasa & Bumuntu Peace Institute), Jean -Loïc Le Quellec (CNRS, Paris / Johannesburg),Pierre Oum Ndigi (University of Yaounde I), Olivier Pulvar (University of the Antilles-Guyana), Fabrice Silpa (University of the Antilles-Guyana) and Adel Zine Al-Abedine (University of Tanta)". Clearly the referees are an international group of academics from established institutions. Some of the academics are already cited in related pages such as Karen Exell and Maria Gatto.WikiUser4020 (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  • This conversation is extremely difficult to follow because of the plethora of multi-paragraph messages so apologies if I missed some part of the conversation. Anyway, starting from the original Ankh paper: I checked some of the European publication forum rankings I have access to. Ankh is not included in any of them, which indicates to me it's not considered a proper publication forum by the larger scientific community. Furthermore, the journal's website gives no indicia of a proper scientific editorial board/policy. As for Cahiers Caribéens d'Egyptologie, neither can I find this in any of the databases I have access to, indicating that it is likewise not viewed as a legitimate scientific publication venue in the eyes of the larger scientific community. The fact that a biography section in another article describes Cahiers Caribéens d'Egyptologie as peer-reviewed falls flat for multiple reasons: 1) these biographies are self-authored and are not usually peer-reviewed 2) the article in which the biography was found is itself published in Ankh 3) A publication venue self-claiming to be "peer reviewed" is insufficient to establish it is reliable, as evidenced by the myriad of predatory publishers. Based on the information I've managed to unearth, I can't say that either of these journals would strike me as a reliable source. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Ljleppan The conversation is now centred on the second journal. It on the main page that it has a review process which features a reading committee with the list of academics noted above. The actual study lists the journal as peer-reviewed. It is a French speaking paper, annual paper journal so that might be a reason for why it is not appearing in the European publication forum ranking. Could I know which publication forum ranking are you utilizing ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't recognize too many names on that "reading list", but I do see Keita, along with the authors of this contested paper. Did all the "readers" on that list approve this paper, or was it perhaps "read" and approved for publication just by the authors themselves?
Hawass et al actually reported that "The royal lineage is composed of the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b and the mitochondrial haplogroup K. Population genetics point to a common origin at ca. 14. 000–28. 000 years before present locating to the Near East." That directly contradicts the "SSA" conclusion reached by Keita et al. Maybe that is why the paper has not been published in any reliable journals? Wdford (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@WdfordThe "Reading Committee" and not reading list cites 18 academics which include Maria Gatto, Karen Exell and Josep Cervello-Autuori (University of Barcelona ), Karen Exell (past-curator of the Manchester Museum). It clearly states on the website the reviewing process, that all the publications have to be reviewed by "a Reading Committee composed of referent researchers". I stated this beforehand. That is the review process which involves an international group of academics.
You ignored or clearly did not my previous comments on that point. Hawass did not report the specific clade of that haplogroup so it could be the R-V88 clade which is found in high frequency in Chadic and Cameroon populations. You are confusing genetic haplogroups with population affinities. This is part of the reason we had to revise the DNA sub-section on Ancient Egyptian related articles. To simplify this:
The Hawass only identified the haplogroup but not the specific clade. The origin to a geographical location in the Near East does not exclude the possibility that those early populations in 14,000-28,000BP were Sub-Saharan or early emigrants from the Africa.
The Keita does not determine the specific haplogroups of those mummies but simply determined the modern population affinities. That does not directly contradict the Hawass study.
