Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 377

Archive 370

←

Archive 375

Archive 376

Archive 377

Archive 378

Archive 379

Archive 380

Daily Mail and Beergate

At Beergate#Responses_to_Starmer's_and_Rayner's_statements, there is a paragraph about what the Daily Mail have said about as aspect of the story. This has been justified via a citation to a Guardian article that was criticising the Mail’s coverage. Elsewhere in the article, there have been attempts to cover what The Sun has said. This seems to me to be inappropriate, but what do you think, o learned noticeboard? Do you have advice for these situations? See discussion at Talk:Beergate#Daily_Mail_coverage and Talk:Beergate#The_Sun,_May_2021 plus edit comments. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Not really an RS issue, if an RS says a non RS said something we can source it to the RS. This seems more of a wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest the whole article is WP:UNDUE. It should be a paragraph in the Starmer article. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Maybe we should also shrink Partygate to a one-sentence footnote in the Boris Johnson article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Aye, but Partygate isn't just about Johnson, much as many would like it to be. Also Partygate wasn't 75% invented by the Daily Mail because their proprietor doesn't like Starmer's intention to cancel non-dom status. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That's true. But I'd say 80%. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is a bit vague about exactly which of many edits are the controversial ones, but I look at the current Beergate page and see what I regard as problems. For its 15 January front page, the Daily Mail used pictures from the video under its headline "Starmer the Covid party hypocrite".[16] has a cite to The Guardian but WP:RS/QUOTE says cites for quotes should be the original i.e. Daily Mail. ... Labour had said that Rayner was not present, but on 30 April 2022 the Daily Mail said Labour acknowledged she had been there, and their initial statement had been a mistake. is an attributed statement but not about opinion so would only belong if the story was about Daily Mail rather than Rayner. She also retweeted a Daily Mail story ... John Nicolson, an SNP MP, characterised the photo in the Daily Mail as "disinformation", because Frank Dobson, who died in 2019, was at the event. is false, the cited source doesn't say the photo is disinformation, but says her tweet's usage of it is. These are little problems that will probably be cleared up when the recentism fades, but the talk page argument from Bondegezou against dave souza -- "You are using the Guardian citation to get around the rule that we can’t use the Daily Mail." -- is unfortunate because there is no hint where this "rule" is. Maybe it's undue, maybe there was something impolite about it, certainly it should be properly attributed, but suggesting that a quote of the newspaper cannot even be cited looks like a misinterpretation of WP:DAILYMAIL1 not a PAG. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter, the version of the Dorries / Nicolson bit you've quoted was from this revision by DeFacto, I've revised that to follow the sources. While I was content with the brief mention, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for tackling disinformation retweeting a link to a Daily Mail attack piece with a misleadingly cropped photo, and claiming it's ok as a generic stock photo, looks significant. In fairness, she's got a point about "the pictures of the PM with a birthday cake outside a school - not in cake free Downing St.", but I think the captions made that clear, and they didn't photoshop it into No. 10 to represent the famous cake ambush. . dave souza, talk 16:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

At least for me, if we have an RS explicitly pointing to a nonRS piece, all this being considered DUE to include, then including the cite to the nonRS piece immediately next to the RS cite is fair and reasonable. If there is concern this implicitly shows support of the RS, then perhaps bundle these ala "(nonRS cite) via (RS cite)". --Masem (t) 15:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it, The Daily Mail essentially launched the recent investigation through its "investigative journalism" (or political attack angle), so I cannot see that we cannot mention the paper at all in this article. It seems to me, per WP:DAILYMAIL, this is an exceptional case - it says "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion", not a perfect match to the current situation but should guide us there is not an entire blanket ban on the paper. I think using The Guardian as the source to describe Daily Mail involvement, not using a Daily Mail cite, is the correct approach. Rwendland (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion so far. I take the point this is partly a WP:DUE argument. I don't see that the edit of concern is WP:DUE, and by edit of concern I mean this. The article is about Beergate, what Starmer did or didn't do. We can cover that topic using reliable sources: there's no need to use the Mail (or Sun). There is nothing in the Mail's reporting that isn't either reliably attributed elsewhere (in which case, we use those reliable sources) or isn't reliably attributed elsewhere (in which case, it's not reliably sourced and we shouldn't be saying it). Where the Mail first broke a story, we can say that, as we do in the fifth paragraph of the "Reports after police reopened investigation" section (where we cover The Mail on Sunday breaking the story of the leaked Labour schedule). However, the edit in question wasn't about the Mail breaking a story. It was just airing the Mail's headline/editorial line. The Mail's headlines/editorial line in response to political events provides no reliable information about reality: that is, it is not a reliable source. Using the Guardian article as an excuse to air the Mail's line, without actually describing what the Guardian article is saying, seems to me like a backdoor attempt to use the Mail despite our consensus that it is not reliable -- just like the earlier attempts to include The Sun in this edit. Bondegezou (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for these helpful pointers, the topic is a story that at the outset was reported by The Sun on Sunday, then when Partygate reached the point where other party leaders were calling on Johnson to resign, the Daily Mail (or the government using it as a mouthpiece) brought up "Beergate" as a counter-attack. Thus, both papers are a significant part of the story, and as primary sources are useful to clarify our understanding of points about their coverage shown in reliable secondary sources. Online versions of both papers could get altered, so reporting or listing by other websites can show what they said at or near the time, for example Wayback Machine archives. I think these are instances where primary sources, together with secondary source reporting on wording, help to explain the "controversy". If needed, can go through each point when time permits. . dave souza, talk 17:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail headline is from the print edition not dailymail.co.uk, but I can see a copy of the front page with pressreader.com. So the cite could be title = STARMER THE COVID PARTY HYPOCRITE, publication = Daily Mail, date = 15 January 2022, page = 1, authors = Daniel Martin and Andrew Jehring. If I'm understanding MOS:SIC, the quote capitalization should be as in the original. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction here to be made which may be significant enough to overcome the deprecation of DM as a source. "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." is relevant here; One of those rare cases could be thus: that the DM wrote something may be necessary to tell the full story of a situation, especially when other sources are noting the importance of what DM wrote. In that limited sense, citing the original DM piece should be fine alongside of the source which notes its role in the controversy. In this case, it's a use-mention distinction kind of thing; we aren't using DM as a source of information, we mention the the DM article as playing a role in the events at hand, and including the specific article at the center of the controversy, not because it is a good source, but because we discuss it in the text and it should be accessible for the reader for further inspection, seems valid. --Jayron32 18:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

But where (how?) do you draw the line? In any article on UK politics, you could say, “The Daily Mail said this,” using that justification. This would just end up giving the unwanted impression that Wikipedia sees the Mail as a reliable source. How do we decide when the Mail played a large enough role in events that this is appropriate, versus when this is just being used as an excuse to include the Mail’s (unreliable) version of (others’) events? With the edit under discussion, what the Mail said then isn’t significant for the article topic. Or do you disagree? Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The DM through an archive can be a reliable source for its exact wording when the article in question is shown to be significant by a reliable secondary source which may summarise or quote from it, but will usually leave out a lot of the context. . dave souza, talk 19:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Jayron32, thanks, that's what I tried to say in my edit summary when reinstating the Sun paragraph. Reliable sources show the significance of the Sun on Sunday article, from the Wayback Machine the reader can inspect it, and the points I quoted from it about the Labour response at the time being "The Tories’ clearly haven’t read their own rules", a workplace meeting, "They paused for dinner as the meeting was during the evening", ties in with the reliable secondary source saying "Labour’s line is, and always has been, that after a day campaigning, and an evening working in the office on campaign matters, Starmer had a drink while sharing a takeaway meal with party colleagues and that, although England was in lockdown, indoor gatherings were allowed for “work purposes” and that eating and drinking like this was allowed if “reasonably necessary for work”. I think that quoting that bit from the original primary source is reasonable, but even without quoting it, the primary source confirms that the secondary statement was true of that first publication. Comments? . . dave souza, talk 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That what the DM wrote influenced this story is supported by several RSes, so has due weight to be added and sourced to just those reliable sources. However, as the DM is deprecated, I don't think we should use any additional information which could only be sourced from it, as that would be giving undue weight to stuff that is only mentioned in the unreliable source. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Now Bondegezou has pointed to the "edit of concern". It was not about the printed-edition Daily Mail headline which is still indirectly cited in the Beergate article. Instead it's an edit which among other things bases a Daily Mail quote on an article in The Guardian saying The Daily Mail, which had called for the police to reopen investigations, said that the decision to do so "placed detectives in the difficult position" of knowing their decision would have major political ramifications. ... etc. But Daily Mail actually wrote But his opponents said this had placed detectives in the difficult position ... In other words The Guardian distorted the quote to make it appear that's Daily Mail's statement of fact, and the edit of concern would put that in Wikipedia. I see this as a justification of the WP:RS/QUOTE guideline's words: To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. The original source being quoted is Daily Mail, and in this case The Guardian should not be used per WP:RSCONTEXT, the context being what Daily Mail actually said. Apparently the quote in that edit was removed later, and I don't see how it could be saved. However, for the printed-edition Daily Mail headline STARMER THE COVID PARTY HYPOCRITE: The original source is Daily Mail print edition, I supplied the material necessary for the cite, and since it is opinion it is possible to use it (RS/QUOTE only makes an exception if it is not possible). Citing just The Guardian would not meet the guideline's requirement. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. The ban on the Daily Mail only refers to using them as a source, it does not prohibit us from mentioning them if they are reported in a rs. In fact "Beergate" was broken by The Sun which is also a banned source. Avoiding mention of these sources in the article distorts the story. TFD (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Peter Gulutzan, thanks for that information, I'd missed the ambiguity in the Guardian's account. Most of the quote was still in the article, but it had been changed into a paragraph on the source's comment on the Mail story. I've rephrased it to restore the focus while still pointing out the source's comment, and noted the headline wording; "The Daily Mail on 10 May said "Starmer accused of piling pressure on police"." Think it's brest to avoid the headline capitalisation if possible. . . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• The issue really is not using the Mail, per se, but the fact that the article still doesn't really articulate the issue that Beergate is something largely orchestrated by the Mail through a slew of highly dubious headlines (some of which tell you exactly why it's deprecated). Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan, The Four Deuces, and Black Kite: I'm not against discussing the Mail's role in reporting on the story. The article talks about the Mail's (and the Sun's role) in various places. But this edit isn't describing the Mail breaking a story. It's just picking out some Mail headlines to repeat them. Those headlines don't add anything to the article's factual reporting, because they're not reliable, so what are they there for? We could litter every UK politics article with "And the Daily Mail said this...", and we'd end up giving the impression that Wikipedia believes what the Mail says. There has to be some WP:DUE reason to be talking about the Mail.

So, yes, if we're talking about the Mail, we can apply WP:RS/QUOTE, but do we have some guidance over when we should be talking about the Mail? The edit in question wasn't adding in what the Mail said to discuss it. It was, it seems to me, just adding in what the Mail said to give visibility to it. Have I explained my concern here? Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, Peter Gulutzan, The Four Deuces, and Black Kite: – as amended in this diff, it's clear that we're using a reliable secondary source that discusses the shifting story promoted by the DM, part of showing both that the DM is promoting an unreliable [party] line, and that it's a significant player in the [fake] controversy. Takes longer if people delete properly sourced material rather than trying to improve the wording. . dave souza, talk 12:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess that particular edit is arguably not a clear violation of WP:RS/QUOTE. But it doesn't fix the problems with the headline quote.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan:, in light of the formatting issue with the headline quote and the lack of a usable primary source, I've paraphrased it. Hope that fixes the problems with that paragraph. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 03:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• We can cite non-RSes via RSes that quote or cite them; that is to a certain extent the point of an RS. If we couldn't do that, we couldn't cite anything to anyone, because everything would ultimately come down to someone doing original research on primary data. The question in this case is whether it is WP:DUE, whether it should be quoted or paraphrased, and so on, not whether the Guardian is a RS for what the Daily Mail published. It is, however, important to pay attention to the context of the proximate source. If the Guardian source is like "here's a quote where the Daily Mail says something terrible and stupid and obviously factually wrong", it's a misuse of the source to pull the Daily Mail quote out and use it without that context. Part of the reason it's acceptable to cite a secondary RS quoting an otherwise unreliable source is because we trust the proximate source to verify what's said in that manner; if you omit the context from the proximate source then that is lost. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Aquillion: In this paragraph we now paraphrase or repeat DM quotes from the Guardian article, and show the context of the Guardian's opinion that the DM that day was inconsistent in saying Starmer was doing something wrong but superficially it was the right thing and he had no choice, and the DM had previously been pushing the police to put him in that position. . . dave souza, talk 03:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The article still contains direct quotes of Daily Mail, including editorial and headline material. For that, Daily Mail is a reliable source, and an acceptable source (WP:NEWSORG), and the source that is necessary to "ensure accuracy" while not being "partisan secondary" (WP:RS/QUOTE), and a better source than The Guardian which has been shown to distort (WP:RSCONTEXT). The guideline should be followed or the quotes should be scrubbed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2: See if there is a local consensus to mention the topic or not, and if so then I suggest watch the context and just use a cite to Daily Mail. A WP:DEPRECATED deprecated source is not WP:BLACKLIST blacklisted, and the difference is that exceptions are allowed by local consensus. To quote sections of the DEPRECATED text: “ Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. “ and “Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint.“ VERIFIABILITY should overrule lesser considerations, and a third or fourth-hand partial of the Daily Mail words just seems less desirable than a direct cite to the whole piece. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan and Markbassett: Thanks, have added the primary source archived from the online version of the date in question. Could also add its editorial, don't think that's so controversial. . . dave souza, talk 11:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. I hope that the rest will also be properly cited eventually but Wikipedia has no deadlines. The important thing is that citing Daily Mail is accepted practice in some circumstances. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got a bit further with that, as well as finding some more reliable sources, and together they help to explain the context of what happened. Work in progress! . . dave souza, talk 22:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan, Markbassett, and DeFacto: In progress, couple of setbacks.[1][2] which I've undone with reference to this discussion. Regarding the Sun, both secondary sources discuss this article, cite adds timing and responses from Con and Lab. . . dave souza, talk 06:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Setbacks? I removed refs to deprecated sources which added no value to the article. What is that a setback too? I don't see anything in this discussion excusing their use when they add no further value to the article, as in that case. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, I just think WP cannot cover it well without such sources, so I think seek consensus to either cover it with such or don’t cover it at all. Just my opinion that if one is to cover a British scandal, the British scandal sheets simply are the best source for what sensationalism was said and what mud was thrown. Between directness and that they have WP:WEIGHT in circulation, this seems an example of why DEPRECATED explicitly allows citing. But if consensus for here is to not do so, so be it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Especially if reliable sources identify the tabloids as the source of the scandal, then there's no reason not to include those initial sources adjacent to the RSes that mention those being the sources. You can't use the tabloids in isolation, and it doesn't make sense not to provide the reader with the RS link and not a link to the tabloid to see how it initially came out from that source. --Masem (t) 13:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto can you point to any policy or guideline to justify your removal of the cites? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Peter Gulutzan, Markbassett, Bondegezou, and DeFacto: – Bondegezou, having started this discussion, you've now expressed 100% agreement with DeFacto's Obsession with the use of deprecated sources, despite their disregard of the advice given by editors here, and still no pointer to any policy or guideline to justify their removal of the cites. Instead, DeFacto has been edit warring to delete sources, justifying this with the Catch-22 argument of deleting sources if a "deprecated source adds nothing as the sentence is fully supported by the RS" [3] or "no extra value is evident as the RS coverage covers it unambiguously" [4], then where the primary source adds more, demanding "write what they say then, and support it with a reliable source".[5] Completely contrary to the advice here, and looking increasingly tendentious. I'll join the talk page discussion, and consider the best way forward . . dave souza, talk 17:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Update: commented at Obsession with the use of deprecated sources. Also, note diff where DeFacto removed the Daily Mail source discussed above, with the edit summary "that deprecated source adds nothing as the sentence is fully supported by the RS", summarily dismissing the advice given here. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Support Dave souza. See also deprecation history and WP:WHYCITE's wording "You also help users find additional information on the subject ..." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Article talk page discussion under way so am hopeful. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Here is a list of political topics on which the Daily Mail may be assumed to be offering honest and fact-based commentary, as opposed to naked partisan political activism:

None omitted. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

A narrowly defined condition, I agree with the statement that the DM is unsuitable as an honest source of commentary, but the question here is if archived copies of the DM and Sun are primary sources which provide context where secondary sources comment on the specific articles, and these primary sources are reliable for the date and time published, also giving the exact wording they used, points which can be misunderstood if taken out of context from a secondary source, which may be less reliable for the specific point. . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a massively overblown content issue. Almost all of the material in the article were supported by reliable secondary reporting that included references to the Daily Mail (and Sun) assertions. Since the content is already covered by WP:RSN sources, there is absolutely no need, or even utility, in also including the deprecated sources around. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Why are you overblowing it? My aim has been to comply closely with the reliable sources, while cross-checking against the primary sources for date/timing and exact wording of quotes.
  I appreciate you've made good faith edits, some of which are helpful, but in this edit you've introduced the mangled falsehood that "The Sun on Sunday published a story on the video on page 2 in its 1 May 2021 of its print edition," implying that The Sun on Sunday publishes in print on Saturday. Clue's in the name. On closer inspection, the Graun consistently says "1 May 2021 The Sun ran a brief story about the footage", with "ran a brief story" a link to the Sun primary source, and in an earlier article the Graun said "The Sun on Sunday picked up on the clip and published a brief article on page 2 of its print edition". Both statements are true, but superficially confusing. Using secondary sources already cited, I've corrected the article, so it's now in line with the primary source. Which provides a useful check when summarising secondary sources about that specific story as published originally in a deprecated [not banned] source. . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  My overblown comment was with respect to this time-wasting exercise at WP:RSN when no deprecated sources were ever needed to back the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  If you're complaining about this discussion happening here, take that up with the editor who brought it to RSN, though I understand that's the recommended procedure. As discussed above, WP:V and WP:WHYCITE's wording "You also help users find additional information on the subject" are among reasons to give access to these as primary sources, instead you're promoting a Catch-22 approach which is clearly not inherent in the WP:RS and WP:RSP guidelines. So, this looks unresolved. . . dave souza, talk 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  As mentioned on the page, you seem to be missing the point that many of the secondary sources in any case include links back to the primary ones. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  From a quick check, these are live links, not archived pages, and why would you expect readers to check them out when you didn't even bother when making a muddle of your edit? A proper archived reference gives appropriate access to the primary source, as needed for WP:RS/QUOTE, without in any way giving it more support than partial quotations out of context taken from the secondary source. A live link gives the deprecated source cookie data on readers. . . dave souza, talk 09:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

TOI and India Today

I have read some article talk page discussions, some users are saying they are pro-government.

TOI recently became unreliable but their pre-2020 articles are mostly reliable and pre-2014 are fully reliable.

India Today's TV channel India Today is completely useless and also Hindi Aaj Tak is very bad, but their original magazine whose articles are online since 1975 is reliable for politics, crime, religion.

Even though the magazine and TV channel share the same website and name, but their content is not always the same.

As TimesofIndia is different than Times Now

Nabbharattimes Hindi newspaper is different than Hindi news channel Times Now Nabhbharat.

All of them started as reliable print media, but due to the decline of offline newspaper, and magazine sales, they started their news channel to earn money.

India Today printed magazine should be used as a reliable source. Ivan Tsar (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ivan Tsar Some sources to back your claims? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"World's largest organic vitamin company"

Is this edit acceptable? The source is The Brattleboro Reformer. The author is a staff writer. The source asserts in the first paragraph it is the world's largest organic vitamin company after the conclusion of a merger with a South Korean company. The Wiki article attributes it as an assertion. -- GreenC 19:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Seems fine to me. Especially since it's attributed. Is someone arguing against the inclusion? What reasoning are they using? Silverseren^C 20:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
• The article is entirely based on a company announcement. The journalist wrote the following sentence to introduce the article: Over the clinking of champagne glasses, members of New Chapter, the world's largest organic vitamin company, toasted an agreement with executives from Dawsang, a $2 billion South Korean food company that shares the vision of promoting whole and fermented ingredients'. The agreement does not appear to have been significant and does not appear in any other newspapers. It doesn't even appear on New Chapter's website at any time.

GreenC is arguing at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Chapter AfD for New Chapter that the snippet contained in the above sentence which described the company as "the world's largest organic vitamin company" must be accepted as fact - and therefore evidence that the company is notable - because it is attributed to a journalist and published in a reliable source.

I pointed out to GreenC that the company's own website in 2007, the date of the article, describe themselves as a small company owned by family and friends.

GreenC argues "No where does the company itself say they are the largest. It is the conclusion and assertion by an independent journalist. The journalist did their own original research, which is what good independent journalists do".