The authors published their work specifically in those journals (as Anselin was the co-ofunder) and as cited below in tribute to his recent passing. Keita is widely cited and an authoriative academic. I have explained this on many occassions.
Overall, I have provided the evidence that the study is peer-reviewed and has a Reading Committee featuring an international group of academics. It appears that the goal-post for reliability is being increasingly moved for this particular paper. Yet, few constructive proposals have been made for a consensus. WikiUser4020 (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
You are relying a lot on the Cultural Diff website. Looking at the page about the sitge[53] it seems to be founded by Karine Gadré who has a PhD in astronomy. And looking at her publications[54] they seem mainly published by Cultural Diff or Cahiers Caribéens d'Egyptologie. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm viewing the Norwegian and Finnish rankings, which have plenty of French language journals listed in them. As a contrastive example of a well-established academic journal, see e.g. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics which explicitly lists their editorial policies (incl. the details of their peer-review process), an editorial team comprising of editors-in-chief, action editors and a review team, as well as their submission guidelines. I'm seeing pretty much none of these on the Cahiers Caribéens d'Egyptologie (which, incidentally, appears to be the personal website of someone?). I'm not saying that this is definitively a non-reliable source, just that I'm not really seeing anything that would lead me to conclude it would be one. - Ljleppan (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@LjleppanI do take your point, but the Cahiers Caribéens d'Egyptologie is a paper print journal rather than an electronic journal. Can you propose any constructive steps in light of the whole discussion ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand how the distribution medium (print vs. online vs. both) would have any effect for this discussion. As for next steps, I would personally attempt to find another, more clearly reliable, source for the same information. If one cannot be found, that's probably an indication that the content is perhaps not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - Ljleppan (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Proper paper print journals also publish electronically. Seeing as how this particular paper reaches a conclusion which contradicts that of the original paper on which it is based, and seeing as how this paper has only been published in two non-reliable sources, I constructively propose that it continue to be disqualified as a reliable source until it is published by a proper reliable platform. Wdford (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This particular paper "reaches a conclusion which contradicts that of the original paper on which it is based". It does not make that claim and you continue to assert this despite me clarifying the nature of the study. This is your POV (without supporting academic evidence against the Keita study) but let's wait for a range of final opinions before a consensus view is reached. WikiUser4020 (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Hawass et all concluded that the Amarna genetics originated in the Near East. Keita et al concluded that the R1b could maybe perhaps have possibly been of the R-V88 variety, and thus claimed an affinity between the Amarna family and sub-Saharan African populations - way over in Chad, and even further away in the Cameroon. Ergo, a contradiction. Cherry-picking is not a good approach. Wdford (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Wdford You don't seem to understand the nature of genetics, population flow or biological affinitites do you ?. You simply re-iterate and ignore evidence. Hawass did not determine the clade but said the haplogroup originated in the Near East, Keita et al did not conclude that haplogroup was an R-V88 variety, that is not stated anywhere in that specifc study. Keita et al determined the modern-day population affinities of the genomes. I was saying that because the clade of the Rb1 haplogroup was undetermined it could be a RV-88 which is found in high levels among Chadic populations. WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ljleppan The source is also included in this peer-reviewed journal (Crawford): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-021-09453-7
I will take @Austronesiersuggestion and open up a new section for this. WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Combo Organ Heaven

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is http://www.combo-organ.com a reliable source?

We spend a lot of time disparaging websites as being unreliable, primarily for the reason that the barrier for setting one up and claiming just about anything is far too low to be trustworthy. However, some websites have now been around for decades, and have established a good reputation as being the most factually accurate collection of information.

In this particular case, this website has been run by a single owner, Robert MacNutt, since 1999. He's name checked in the critically acclaimed source Classic Keys - Keyboard Sounds That Launched Rock Music as being a subject expert on maintaining and repairing vintage combo organs. [55] He has the ultimate say on what appears on the website, and always credits his sources of information. In particular, the information I might want to cite is extra detail, such as footages and effects on a commercially unsuccessful instrument, that contemporary print sources don't have enough space to cover.

While I understand "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources", in this case the specific information will likely be sitting in decades-old trade publications that cannot be found online and are extremely obscure. Why don't we simply take the research that is recognised as being credible, and trust it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Where has your use of the source been challenged? If it isn't, and you, with the evidence you have presented above, earnestly believe it to be a reliable source, then feel free to use it. One hallmark of reliability is that other reliable sources consider it reliable; if (as you say), others recognize MacNutt as a reliable source with regards to organs, then that's a check mark in his favor. While Wikipedia guidance does say "exercise caution", it doesn't say "never use". I have no background in the area, so I can't assess it myself, but if what you say is true, and if the information is non-controversial (and things like features of rare musical instruments is likely non-controversial) then I think the source is probably good. --Jayron32 14:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Scoop.co.nz

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Any views on this a an RS? It's only been discussed here a couple of times (in 2008 and 2010 respectively), and on neither occasion was a firm consensus reached. Although opinions tended towards the negative. But things might have changed over the last 12 years of course. SN54129 14:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There seem to be two prongs to Scoop: news and analysis, which I'd consider reliable; and press releases from individuals and organisations, the reliability of which would depend on the contributor.
Scoop is a member of the NZ Media Council and has signed up to its principles [1] which would normally point to a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy - although it is grouped in a set of "digital members" of which at least one other site I would not trust to tell me that water was wet.
It would have helped if you had linked to the item you wanted an opinion on. If it is this one [2], it's probably useable with attribution to the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign; but this is not an area I know much about so it would be best for an editor experienced in South African issues to judge. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Dave! SN54129 14:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/principles/
  2. ^ https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0912/S00343/experiences-of-abahlali-basemjondolo-in-durban.htm

Playingcarddecks.com

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Are citations such as this cite on Nestor (solitaire) to playingcarddecks.com reliable? I recently removed a number of such citations and I'm being told I was wrong for doing so. I'd like more input to know if I was the one out of line. More discussion at User_talk:Gregorytopov#Reliable_sources. - MrOllie (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a self-published blog, so strictly speaking, probably not reliable. On the importance scale, this is non-controversial information, it's not BLP related, and so while one is allowed to remove the source, it's also not high on the priority scale to issue a damnatio memoriae on the source. Regarding card games specifically, the phrase According to Hoyle exists for a reason. While Edmond Hoyle is pretty outdated as an author, authoritative books on card rules have been published under his name (similar to "Merriam Webster dictionaries being an authoritative source on American English). My family had This book when I was a kid, for example, and new editions keep being published. It's not hard to find authoritative, well-researched works on card games. --Jayron32 12:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Not quite. It's written by a recognised games reviewer and clearly supported by the website owner, so has 2 independent approvers. The information is hardly controversial and, in my experience, editors who take the time can easily find other WP:RS to back it up, which is in fact what a couple of us are doing. The background is that most of these articles were entirely unsourced for years and we are cleaning them up. The playingcarddecks.com site is often used as an interim to help us prune WP:OR while better sources are being sought or as a supplementary source for some material such as alternative names for games. Mass deleting it may just return articles to the state they were in before. So we aren't putting too much weight on the site; equally it is not in the same category as purely self-supported blog by some random person with no known expertise. Meanwhile, to reassure you, I have access to around 100 books in several languages, including many of the American "Hoyles", as well as authoritative online sites on card games and, together with Gregorytopov who has access to different sources, we are in the process of checking much of the material and citing it. We just can't upgrade hundreds of articles overnight - it's work in progress. That said, we are very happy for others to draw our attention to dubious claims and will give those priority. I think we're all on the same side here; we just need to keep working together constructively. Bermicourt (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think I was clear in my answer. When I said "this is non-controversial information," what I meant by that was "this is non-controversial information," I hope that clears things up for you. I recommended against trying to hunt down the source and scour it from Wikipedia. The source should be replaced by better sources, but it's not entirely necessary to hunt it down and remove it. --Jayron32 15:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Source is reliable or not

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to know given sources are reliable or not?

Website links: https://www.sanook.com/ https://teen.mthai.com/ https://campus.campus-star.com/

Source links: https://www.sanook.com/campus/1402768/ https://teen.mthai.com/campus_star/74610.html https://campus.campus-star.com/variety/64485.html

Source used: Draft:Nalinthip Sakulongumpai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publiconline123 (talk • contribs)

I don't read Thai, so I have to rely on machine translation, but there is nothing about any of these sites that screams reliable, especially for BLPs. sanook looks to be owned by Tencent, and none of the three have any sort of published editorial policy I could find. They all look like run of the mill entertainment rumor sites, with some recipes and information on treating facial discoloration mixed in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. And I was wondering how to find reliable sources? And how to be sure a website is credible or not? Publiconline123 (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is Film Music Reporter reliable? I feel as though the past discussion on this gave me nothing. There was just some people who said it was and others who said it wasn’t. Don’t know if this has anything to do, but if you go to the bottom of their website it says "Theme crafted by George E. Frog." Also if you click on the efrog logo in the bottom right it redirects you to an innapropriate website. Film Music Reporter has also been used in tons of articles. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Time to revisit Forbes.com?