The idea that the journalist "did their own research" and calculated that this company is the largest in the world is not only absurd given the context of the overall article which is a repeat of a company announcement full of quotes, etc, but it is also an Exception Claim. If it were true, I have no doubt the claim would have been repeated at some stage - it hasn't.

To be clear, it could appear to others based on how the dispute has been presented here that someone was objecting to the inclusion of the description of "world's biggest company" in the body of the article. That is not the case. The real argument at the AfD from GreenC is that this 5 word snippet meets WP:ORGIND as it is evidence of "Independent Content" original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I say it isn't. I also say it falls well short of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sounds like you're trying to push your own opinion over what the reliable sources say. When your opinion is meaningless. The source is reliable and the statement is directly attributed in the article. You don't seem to be presenting any actual argument against the source, just that you disagree with what it claims. And, I restate, your opinion is meaningless. And the source does appear to be an independent source. Plenty of articles have flowery openings like that. In fact, that's a better representation of it being independent, since you see active journalist articles worded like that in sources such as The New Yorker, which is what this news article seems to be evoking with its style. Silverseren^C 20:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Now make your argument with reference to WP:EXCEPTIONAL which has nothing to do with my opinion. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think that single source is enough per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. ––FormalDude talk 22:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• The question presented here was whether the source is reliable and okay for including the statement. It is on both counts. This is not a discussion about notability, this is the reliable source noticeboard. Silverseren^C 22:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about notability–WP:EXCEPTIONAL is an important part of our verifiability policy. It makes this statement a red flag for inclusion with only one source and nothing else verifying it. ––FormalDude talk 22:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Additionally the edit doesn't match the source. The edit claims that the deal with Dawsang made them the world's largest organic vitamin company, whereas the source says they're the world's largest organic vitamin company, which is independent of the Dawsang deal. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Rajtantrtv.com

http://rajtantrtv.com/6122/ - दिल्ली कोर्ट ने गुजर समाज को लगाई फटकार , नहीं बताया जाएगा पृथ्वीराज चौहान को गुजर करणी सेना के अनुसार होगा पृथ्वीराज चौहान फिल्म का टाइटल

Samrat Prithviraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rajtantrtv.com link has been added on Samrat Prithviraj in the litigation section, this edit without adding any additional text that rajtantrtv supports violating WP:OVERCITE.

Rajtantrtv.com says in the headline that the court admonished the petitioner and said that the title of the film will be Samrat. This is factually wrong. The Delhi High court did not admonish anyone. And the title of the film was not even discussed in the Delhi case. Yet Rajtrantrtv makes misleading claims in its headline.

So I believe Rajtrantratv is not following the criteria of WP:RS and should not be added into the article. The other editor disagrees and this is a dispute. Please help to decide if Rajtantratv can be considered a reliable source for this article. Venkat TL (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Well Rajantntra tv said that title was changed , it did not said that it was done by court order, and the petition was dismissed which is admonished in a way. Shanusar (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Headline says दिल्ली कोर्ट ने गुजर समाज को लगाई फटकार, नहीं बताया जाएगा पृथ्वीराज चौहान को गुजर करणी सेना के अनुसार होगा पृथ्वीराज चौहान फिल्म का टाइटल. The translation of which is "Delhi court reprimanded Gujar society, Prithviraj Chauhan will not be told as a Gurjar the title of Prithviraj Chauhan film will be according to Karni Sena". So clearly this is a misleading and fake news site because the title was not even discussed in the court. Rajantntra tv is not a reliable site. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes the title of film was changed due to karni sena is fact and this is already added on the concerned page. Shanusar (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Shanusar, Please provide another source to verify the false claim (fake news) that "Delhi court reprimanded Gujar society", Also provide a source that says " the Delhi high court said anything that gave a hint that the title of Prithviraj Chauhan film will be according to Karni Sena". Both are false statements and misleading the reader. Venkat TL (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The rajtantra TV did not said high court said it, it said that name was changed due to karni sena for which link is already given. Please check sir. Givinf again for your kind perusal Shanusar (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

References

So do you agree that there was no reprimand? The case you linked no where says Delhi high court, so it is clear that both are fake news spread by Rajtantr tv. Venkat TL (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

no I have not agreed to anything. I have opposed your accusation. The headline said what happned. Do not try to take things according to your own understanding Shanusar (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

here is another source for you

References

Ok, let other users comment. Venkat TL (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Shanusar you are yet to reply, why you have added rajtantra TV link? Normally a reference is added to support the content the user adds. You did not add any new text and simply adding this link, when existing sources already support the wikipedia text. What is your purpose of adding this link? --Venkat TL (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Apart from the title, the article also has one sentence that reads "इधर गुजर समाज में दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट में याचिका दाखिल करते हुए गुजर दिखाने की मांग की जिसे कोर्ट ने फटकार लगाई है।" (transl. Here in Gujar society, while filing a petition in the Delhi High Court, demanding to show Gujar, which has been reprimanded by the court.) I couldn't find any other source that says Gurjar [community] is reprimanded by the court. In fact [reading from sources], the petition was simply dismissed after the petitioners said their grievances are resolved after the clarification from the film producers that the film is caste-neutral. Rajtantrtv article's headline and the commentary that Gurjars are reprimanded is simply false. I'd say that we do not use it for sourcing on the movie's page [and perhaps also on Prithviraj Chauhan-related pages broadly construed]. It's unreliable in this context. It would be useful if Hindi-speaking editors provide more evidence of such fabrications by Rajtantrtv, if exists, to make an assessment on the site-wide reliability — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for describing this portion,DaxServer; I believe you are accurate in that they may not be correct. I have no objections to this reference being removed at this time; it has already been removed as per the page.

Venkat TL The rajtantra tv sources is not on page for now and I am not adding anything there as discussion is going on. If you want I can add sources on page.Shanusar (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm just looking at their website about-us, t&c. I agree with @Sajaypal007 that this is an obscure news portal. This is not a reliable source — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Both Chetanamanch (above) and this Rajtantra news websites looks quite similar, and comes under category of blog news websites. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Rajtantrtv.com as a reliable source. The domain is only 4 months old.[1][2]. The site has no much links from reliable news sites. I agree with @Sajaypal007 it is a blog news website. Grabup (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with all the users above in their conclusion that Rajtantratv is not a reliable soure, That unreliability is not due to the "look and feel" of the site. It is unreliable due to the factual inaccuracy, that I pointed above. @Shanusar good to know that you agree it is unreliable and should be removed, still you have not explained why you added this unreliable source into the article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Chetnamanch.com

• "Prithviraj Chauhan: राजपूत नहीं थे पृथ्‍वीराज चौहान? दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट से गुर्जर समाज के पक्ष में आया फैसला". चेतना मंच. 1 June 2022. Retrieved 4 June 2022.

Used on Samrat Prithviraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chetnamanch a news site, has been used on film article Samrat Prithviraj#Litigations Permanent link to discuss the court litigation about the film. Another source livelaw has also covered the same incident but its coverage is not detailed. Chetnamanch article provides a detailed background and also gives much more details on the court litigation hence it was added in the article. User:Shanusar had inappropriately removed it calling it unreliable. Please help to decide if this can be used as a reliable source to discuss the court litigation or not.

References

Venkat TL (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The Chetna manch is misguiding here as court has not given any verdict but the headline say that court gave its verdict. Court dismissed the petition. Here is anohter source for that. the Chetna manch is owned by gujjars. Shanusar (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Shanusar , How did you conclude that Chetna is owned by Gujjars, your link from twitter does not make any such claims about Chetna. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Because The editor has history of being in their favour. I have provided the link for that. A news portal whose editor is caste biased can not be considered reliable.Shanusar (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

He is a journalist, He is only naming the caste involved in the news incident being reported. Where is the evidence that he is baised? again stop making unsubstantiated allegations about living persons. Please see WP:BLP I dont know which caste he is and it is not appropriate for me to make guess/assumption about his caste without any evidence. Venkat TL (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

References

See below quote from livelaw,

“

At this juncture, the Court asked the Respondents as to why they should not be directed to issue a statement clarifying that Prithviraj Chauhan was not a Rajput King.

"If your project is being depicted in relation to a Rajput king, which he is not, why should you remain silent?" Justice Sanghi asked.

[...]

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that if the movie is caste-neutral, his grievance stands resolved and he does not wish to press the petition any further.

Accordingly, the plea was disposed of. However, the Court made it clear that the Respondents shall remain bound by their statement.

”

The petitioners went to court to protest that the movie was not about Rajput, The court case confirmed this which is why the petion was not pressed further and disposed off. The court also noted that the statement of respondent legally binds them. which is obviously part of the verdict and not just some oral statement. Venkat TL (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The Chetna manch headline says that court gave its vedicts in favour of Gujjar community that what "faisla" means. Whereas court never gave its verdict that Prithvi raj was not a Rajput king in fact the petition was dismissed as I have already provided link for that. Can you provide or did the Chetna manch provided court vedict for that.?? The headline is misleading.Shanusar (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Wkipedia page where it is used, does not say that the verdict was in favour of anyone. The petition was not dismissed due to lack of merits. It was dimissed as the petitioners were satisfied with the response from the respondents and decided not to pursue as their concern was resolved. It is not entirely wrong. Please point any fact in the wikipedia article that is wrongly portrayed by Chetna article. Ownership gujjar or otherwise does not make Chetna not reliable. Venkat TL (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

we are not talking about what wiki page said. We are talking about reliability of the source. which if is misguiding can not be reliable. The headline it self is misguiding as it says court said "Prithviraj was not rajput and court verdicts in favour of gujjar community". When there was no verdict at all. The movie makers clarified that they have not shown any caste but court didn't gave any verdict.

ownership of Chetna manch matters as it is owned by a person of their own community that is why the headline is written in misguiding way. Shanusar (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read the quote from the court I copied above in my 3rd reply. You have still not provided any evidence on " owned by a person of their own community" yet you continue to make unsubtantiated assertions about its ownership. Venkat TL (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide me court order where court had said that he was not rajput. The petition was on film not on Prithvi Raj Chauhan. When the headline is so twisted that misguide the reader it can not be reliable. This editor clearly favors a particular community as I have given link for that. Definitely not a neutral media. hence it can not be reliable. Shanusar (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You have made multiple unsubstantiated claims about living person, Please stop. Venkat TL (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sir, Can you provide copy or link for copy of court verdict which can be matched by the Chetna manch headline. Rest are other topic.