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

WP:FORBES says "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable... Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable."

I am thinking that we may want to rethink the above and list all of forbes.com as generally unreliable. Not sure about Forbes the printed magazine. See:

  • "Forbes became a hub of pay-to-play journalism. Sometimes it’s the contributors being paid by marketers; sometimes it’s the contributors being marketers... It would be one thing if this was the first time something like this happened at Forbes -- for it to have matched author to subject so poorly as to have cybercrime-prevention advice coming from someone now under indictment for cybercrime. (It’s like finding out Smokey the Bear’s behind all the wildfires in California.)... But this is only the latest in a series of bonkers abuses of its 'contributor' system."
-An incomplete history of Forbes.com as a platform for scams, grift, and bad journalism

One would think that after publishing [56] and [57] Forbes would take down [58], or at the very least add a footnote to the glowing bio at the bottom.

  • "When a Chinese company buys a major American magazine, does the publication censor its coverage of China? There is only one example so far, and the results are discouraging. In 2014, a Hong Kong-based investment group called Integrated Whale Media purchased a majority stake in Forbes Media, one of the United States' best-known media companies. It's hard to demonstrate causality in such cases. But since that purchase, there have been several instances of editorial meddling on stories involving China that raise questions about Forbes magazine’s commitment to editorial independence."
-Chinese ownership is raising questions about the editorial independence of a major U.S. magazine

...and yet, unlike Heather R. Morgan, Forbes did manage to take down everything written by opinion editor and Communist Party critic Gordon Chang after they were bought out by a Chinese company.

  • "Binance, the cryptocurrency exchange, is making a $200m (£147m) investment in Forbes less than two years after it sued the business publisher for defamation... Binance sued Forbes and two of its writers in November 2020 after the publication of a story that claimed Binance 'conceived of an elaborate corporate structure designed to intentionally deceive regulators'... Two senior Binance executives – the chief communications officer, Patrick Hillmann, and Bill Chin, the head of its venture capital arm – will join the Forbes board of directors on the closing of the deal."
-Crypto exchange Binance makes $200m investment in Forbes: Deal comes less than two years after Binance sued business publisher for defamation

Forbes on Binance, pre investment: [59]

Forbes on Binance, post investment: [60]

Disclosure of Forbes COI in the above " we chose Binance.US as the Best Overall Crypto Exchange and Best Crypto Exchange for Crypto Enthusiasts" review:: File not found. [A]bort, [R]retry, [F]ail?

  • "The positive online notices appeared to have been paid for by Mr. Epstein: A writer employed by his foundation churned out the news releases, and Drew Hendricks, the supposed author of a Forbes story calling Mr. Epstein 'one of the largest backers of cutting edge science,' conceded in an interview that he was given $600 to post the pre-written article under his own name. (Forbes removed the piece after The New York Times published its article.)"
-Jeffrey Epstein Was a Sex Offender. The Powerful Welcomed Him Anyway.
  • "Fans of the Forbes magazine may not realize that Forbes.com has very little to do with the official publication. The articles on Forbes.com are not written or even edited by the writers of the magazine. Instead, they are contributed by writers from around the world. Contributors to the website write their own articles and submit them in exchange for royalty payments. None of the facts within the articles are checked and editors do not modify the contributions in any way. Incredibly, Forbes remains one of the most popular business news websites despite this lack of overall quality control."
-3 Deceptively Reputable Sources That Aren’t What They Seem to Be
  • "Like a growing number of websites, Forbes asked readers to turn off ad blockers in order to view the article. After doing so, visitors were immediately served with pop-under malware, primed to infect their computers, and likely silently steal passwords, personal data and banking information. Or, as is popular worldwide with these malware 'exploit kits,' lock up their hard drives in exchange for Bitcoin ransom."
-You say advertising, I say block that malware

When a publication's owners and management are shown to be corrupt and willing to publish anything (including malware!) they are paid to publish, the burden of proof is on that publisher to prove that a certain class of writers are independent and immune from interference from above.