I am providing more source that gujjar pettion was dismissed and court did not give any verdict . Now I am asking can you provide copy or link for copy of court verdict which can be matched by the Chetna manch headline. Shanusar (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Shanusar (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Venkat TL please stop posting warning for block and other things on my page. You can say everything here. Shanusar (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Shanusar, That was a mandatory warning. I will not post on your talk about it. If you make another unsourced/unsubstantiated allegation against living person you will be reported.Venkat TL (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Mandatory warning even after my reply to not discuss things on page? any way as you agree to not post again on my talk page when discussion is here. I am fine with it.Shanusar (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, this source looks anything but reliable, it seems to me that this is some blog kind of new sites, there has been rise in number of such blog news websites in india. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

the "look and feel" of the site does not make it unreliable. Many reliable news sites use blog platform, If there are factual inaccuracies poor fact checking then point it out. Venkat TL (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Chetnamanch did an analysis-like article stating "दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट में “गुर्जर समाज सर्व संघठन सभा एकता समन्वय समिति” की हालिया याचिका पर सुनवाई में गुर्जर समाज के द्वारा दिये गए तथ्यों को हाईकोर्ट ने सही माना फैसला गुर्जर समाज के पक्ष में गया, गुर्जर समाज ने इस जीत को ऐतेहासिक व नीतिगत जीत बताया है।" (transl. In the hearing of the recent petition of "Gurjar Samaj Sarva Sanghatana Sabha Ekta Coordination Committee" in Delhi High Court, the High Court accepted the facts given by the Gurjar society as correct, the decision went in favor of the Gurjar society, the Gurjar society declared this victory as a historical and policy victory.) - Here I see "High Court accepted the facts given by the Gurjar society as correct" is factually incorrect - in fact [reading from sources], the petition was simply dismissed after the petitioners said their grievances are resolved after the clarification from the film producers that the film is caste-neutral. Just like Rajtantrtv below, Chetnamanch also published false info/analysis (=fake news), just like Rajtantrtv. I'd say that we do not use it for sourcing on the movie's page [and perhaps also on Prithviraj Chauhan-related pages broadly construed]. It's unreliable in this context. It would be useful if Hindi-speaking editors provide more evidence of such fabrications by Rajtantrtv, if exists, to make an assessment on the site-wide reliability — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Chetna Manch and Rajtantra TV reliablity

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

---

rajtantrtv.com and chetnamanch.com both are used on Samrat Prithviraj an article. Are they relalible sources to be used there. Shanusar (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Shanusar are Chetna Manch and Rajtantra TV connected to each other? I believe they are not connected, so they should be discussed in different threads. And a decision should reach according to their own merits. Please create 2 threads. Venkat TL (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

They are connected as both are used for same news on same article with different headings and information and it will be wastage of time and efforts to discuss both on different thread for same thing Shanusar (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not a "connection" when 2 sites are covering an incident. I have started separate thread of Chetna and rajtantra TV below. This thread should be closed. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:21, 6 June 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.

Can someone please check these sources

I'm dealing with a new editor here who seems to be struggling and has had a number of edits reverted due to sourcing. If someone could take a look at this series of edits and tell me if I'm off base in thinking most aren't reliable it would be appreciated. Not pinging them as it doesn't seem necessary or kind at this point. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, the sources don't look that bad, given that the material is not controversial. There's a local history newsletter rather than a magazine, but it relies on a letter as a primary source. Can we work with the editor to see if he can find better sources? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith Any chance you could do this? Besides my chemo I've just started Parkinson's speech therapy as my hard of hearing wife has difficulty hearing me, and I have a considerable amount of practice to do on that for 4 weeks, including 4 zoom or face to face hours a week plus homework. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have a word with him. Hope all your medical interventions go well. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The kentuckykindredgenealogy.com cite seems to be the personal blog of Phyllis Brown who describes herself as "a family historian, a genealogist, one who puts families together, who finds those who have been lost for many years and acquaints modern day generations with their ancestors". No indication of training or publishing record, so not reliable even if accurate IMO. The University of Kentucky library citation seems fine, citing the biography as evidence of writing a biography seems fine as a primary source, the alumni association page doesnt seem reliable for much but for the history of a building on campus better than nothing I suppose. nableezy - 16:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Crikey on Tim Wilson (Australian politician)

I am Tim Wilson (Australian politician). The current Wikipedia page about me relies heavily on citations to Crikey[6][7][8][9] for its negative lean. For example, one cited Crikey article says "Look up there in the sky! It’s Freedom Boy, Tim Wilson! Stuffing up again!".[10] Crikey recently wrote an article titled "‘TimWilsonMP’ banned from editing Wikipedia after trying to get rid of negative news about the MP".

A prior RSN discussion leans towards Crikey being generally reliable. However, my concern is that the publication accepts opinion and commentary pieces without (as far as I can tell) clearly labeling which articles are opinion. WP:BLP seems to encourage being especially cautious and using only the best sources when it comes to contentious material about a living person. These articles generally look more like opinion columns than news/journalism. Pinging new user @BeReasonabl:, who suggested I bring the issue here.

It's worth mentioning for context that the media has exposed my political opponents for manipulating the Wikipedia page about me and other members of my political party in order to attack the opposition.[11]. Therefore, I do not know which editors are legitimate, and which are organised political opponents.TimWilsonMP (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tim, can you be a little more specific? Is there something in particular you are objecting to? As you said, a previous RSN leans towards Crikey being reliable, generally. You point out that the publisher accepts opinion and commentary pieces without clearly labeling them as such - but you haven't provided any evidence that this is so. The articles have all been attributed to journalists so we have nothing to support what you've said. If you are concerned that the article is not written in a neutral and balanced manner, that should be addressed either on the Talk page or you could take it to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Remember that Wikipedia relies on consensus and for biographies about living persons, a neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research must be strictly observed. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

TimWilsonMP - I think you are asking for RSN to reevaluate Crikey for (a) sensationalist language and (b) not clearly labelling opinion and commentary pieces as such. Please provide evidence of some specific cites for consideration. Any possible (c) manipulation suspicions should go to NPOVN. I will take it on myself to remove the article content about wikipedia account validation as simply trivia and WP:UNDUE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe these articles are more like Column (periodical): "What differentiates a column from other forms of journalism is that it is a regular feature in a publication – written by the same writer or reporter and usually on the same subject area or theme each time – and that it typically, but not universally, contains the author's opinion or point of view. A column states an opinion." Wikipedia's definition of a column is that it is usually written by a journalist and is usually also opinion.

My points are:

• Wikipedia editors themselves can verify at least one instance where the publication made contentious comments about a BLP without fact-checking, because Crikey claimed I was banned from Wikipedia,[12] which we know isn't true.
• The content of the articles themselves are filled with sarcasm and name-calling that is more typical of opinion than news-reporting
• Crikey is generally known to have a strong political bias
• The media has reported that political opponent Zoe Daniel added a lot of negative content to the page through user:Playlet (presumably some of the other accounts as well)

It's a serious issue, as the content of the page - added covertly by my political opponent - is affecting my job prospects post-election. TimWilsonMP (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not want Wikipedia to re-assess Crikey as a reliable source and agree the articles in question are written by journalists. The cited Crikey pieces are columns. According to Wikipedia, columns are written by journalists and “typically, but not universally, contains the author’s opinion or point of view.” I merely want Wikipedia to reject opinion content as citations for contentious content about a BLP.

For example, if you go to Crikey’s main page, articles listed under “Opinion” and “Our Columnists” should not be reliable, because they are opinion content. Unfortunately, opinion content that is not on the main page is not clearly labeled. However, I think the content of the articles themselves (please go read a couple) strongly infers they are opinion columns.

Crikey is known for having a strong political bias, the media has reported that my political opponent covertly added negative content to the page (through user Playlet, but presumably other accounts as well), and we know of at least one instance where the cited opinion pieces were not reliable[13] (claiming I was banned from Wikipedia). This is additional context. TimWilsonMP (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That link does not say "Crikey is known for having a strong political bias". It says Crikey has a left bias, but ranks HIGH for factual reporting. Given the mostly right wing state of the Australian media landscape, and the fact that Media Bias Fact Check is based in a generally more right wing landscape itself, this is hardly a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi TimWilsonMP, your posting of The Australian article above probably contravenes WP:DOX so I suggest you remove this or you could face sanctions from an administrator.

You also have a COI with this topic and therefore, if you wish to challenge the usage of Crikey more broadly, you probably should present examples of Crikey’s unreliability that do not concern yourself.

All the best for you future endeavours. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with the improvements to the page. I would just like to note that TimWilsonMP is continuing to spread lies about me and ask that he cease his defamatory comments.Playlet (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Citing to strugglingteens.com regarding troubled teen industry programs

Hi there, I would like to get information on if it is okay to cite strugglingteens.com on troubled teen industry program Wikipedia pages such as Elevations RTC.

This site has an about page describing the below. What this page includes are news articles written by parents, students, and industry professionals about troubled teen programs and press releases. Users have been citing to and using as sources these press releases and articles to account for historical information about troubled teen programs. The articles are a GREAT source of information about the backgrounds of these programs and this type of information cannot be found elsewhere. I understand that self-published sources are not always reliable but in this context, these articles serve as a paper trail with again, very important information about the programs.

For example, https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5202.shtml, this article has historical information about the Oakley School and the Island View RTC program that could be used in both schools articles. There are several other articles from the website that have been deleted by a particular user mentioned below.

The user (talk) is going to every troubled teen program and deleting all information that links back to this website and a few other similar industry websites, and I believe their doing so is not beneficial to the Wikipedia pages and the sources of information being used.

Can anyone provide their thoughts?

ABOUT PAGE:

In 1995, StrugglingTeens.com went online as the original website for information about the many schools and programs available for troubled teens. The news and articles listed within this site provide an invaluable resource for both parents and professionals, as well as anyone interested in helping troubled teens find successful paths to adulthood.

With a combination of training and 20+ years of experience, our educational consultants provide balanced news, information, and provide professional help for parents of struggling and troubled teens helping families find programs, services and schools for teens and at risk youth.

Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That website is so badly maintained, it cannot even direct readers to a consistant home page. They seem to be web illiterate, with unfinished pages everywhere. I cannot figure out if it is an "attack" page, against this rather dubious industry, or a genuine attempt to help parents. I haven't found any editorial policy statements amidst the collection of anecdotes, and I suggest that it is unreliable for anything at all. I may be being slightly harsh, and look forward to others comments. We do need far better sources imho, but this isn't it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You're being harsh. The actual articles that are being cited to in the wikipedia articles are very well written and provide straight forward historical information, again creating a very well-documented online paper trail for these schools. It would be a misfortune NOT to be able to cite to these histories. They are part and parcel of the troubled teen industry and the many schools that they discuss.

I can provide specific articles but another user has been going around deleting them so it is a bit difficult but I will do so any way. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

For example, here are some sources that are cited to.

The first is discussing executive changes that are historical to the program Island View now known as Elevations RTC. https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/IslandViewFutureBN_081215.shtml

Here's one written by Jared Balmer himself discussing what the Viewpoint Center is, which is on the campus with Elevations RTC. https://web.archive.org/web/20220224084015/https:/strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5561.shtml

Here's a documented visit report to another program called West Ridge Academy, which gives in depth details about the program and the campus. This is important historical information. The only other place you would find this would be probably on the program's website itself. But adding these types of sources creates a balance article. It also again provides historical information as a program can update its website at any time, which they often do. Thus, these articles provide a paused moment in time that can be a resource.

https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5382.shtml Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I also want to point out that these articles are being used on a case to case basis and are being used alongside other sources. So they are being use where applicable and where they add value. I don't think there should be some outright ban on citing to articles on strugglingteens.com. There is even a wikipedia cite format for press releases and the like, so this is not out of the ordinary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_press_release Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the comments I made above, that proposed spource is WP:BIASED. Unfortunately, it isn't clear which way it is biased, because of the aforementioned lack of competence of the people maintaining the site. Remember that Anecdote does not equal Evidence, and all we have there is anecdotal. I dont trust incompetent strangers on the internetz. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources can be biased though, especially here in that they offer information about different viewpoints on the school - from parents, educational consultants, industry people, and students. See here:

Biased or opinionated sources[edit source]

Shortcuts

WP:BIASED

WP:PARTISAN

WP:BIASEDSOURCES

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. 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. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Also, I think the press release articles would be sources about themselves, which is also allowed per the below. Thoughts?

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves[edit source]

Shortcut

WP:SELFSOURCE

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. Farr4h2004 (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I definitely don't think a blanket deletion of a press release featured on industry websites is necessary. Farr4h2004 (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The articles are not useable. The site is equivalent to a blog with no indication the writers are qualified to give their opinion of the programs nor any indication of editorial control that articles are fact-checked.

The press releases can be used in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF which provides limited usage of press releases and other company produced information. A more reliable source publishing would be better, but the website could qualify as best source available for them.Slywriter (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought press releases could be used but could not find the policy so that is helpful. As for the articles, they include the author's name, which is usually a person affiliated with the industry, so they can definitely be verified. They aren't random people commenting behind aliases on the internet.

@SkidMountTubularFrame please see above on press releases. Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that press releases would have to be about strugglingteens.com to qualify as WP:ABOUTSELF. - Bilby (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Charles W Henderson, Marine Sniper: 93 confirmed kills (and fictionalised history books in general)

Marine Sniper: 93 confirmed kills by Charles W. Henderson is billed as the true story of Carlos Hathcock, a prolific sniper in the Vietnam war. Its prose is novelistic and the scenes are described in detail as if the writer was describing a events they had personally witnessed. The author recognises in their introduction that some dialogue involving Vietnamese characters is invented by the author, but does not make the same caveat for dialogue between Americans, which seems unlikely to be true. No sources are mentioned, except the author's own interviews with American service personnel, which I have no doubt actually did happen, and claims that American military records were consulted. The records are not cited, so can not be verified.

In my view this can't be considered a reliable source for historical events, perhaps not even for the views of the interviewees, given the degree of fictionalisation. But I'd be interested to see what others think.

This leads to a broader question of how far should we trust memoirs, or histories based on interviews, which are presented novelistically?

Boynamedsue (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

He is a historian, and so in that respect is an RS. but it can also be argued that he might only be an RS for what he claims (thus attribution). Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: what suggests that they're a historian? All I see is that they're a journalist and author. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

When I did a search for him online I saw him referred to as a historian. But it may have been another Charles Henderson. 10:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither Marine Sniper nor Henderson himself should be considered reliable sources in any way. The book itself is a novelization, which is an instant fail as a source. Sure, it's supposedly based on interviews and records, but I don't believe for a second that the play-by-play action sequences or dialogue are anything but invented. Perhaps some of the larger plot elements were sourced, but how do we know what to believe? That's why we trust actual historians, not novelists. And I see nothing indicating that Henderson is a historian, no education, no training, no experience. I also can't find any record of reliable sources treating Marine Sniper or any of Henderson's other novels as reputable sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any evidence that he is a historian. Some of what he does follows the historical method (interviews with participants, archive research), but the complete lack of referencing, and the text which is effectively a novel, as well as admitting to inventing dialogue does not. He also makes no attempt to critically evaluate what Hathcock or other vets are telling him. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Henderson's own about page on his website talks extensively about his training and the professional organisations of which he is a member, but it does not mention any historical training. His most relevant qualifications appear to be university-level courses (apparently not degrees) in photojournalism and philosophy (his BA is in animal sciences, which is of limited use to the professional historian!), and experience as a freelance journalist. The preface admits that parts of the book have been invented, and though the cover describes the book as a "true story" and the forward describes the book (except the bits which the author admits inventing) as "factually accurate to the best of my ability", the 2001 reprint is published by Berkley, an imprint of Penguin which specialises in "commercial and genre fiction". I can't see any compelling reason to treat this as a reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, if if the research that went into the book is accepted, the question becomes what parts of article content, that are supprted by the book, are being called into question? Is it dates, facts & figures, based on research and interviews, elements that the author states are factually accurate to the best of his ability, or some of the filler elements, such as dialogue between enemy combatants that couldn't be corroborated, and so were invented by the author? Perhaps the OP could clarify which parts of the article, supported by this book that they are calling into question? - wolf 19:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that the need to do this interrogation of which part of the novelization are facts and which are not is what makes them unreliable sources. We'd basically need the author's statements as to what's true or not, at which point we should probably just cite that. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

if the research that went into the book is accepted Given that Henderson doesn't have any historical qualifications and doesn't claim to be a historian, I'm not sure that we should trust his research as super reliable. By his own account, it's largely based off of interviews with people who were there. Memories are falliable and self-interested accounts are self-interested; an amateur's uncritical reporting of them should be treated with an appropriate degree of caution. Even if we do trust that he did his research properly, the fact is that he has published something under a commercial fiction imprint: for all that he is saying "it's all true", his publishers are quite clearly saying "this is not a history book". Historical fiction is often based on very thorough research; that doesn't mean that we should treat it as a reliable source. To the extent that Wikipedia editors are in a position to judge which bits of what Henderson is saying are true versus which bits are fictionalised, it is because they are basing their judgement off of actually reliable sources; if we have actually reliable sources, we should use those. (I also note as an aside that currently the references to Henderson 2003 give page numbers which do not match up at all to the referenced edition, which makes it hard to verify whether Henderson even claims the things we are citing to him!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

In reply to the point above about what the claim is, it really relates back to the way we describe Charles Hathcock's claims about the so-called Apache Woman. The best sources we have (two academic articles) suggest she is fictional, Henderson relates the story in authorial voice and is cited, so the question at hand is how much credence we give to the suggestion she is not legendary. The books mentioning her seem to be pretty poor quality, and would seem to quote Henderson. From there it is a bit of a tangled web to weigh up precisely what each source says and the value of it, but that's a job for the talk page.--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Do not use. Err on the side of caution when using military pulp "non-fiction". Academic Luis White examined a similar method of writing with regards to Rhodesian veterans' various works. Long story short, this is not pretty for factual accuracy. This appears to be a dramatization of a "true story". New Journalism, in which one writes of factual events with more narrative flavor, can certainly be reliable, but not when the author is warning you that they're making crap up! We would not use American Sniper as an RS for the life of Chris Kyle. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Unsilenced.org archives

Hi. At Talk:Elevations RTC there is a debate about the extensive use of documents archived via Google Drive by unsilenced.org, an advocacy group that opposes Elevations RTC and similar treatment centres. The archive contains legal documents, internal documents of Elevations RTC, and the Elevations RTC parent and student manuals, which are provided to students and their parents but are not otherwise publicly available. We can't link to core documents being used as sources, as there is no indication that the Unsilenced Project has permission to publish them and it is unlikely that such permission would have been granted. We also can't access official versions, as they are internal or only distributed to people affiliated with Elevations RTC, and not otherwise accessible.

Are these documents usable as sources? - Bilby (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

In terms of reliability, I believe unsilenced.org has the roughly the same reliability as any small-to-medium sized advocacy group, and statements from it should be attributed and only used if there's sufficient due weight for them established by more reliable sources. Leaked documents from Elevations RTC are WP:Primary sources, and standard guidelines relating to primary sources apply.

I do not believe leaked documents are inherently unverifiable the way you initially put it on the talk page. It is not true that but if they can't access it because it is an internal document of a corporation that has not been made public, it is not verifiable. Leaked documents are verifiable insofar as they have been reported on by a reliable source. Otherwise we would be all but unable to write articles about people like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning. The main problem here is that unsilenced.org, as a small-to-medium sized advocacy group, may be of limited reliability.

The legality and ethics of linking to leaked documents, on the other hand, are a different, more complex matter, and I do not believe I am qualified to comment on that. I can see one relevant RFC, the 2011 RFC on leaked classified information.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! However, with Wikileaks, various secondary publications independently confirmed the reliability of the documents. So we didn't use something directly from Wikileaks, but a document that had been verified and reported on by the NYT, for example. At worst, the reliability of leaks themselves were independently verified. My concern here is that no one independent to Unsilenced has verified any of these documents, and we can't verify them because we have no access to the documents independent of Unsilenced copies. There is one exception, in that the Huffington Post has quoted from a copy of manuals they received, so I'm intending to use the Huffington Post to source some of the content. However, they haven't claimed to have verified any of the documents on Unsilenced. - Bilby (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

These documents have been made to the public in some form. They are given to all the residents in the out-of-state program, and then take them home. They are also given to the parents, who are not even residents at all. Parents and students in turn can do whatever they want with them, and have, including posting them online. There are also reporters who mention in their articles that they have certain copies of them. Like in this Huffington Post article. https://testkitchen.huffingtonpost.com/island-view/ I'm not sure how anyone would think these documents have not been made available to the public, which makes them a source. For the program information itself, they are reliable and good primary sources. I'm not sure you can get any better source than the guide itself, which spells out how the program works. Another thing, the documents don't look fake if that is what someone is trying to imply. They are all very similar and there is a general pattern from the year to year handbooks. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

They are not publicly available, so I don't really agree that giving copies to people affiliated with the organisation is the same as making them public, and no, being given a copy of a document does not mean that you can do what you like with it. However, that is not the concern. The concern is that there has been no independent verification of the documents in Unsilenced archive, there is no means for us to verify them, and Unsilenced is an advocacy group opposing the organisation concerned. - Bilby (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC concerning New Eastern Outlook

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

---

Which of the following best describes the reliability of New Eastern Outlook ?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be added to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources?

HouseOfChange (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment none of the above, as the reliability of a source depends on context. The claims attributed to the DOS and the USDT don't belong in the lead section of the article. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  This looks like a whole thing. Is there an article or talk page or some such that people should refer to for context? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  would like some more context but generally NEO is Option 4, its an information operations platform which masquerades as an academic journal (much like say Mankind Quarterly but run by a state rather than a private group). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: this is my third effort, and if I screwed up the process here also, I apologize! Here are four relevant bullet points:

  • 2019 discussion on deprecating "Sites identified by reputable sources as state-sponsored fake news / disinformation".
  • Article New Eastern Outlook cites multiple RS identifying it as a "state-sponsored fake news / disinformation" website.
  • As of the 2019 discussion, the status of NEO as state-sponsored fake news was less clear than it is in 2022. (I just created article on NEO from a re-direct a few days ago.)
  • Lots more context in Archive 375

  I hope this is helpful and not too much of a wall of text. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  A quick look at those sources raises some questions such as: What makes the DOS and the USDT more RS (or less biased) than the Strategic Culture Foundation and SouthFront? M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton: It isn't one isolated, unconfirmed, recent claim from these sources. There's a 2020 report from Trump's DOS, confirmed in 2021 and 2022 by Biden's DOS and DOT, with two green check-marked RS (Wall Street Journal and Politifact) independently confirming the "disinformation" label. Searching EU vs Disinfo turns up 49 results for journal-neo[.]org including "13.05.2020 US might be developing weaponised insects" and "07.02.2020 Scientific evidence is mounting that the coronavirus is man made and targeting the Chinese race." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  @HouseOfChange: Incidentally, these are all related to Russia's declared enemies. Is the pursuit of academic excellence the raison d'etre of Trump's and Biden's DOS and DOTA? A search for "US might be developing weaponised insects" turns up some some interesting results. That's why I said that the reliability of the source depends on context. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4. I wouldn't deprecate a source based solely on the opinion of one government... but fortunately we don't have to. describes it as a source of Russian COVID-19 disinformation; describes it as a "junk news" source. includes a note that in 2019, Facebook removed 12 social media accounts and 10 pages linked to the New Eastern Outlook and The New Atlas. These accounts and pages were removed for using fake accounts, creating fictitious personas, and driving users to “off-platform blogs posing as news outlets”. These, to me, say that this source publishes intentional disinformation while trying to appear reliable and respectable; that is exactly the sort of source that deprecation exists for. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's also used by thousands of RS (see Google Scholar and books) for the various subjects that it covers. What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton: can you dial back the nastiness a little bit? You're lashing out because you're losing an argument and that just isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: There s no nastiness in my comments, therefore, I will urge you to refrain from casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  How would you describe "What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there" then? Snark? Humor? Off topic comment? I just don't see how bringing up is constructive and not meant to be a dig at Aquillion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Let me make it really simple for you: you either stop casting aspersions and misrepresenting what I said or you'll take a trip to ANI. Facebook was brought up, so it's only fair to remind the readers what it does when it suits its political agenda. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Why is that only fair? This is a discussion of New Eastern Outlook not facebook, whether or not facebook allows Azov to be praised or not has exactly zero bearing on the topic at hand. If you are being misrepresented then please clarify what you intended to communicate. Threatening ANI is uncalled for, such battleground behavior really isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest you take your time to read what I wrote again. 15:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I can't make heads or tail of it, you seem to pinball from threats to irrelevancies without actually engaging with the topic at hand which is the reliability of New Eastern Outlook. Perhaps you would care to explain what Facebook's tolerance of pro-Azov posts has to do with their removal of New Eastern Outlook linked info-ops accounts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: Facebook, whose profit model makes it reluctant to remove false content of any kind, blocked NEO in 2019 for "coordinated inauthentic behavior," a kind of deception that isn't the same as posting deceptive content. On February 24, 2022 Facebook made a minor change to policy re Azov. I also don't see a connection beyond whataboutism. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was hoping for an explanation besides whataboutism or trolling but it doesn't appear that one is going to be forthcoming. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm done here as I can't pretend to have a decent discussion with those who personalize the comments. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Again I fail to see the connection, you weren't pretending to have a decent discussion before I engaged with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4. We have reliable sources that tell us exactly what kind of outlet this is. Even if we didn't, looking for just a moment at what they are writing about what they are calling the 'The Russian special operation in Ukraine' makes it pretty clear what is going on there. - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 This is an easy one. Even if you don't want to believe the federal government, there is pretty much consensus in RS that New Eastern Outlook is a Russian propaganda site. Per Alexander Reid-Ross: Additional fascinating examples of Russian state systems percolating into the alternative media ecosystem are Redfish, the New Eastern Outlook...The publication of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, New Eastern Outlook produces conspiracy theories about Rothschilds and George Soros and Islamophobic material, and hosts articles by Duginist Catherine Shakhdam and conspiracy theorist Vanessa Beeley, among others. [14]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 as per Aquillon and Dr Swag. Definitely a disinfo site made more dangerous by its thin veneer of academic respectably. 17:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC) (Above comment by Bobfrombrockley whose sig got messed up by something weird with the tildes. This sig-related comment in parens is by HouseOfChange. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC))

  Thanks HouseOfChange - trying to edit on mobile and failed badly! BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley: The publisher IOS, despite its connection to Russian Academy of Sciences, has been run by Russian government since 2013 (coincidentally, year when NEO came online.) The IOS video page mixes scholarly stuff with titles like "Why does Russia help Syria" and "The failure of the American strategy in Ukraine." HouseOfChange (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 Legitimate, reliable sources consistently describe this as a disinformation site. Its use should be deprecated. --Jayron32 16:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 yup, it's bad. Added to WP:UPSD as a deprecated source, but I'll update the script if it ends up as something else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Optopn 4 Russian disinfo, straight-up. Zaathras (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Unreliable sources on First Anglo-Maratha War

Two of the sources being used on article First Anglo-Maratha War to support the result of the War seem to be unreliable and neither of these scholars are historians or accredited historians. These two sources are:
Y.G. Bhave [15] and by Barbara West [16]. While Y.G. Bhave is scholar in "Humanist" [17], Barbara is an "Anthropologist". [18]. Can all editors please give their opinion whether you agree or disagree that these two sources are unreliable when being used on historical subject such as First Anglo-Maratha War? MehmoodS (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Questions: First, have these authors published works on related topics? If so, could they be considered reliable non-academic experts? Second, are these authors being used to support controversial statements, or to support information that we can accept from non-academic sources? Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar, answer to first question, No. Answer to second question: Yes, they are being used to support information (result of war). MehmoodS (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

"No"? Then what is this? If you are going to make misleading requests then just don't expect a response. I note that you are doing this forumshopping across various talk pages and noticeboards. You need to stop. >>> Extorc.talk 17:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Extorc no was in regards to response if the author has written any related topic to first anglo-maratha war. And what forum shopping are you talking about. I am here to get opinions on the sources. On other noticeboards, its different issue to discuss the result. There is nothing wrong in doing so I do not understand your point. MehmoodS (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Silent Era

Is Silent Era reliable source? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Depends. What do you want to use it for? MehmoodS (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS Movies. Is it reliable to ref articles about old films? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you give a specific example of content being sourced to the site? Geogene (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The Dove (1927 film), The Battle Cry of Peace. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Most sources are conditionally reliable or not depending on the context, so in the future, please provide quotes from the article that show how the sources are being used. For The Dove it's being used for At the Library of Congress are reels 1, 3, 4, and 8. The film is missing reels 2, 5, 6, 7, and 9. alongside a book; that appears to fail verification because silentera.com says (missing reels 2 and 5-7). For Battle Cry it's being used for Fragments of footage of battle scenes survive and are housed at the George Eastman House. alongside a site hosted by Stanford University. Neither of these statements seem contentious, so the site may be okay for them, but also it's not necessary since there are better sources in use in both cases for the same statements. I also searched for silentera.com in Special:LinkSearch and got 324 hits, most of them from articles, so this site is apparently being widely cited by Wikipedia. I searched for relevant text in WP:BLAME for a handful of those pages and did not find evidence of any WP:REFSPAMming by single purpose accounts. I also noticed that silent film articles seem be using the same few sources habitually, with silentera.com being one of them. Geogene (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Are NewsGuard reports a RS?

An editor is questioning if a NewsGuard report [19] is reliable enough to be quoted about the accuracy of The Daily Wire. Can it? (The talk page discussion is here. The quotations are in the second sentence of the "Accuracy" section.) Llll5032 (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The big "DATED CONTENT" watermark is a bit of a red flag. I've done some looking, and the headline assessment as of March 2022 is somewhat different than the link you've provided above, which may inform discussion on the talk page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ⓜ️hawk10, I updated the article based on the new assessment that you cited. Llll5032 (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

statmuse.com

I haven't been able to find any previous archives discussing this site. In short, [20], is a sports record-keeping site, similar to sports-reference.com. There isn't much known about it as to my knowledge, but in the about section it states that it's backed by Disney, the NFLPA, Google, and what appears to be former NBA commissioner David Stern. I don't know what to make of it, thoughts? ~~~~ NSNW (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Treating COVID-19 as an "endemic" illness - Requires MEDRS?

Content has been removed from the Living_with_COVID-19#Characteristics section on the basis that the statements require a MEDRS source. Do editors consider this to be the case? Here is the diff in question. And the web archive links for your convenience: TimeGlobe and MailThe Hindu. SmolBrane (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Not in the context, because its use in that section is to outline how various governments are trying to treat post-pandemic COVID-19, and one option is treating it as endemic. That statement is not claiming COVID-19 is endemic, just that this is one of the options under consideration. --Masem (t) 16:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Since it seems to be a matter of public policy and law, rather than strictly medicine, I would say it is not required, but adding such in the future would be good. However, the article is better with the existing material in place rather tha removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, though the problems run deeper than this one source. This article says there is a world-wide "strategy" called "living with COVID", and that this "strategy" has certain characteristics, as listed in this characteristic section. The whole thing is hung off a short piece by Herb Scribner ("a writer of pop culture and trending news ") in Deseret News which is in any case just about the USA. The source in question is then about COVID testing in Canada. If Wikipedia is going to say there is a recognized global public health formula for COVID, and enumerate its characteristics, then decent WP:MEDRS sources would be needed which actually support the claims Wikipedia is making. At the moment we have an orgy of WP:SYNTH making out there is a universal phenomenon by cobbling together stuff from different sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not read the section as being the universal strategy, but what are common components of various strategies, neither endorsing any nor stating any strategy is yet proven medically-sound. That falls outside MEDRS. --Masem (t) 17:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    • In that case it is classic WP:SYNTH/WP:OR because it is assembling sources together in a novel way no cited source does. In any case the section begins "The aim of the strategy is ..." and says "Characteristics of the strategy include". What is this "the strategy" ? Where is a source about it? Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
      • The first sentence of that section does need MEDRS sources since its talking about a medical target end-point. And all but one source in that is MEDRS. But assuming MEDRS sources exist to better support that sentence, then things can be rewritten to be clear that "some of the strategies considered by government bodies include..." at which point that is not SYNTH. --Masem (t) 17:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
        • If that were done the problem would be fixed, but the current sources are simply not reliable for Wikipedia saying there is "a strategy". Analysing what "the common components" are from disparate sources and adducing such a strategy would be OR. Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
          • Assuming we had a MEDRS-backed statement to say that the goal in post-pandemic is to have COVID at endemic levels, then a list of various strategies being tried to reach that, not endorsing any as valid or the like, is not OR to generate such a list. This type of list formation from disparate sources is completely appropriate and does not need MEDRS quality sources (though MEDRS sources would be great to help improve it) --Masem (t) 17:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
            • No indeed, which is why we have so many list articles on national COVID effects and responses. But inventing a novel concept and using unconnected sources for evidence of that concept (in the case a "strategy" for COVID) is of course a big no-no. That is a problem with this entire article, as is being discussed on the Talk page. Whether MEDRS sources are needed would depend on whether there was a WP:BMI component to the statement made (like "Omicron is less deadly" or "Vulgaria has now reached the endemic phase of the pandemic"). Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
              • Again, its all in how it is worded. If the list started "The strategy to achieve endemic presence of COVID is (list)" that is a problem and would have to be fully backed by MEDRS sources. If the list started "Some elements of national strategies to achieve endemic presence of COVID is (list)" is not attempting a MEDRS claim and thus is valid to assemble from various sources. What elements to include should be a discussion re UNDUE, of course. --Masem (t) 17:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

                Well we are in violent agreement. The reason why I removed the material is precisely because in context they were being used to support a claim that various things were "characteristics" of "the strategy". The sources are not reliable for such a grand claim. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

                Which I agree as written the sourcing could not be used for that, but a small change in wording would fix that. --Masem (t) 17:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the reception wikis on Miraheze

I think these "wikis" should not be trusted as a reliable sources because of amounts of horrible biases and from what I heard from actual critics, the behavior of the users and the mods:

• Terrible TV Shows & Episodes Wiki
• Best Shows & Episodes Wiki
• Amazing Gameplay Wiki
• Atrocious Gameplay Wiki
• Crappy Games Wiki
• Awesome Games Wiki
• Reverse Crappy Games Wiki
• Awful Movies Wiki
• Greatest Movies Wiki
• Cancelled Movies Wiki
• Dreadful Literature Wiki
• Magnificent Literature Wiki
• Worst Music & Songs Wiki
• Delightful Music & Songs Wiki
• Upsetting Toys Wiki
• Fantastic Toys Wiki
• Amazing YouTubers Wiki

Who's with me on this one? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:UGC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

They're already not considered reliable sources due to being user generated content pointed out by Headbomb above. So there's really nothing more to discuss. Canterbury Tail talk 02:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald and outing

Hello all,

For those of you who don't keep up with celebrity gossip, Rebel Wilson came out as lesbian/bisexual this week, to pre-empt an attempt by the Sydney Morning Herald to out her (i.e., what the Murdoch press did to Will Young and Simon Hughes in the UK in the mid-2000s). The gossip columnist for the SMH then took the paper to complain that he had been "gazumped".

The same columnist also had a hand in forcing Australian swimmer Ian Thorpe out of the closet, and also wrote a rather lurid article about a Senate candidate's OnlyFans, which raises further questions about the standard of his journalistic work; a modern-day Peter Tatchell, he is not.

Of course, the SMH were the newspaper who famously outed the 78ers. It appears that despite their editor's statements to the contrary, outing is still seen as acceptable at the SMH. It is worrying, then, to see a bunch of his columns being cited on Wikipedia; would it be possible for editors more au fait with Australian issues these and see if they pass muster under WP:RS and, if not to replace or remove the citation.

And similarly, should a note at WP:RSPS be made to indicate that Private Sydney, as a gossip column, should not be cited unless absolutely necessary to do so? Sceptre (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The SMH was once seen as an important journal of record in Australia, but since December 2018 it has been owned by Nine Entertainment a large media conglomerate chaired by former Australia federal treasurer, Peter Costello, of the right wing Liberal Party of Australia. Yes, for non-Australians, right wing IS correct. It has definitely changed it's style. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of which paper - whether even the NYTimes or BBC - gossip is gossip and should not be referenced on WP, preferring to have self-statements on aspects like this, or until BLP no longer applies, or when the context comes up beyond gossip. --Masem (t) 04:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Related issue: Talk:Rebel_Wilson#The_LGBT_categories. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Are "author manuscripts" reliable sources?

Are "author manuscripts" reliable sources? Author manuscripts are defined here. They are not the final form of the published paper, which might be subject to copy-editing and typesetting, but this is the form that has been accepted after peer-review. This is explained in a diagram in the link above. Author manuscripts are not pre-prints, which are copies before peer-review.

I am not sure if this has been answered earlier. I searched for "author manuscript" in the archive and came up with nothing. Chaipau (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC) (edited) 15:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What would be the use case of citing the unpublished form of something that was eventually published? Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to know this too; I can think of uses (maybe a terminus ad quem for a writing process?), though they're all pretty weird and involve usage as primary sources. But both my intelligence and creativity are limited, so I am curious to hear more. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Presumably the same reason they are occasionally cited in the academia: the actual publishing process can occasionally be exceedingly long, with an "accepted for publication" manuscript waiting multiple months before it is actually published by the journal. It is not uncommon for the author manuscript version to be distributed online in the mean time by the authors. As for usage in Wikipedia prior to the publication of the final manuscript, I suppose they can be at minimum treated as WP:SPS. Other than that, it's a bit tricky and I'd be inclined to go with something along the lines of "it's a case by case thing". After the actual manuscript is out, that should naturally be cited instead. Ljleppan (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, should have thought of that "interstitial" period, Ljleppan, thank you. And you're quite right--it has to be a case-by-case basis, but I would be heavily inclined personally to say waiting is generally the better option. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also the issue that these mansuscripts are often outside paywalls when the final copyedited version is inside. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is okay to provide links to the author manuscripts for convenience, since they are often not pay-walled (IIRC, many academic publishers allow author's to share the author manuscript, but not the final type-set version, on their peronal/university website), but the citation should be to the actual published work. And if there is any doubt over whether the author's manuscript differs from the published piece in material ways, only the latter should be regarded as reliable and the former as essentially WP:SPS. Is there a specific instance you have in mind? Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, assuming they pass SPS, which means they are an acknowledged expert in the field. No, if they are not. There may be other issues (wp:undue, wp:fringe) that may come into it, so as others have said this must be on a case-by-case basis. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Quite right, this has to do with paywall. An example: Figure 5 here that I want to reproduce in WP. I have seen it in the author manuscript, but which I am not sure exists in the published article which is behind a paywall. The general question here is, if Figure 5 did not appear in the published paper, would it still be reliable? Chaipau (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ahh then no it's not, as the peer reviews article trumps the non-peer-reviewed one. As (in essence) peer review is quality control, if it was left out there was a reason. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven Author manuscripts are peer-reviewed, but pre-published. Pre-prints are not peer-reviewed. Chaipau (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: FWIW; the same figure (with a minor formatting change of added thousands separators) appears to also exist in the final published version, also as Figure 5. I have access to the final version, so you can ask me if there's something else you'd like me to check. Ljleppan (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I too checked and the Figure 5 in the published Science article does effectively match the one in the Author's manuscript. That is what one would expect for Author's manuscript hosted on NIH, university platforms etc. Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for checking this for me. Now for the hypothetical case, what if the figure was not present in the published version. Is the author manuscript reliable on its own, with the understanding that it has been peer-reviewed? Or do we have to address it on a case-by-case basis? Chaipau (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If, in the hypothetical, the figure had not appeared in the final published version or supplementary material, that would have been a HUGE redflag (either someone is trying to pull off a hoax by posting a manipulated PDF or the reviewers/editors explicitly excluded the figure at a very late stage of editing). In such a scenario, one should not rely on the figure and the author manuscript even as an SPS.Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think now I have a fair idea on how we should use author manuscripts here. Greatly appreciate all comments. Chaipau (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The NIH/PMC's own guidelines that you linked above specifically require that the author manuscript has to include all referenced figures, tables, and supplementary files (and by the way also that it must be linked to corrections, retractions, and NIH Findings of Research Misconduct (when applicable)). So I don't think we need to worry about this hypothetical case, just as we normally assume that the version published on a journal's website has satisfied the journal's peer review criteria (even though in some cases it turns out that it didn't).

In other words, author manuscripts as defined by NIH/PMC (not preprints) can be regarded as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the section "Author Manuscript Workflow" in the link describes the post peer-review process. In particular, it says: The manuscript submission workflow for PMC prioritizes completeness, accuracy, preservation, and currency of all author manuscripts added to the archive. and then goes on to describe this process in more detail. If this process satisfies WP:V and WP:RS requirements, then that would be a great help. I was earlier planning on cross-checking with the published version but if we trust this process, we could then save ourselves some additional effort. Chaipau (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Do the sources describing the National Socialist Movement (United States) back its description being "social conservative"

The infobox was changed from white supremacist to social conservatism by User:Rebecca577. I reverted but was then reverted by User:Dronebogus citing WP:BLUE. But the LA Times source[21] explicitly calls it a white supremacist group and doesn't mention social conservatism, while the other source is the group itself (not IMHO a good source) saying " Only members of the nation may be citizens of the state. Only those of pure White blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. Non-citizens may live in America only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens. Accordingly, no Jew or homosexual may be a member of the nation." I don't see how that matches well with our definition of Social conservatism. Note that the sources now for social conservatism have been moved from those for white supremacist, see earlier version.[22] Doug Weller talk 16:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It could be both. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven But the LATimes doesn’t back social conservative. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

True I was just addressing the implication they are mutually exclusive. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slaterstevenagreed, but we have no sources for social conservatividm, you can’t just move sources from one description to another as I’m sure you agree. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the big issue here is removing one for the other, rather than including both. However, unless there's a solid source describing them as 'social conservative' in general, we should stick with the finer policy points described in specific already. Both to avoid potential WP:SYNTH in the reframing, and because it would muddy the waters - either by painting social conservatives as Nazis, or neo-Nazis as 'just regular conservatives, nothing to worry about' depending on your view. Sure, we could label Lassie as an 'animal and dog', but it doesn't improve the description since we've already labeled them a dog. Either it draws comparisons to reptiles and amphibians, or makes people wonder why we went out of our way to mention animal. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course, hence why I have reverted them, the source supports white supremacist. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

We should never be using one source to support a contentious label, at least in Wikivoice (which putting into the infobox is); that source can be used in an attributed manner of course. Terms being put into Wikivoice w/o attribution need to show that the label is used by a wide majority of sources. This would also go for the "social conservatism" label as well. --Masem (t) 14:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I see two sources for it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Two of forty-some sources in the article is not a majority. That's not to say that a majority may exist in all sources, but this requires a source survey. Otherwise, using either term because you can find it in a few (but not a proven majority) is cherry-picking. --Masem (t) 15:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

NOt really, as unless we can see every source ever written we can never prove a majority for anything. All we need to do is show it is used by enough sources, two may not be. But it seems to be there are quite a few in the article that describes them as racist/white nationalist/white supremacist or some other way of saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

In determining when a majority of sources apply a contentious term to a group, there is obviously some need to define what the "larger group of sources" are; not all articles that provide significant coverage about the group may be focused on their political or ideological positioning. But of those that are, we definitely want to know if a majority of them are using that phrasing. There's also a question if there are a sufficient number of sources - if we only had 5 total sources that discussed the position out of all that can be found, and 3 of them used the contentious term, I'd still say that's a reason to avoid stating it in Wikivoice as a fact. There's got to be a sufficient number and percentage of sources to do that before we can treat something as a fact in Wikivoice, otherwise we see editors chasing clear POVs.

And remember, I am talking about what qualify for RS (and not RSOPINIONs). In your example below, assuming the expert has this in a NYTimes article covering the group (eg as we would use the Southern Poverty Law group), while the dozens of mob voices are just pulled from the blog, we certainly don't need to account for the blog.

I am not saying that "white supremacist" can apply here, I don't know what the sources lend to, but that should be demostrated as a talk page section so that it resolves the matter well into the future. Masem (t) 18:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Also quality matters as well if "the world-renowned expert" says it and 15 "blokes down the pub" disagree, the world-renowned expert opinion wins. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ll admit to bias here, as I view “social conservatism” as largely a front for bigotry and other reactionary ideas Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Which is OR. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus hard to disagree but I am with Bakkster Man on this. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support: "white supremacist group" supported by sources. I do not care for biased opinions of editors' political beliefs, It could just as easily be stated that social liberalism is a front for plain socialism that is ripe with bigotry and other reactionary ideas. Of course, without looking it up, most that might claim some knowledge of political ideologies, would not know the difference between that and Liberal socialism. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: We do attempt to follow WP:BRD, per the policy on edit warring and violations can result in sanctions. Reverting a good-faith reversion, without discussion, does not take the place of consensus. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Who's reversion do we start with, the first (which was to undo the change)? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

A source survey needs to be done to see how the group is described across the board in sources, as to avoid cherry picking a term from one or two sources. Whether that is "white nationalist", "conservative socialist" or something else, that is not clear since this survey hasn't been done, it appears. --Masem (t) 14:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be good to have clarity on what the actual question is. The dialog here makes it seem that there is an "either or" choice to be made, e.g. for a single characterization, or where one item would displace the other. But at the article it seems to be about inclusion/exclusion of each from a long list of over a dozen ideologies. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Most of those ideologies are closely related to each other. "Social conservatism" may actually cross over with the NSMs ideology in a Venn diagram, but it isn't by any idea their main policy focus. It's a bit like saying that the Communist Party of Britain is mainly concerned with LGBT rights. It has a stance on LGBT rights, but it's not their ideological basis in any way whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

SPLC (experts) "the NSM adopted an open-arms recruiting policy that allowed members of other white supremacist groups to participate in NSM actions and join the NSM." " The group created its own hate-rock music label, NSM88 Records, and in April 2007 purchased the now-popular white supremacist social networking site New Saxon" " “have continued to participate in NSM’s activities, even as Schoep claims to have left the white-supremacist movement.”" So the SPLC says they are white supremacitst.

ADL "The last significant rally organized by the NSM was the “White Lives Matter” rally in November 2017. The event in Shelbyville, Tennessee, attracted 200 white supremacists, including several dozen NSM members" "The Nationalist Front, an NSM led umbrella organization formed to unite various facets of the white supremacist movement, fell apart shortly after the Shelbyville rally." " Schoep, who was born in 1973, was active in the group from an early age, and was better able to appeal to racist skinheads and other young white supremacists. He renamed the group the National Socialist Movement early in his tenure." "Tazewell, Tennessee, July 2019: Several NSM members participated in a white supremacist unity event held on private property." "Approximately 40 white supremacists attended the event including members of the NSM, the League of the South and Aryan Nations Worldwide."

So the ADL say they are white supremacists.

Department of justice is less clear cut "NSM purchased the New Saxon Web site, a White supremacist social networking Web site. New Saxon has become popular among White supremacists frustrated by the restriction on hate speech at most mainstream social networking sites. "

They just say it has some links.

So are there any sources that say "they are not white supremacists", because that is what we need to meaningfully challenge a claim by experts? Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Am I reading the diff correctly? It looks to me like 'Social conservatism' was added, but 'White supremacy' was retained - albeit the sources were moved to the new entry, incorrectly. But most of the discussion in this section is about whether 'White supremacy' should be retained. Has anyone actually proposed that it be removed? MrOllie (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be what some are saying here, that it is not properly sourced so should not be there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am confused by what the actual question is here - Doug’s original question was asking about the label “social conservative”… but the discussion seems to focus on the label “white suprematist”. Which label are we discussing? Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this started out as whether "social conservative" belonged, but as soon as the sourcing issue behind both that and "white supremacist" was brought up, both terms should be reviewed before placing them as wikivoice in the infobox. --Masem (t) 13:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, it looks like a confusing edit because it moved the sources (making it easy to miss the fact that white supremacy was retained.) I think that white supremacy, at least, needs to be there because it's what the group is mostly well-known for. The ideology section is already massively long, so including other stuff there should depend on how well-represented it is in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• SPLC - NSM...Agreed with Aquillion.DN (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Leftist and Left-leaning publications aren't listed as such on Wikipedia.

I was deeply disturbed to see that ABC, The Atlantic, BuzzFeed News, CNN, The Economist, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, Vox, and the Washington Post are all listed on Wikipedia as being generally reliable, despite them all being either Leftist or Left-leaning publications (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart). On the other hand, practically all of the Right-leaning or deeply Right-wing publications as shown on that chart are either listed as unclear, generally unreliable, or deprecated. This would suggest a left-wing bias in Wikipedia itself. I recommend that all of the Leftist or Left-leaning publications I mentioned above be moved into at least unclear status posthaste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates Finch (talk • contribs) 17:53, June 12, 2022 (UTC)

Without commenting on the accuracy of the All Sides Media Bias Chart you cite, do you see on that page that it says We don't rate accuracy or facts — just bias.? Reliable sources are deemed so because they are reliable for accuracy. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What's that phrase? "Reality has a liberal bias"? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you point out a specific example in which the sources (not opinions but news pieces) prove to be inaccurate or misleading? IMO most sources are fairly balanced or only slightly to the left, but I agree that some sources (including CNN, Vox, and MSNBC) definitely are biased to the left of centre or left, but they are not to the extent that reliability is impacted. You will see that I linked to some controversies of the sites which you may be aware of, but most are opinion pieces or talk shows, not straight news reporting on their website, which most editors believe are generally reliable. See the RSP entry on CNN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#CNN); it states the following, which is the consensus for some editors: Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.

I am also confused about your argument that "practically all of the Right-leaning or deeply Right-wing publications as shown on that chart are either listed as unclear, generally unreliable, or deprecated". For example, WSJ is slightly right-leaning editorially (about as much as NBC leans slightly to the left, the WP article has some credible refs commenting on its moderate centre-right views, so check it out if it helps at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editorial_page_and_political_stance), but its straight news is mostly balanced and definitely generally reliable.

By the way, AllSides is not a reliable source itself; see its RSP entry and the linked RfC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#AllSides). It is listed as no consensus as considerations apply, and there are instances in which the site cited Wikipedia or has unclear methodologies. Nevertheless, I believe that the previous response already commented on that We don't rate accuracy or facts — just bias.. Some other similar sites, including MBFC and Ad Fontes, also claim to check the reliabilities of articles, but they are self-published and are unreliable. Therefore, please provide specific examples of perceived inaccuracies of the outlets. Otherwise, I don't think that this discussion is impactful in changing the well-established consensus. Many thanks, and I hope this helps. VickKiang (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias", as they say. A general, mainstream fact of mainstream media doesn't need to be stated. We say "Barack Obama is the first African-American President", however we do not state that "Ronald Reagan was the 40th white president". There's a reason for that, and I have every confidence in you being able to figure out why. Zaathras (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We really should make a new WP:WHATABOUTCNN essay... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps inspired by What is a Woman? which is a mystifying question to some people. It has an interesting edit history. --SVTCobra 05:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Strange though it is, the question isn't a new one, SVTCobra. It was posed decades ago by the Edgar Broughton Band. Hoary (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC) Uh, no. The Broughtons' song had the crasser title "What is a woman for?" -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Practically all does not mean all. The Wall Street Journal is an exception, not the rule. Most major right-leaning sources, including the important established WP:NEWSORG Fox News and newspapers like The New York Post and The Epoch Times that have broken major stories, are subject to varying levels of restriction. Right-leaning sources are judged at a higher standard than left-leaning sources that often have similar reliability issues. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Even leaving aside the fact that reliability and bias are different things, we list a number of right-wing source as reliable, e.g. The Australian, The Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, Reason, The Times of London and The Weekly Standard. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Even WP:FOXNEWS is listed as generally reliable with caveats: that their science and politics coverage lack consensus on reliability, and that their talk shows are only reliable for attributed opinions (as even Fox News themselves have argued). Really, the RS/P difference is just about the lines between reliable news