--2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:1CD5:CC80:9F23:C487 (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think most of these references match our current consensus on Forbes. Not sure about the adblocker stuff, though, but I don't expect that to affect reliability. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
See: WP:FORBESCON. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
First, since they are two separate listings with notably different ratings, I think we should alter prior decisions and should remove WP:FORBESCON comments about forbes.com from WP:FORBES. Suggest just removing "Forbes and Forbes.cominclude articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable... Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable." Second, the OP raises the RS point of Forbes editorial oversight has been noted as affected by owners so for China and cryptocurrency so there is external doubt. See also claims of firing transparency advocate Adam Andrzejewski here. For that, I do not see much about it in RSN archives, so would not change the RSP rating in the interests of RSP being a summary of RSN. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Support Markbassett's suggested change to remove mention of forbes.com WP:FORBES. Just make them two separate entries with "see also" links going both ways.
Would this discussion (assuming multiple people weigh in) be enough of a RSN discussion to justify changing RSP? Or would an RfC be needed?
I seem to remember a prior decision to ban a source because it tried to infect the user's computer with malware, but I don't remember whether that decision was here or some other page. Is there a better place to discuss malware on a webpage we use as a source? --2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:80DE:3DD8:85D1:2332 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Most of these sources (especially the non-opinion ones and the more specific ones) are about the contributor system, which is already flagged as unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. I'm not convinced there's enough here that isn't about the Forbes contributor system to consider Forbes.com as a whole unreliable. WriterAccess (which looks like just a random blog itself to me) seems to be implying that Forbes.com consists only of its contributor system, but I don't think that's the case? Although looking, it seems like we are citing the contributor system roughly 20,000 times (not everything in /sites/ is a contributor, but most of them are.) What we might consider doing is deprecate Forbes contributors rather than merely marking them as unreliable - the problem is that they appear reliable (and in fact in a quick search many of them are being cited with an inline attribution of "Forbes said X", which is incorrect). They have the classic problem of "flatly unreliable source that people are going to keep using regardless" that often requires deprecation. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Does "deprecation" mean blacklisting? If so, we shouldn't blacklist (or algorithmically block additions of ALL Forbes Contributors - /sites/ ) because SOMETIMES these are individuals notable in their own right, writing in their field of expertise (law or economics profs).---Avatar317(talk) 00:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
20,000? Oof. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment In addition to Forbes contributors, I sometimes come across articles written as part of something called Forbes Council, which appears to also be a similar outside contributor type of content relationship, and therefore should also be considered unreliable. I prefer to not use either. But while I can understand the allegations of bias pointed out above, a similar argument could also be leveled against The Washington Post (Bezos) and The Wall Street Journal (Murdoch). A simple solution would be to seek out additional sources for potentially controversial items, and simply overcite. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Forgotten Yesterdays (forgottenyesterdays.com)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1. Forgotten Yesterdays (forgottenyesterdays.com) (archive)

2. It's used in a number of articles relating to prog rock band Yes, including Talk (Yes album) (permanent link) (in the "Tour" section) and essentially every "List of Yes concert tours" article, like this one.

3. On the Talk article, which is my main concern, it's used to support the claim of what dates the Talk tour took place between. Namely:

Talk was supported with the 77-date tour of North and South America and Japan, between 18 June and 11 October 1994.

I can't find any other sources supporting these specific dates, so in the meantime I just put an "unreliable source?" tag next to it in the article, since I wasn't sure if it was reliable or not. It might be a fan website, or self-published, but I can't really tell because of how old and strangely formatted it is. Can anyone chip in? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_371&oldid=1084737003"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy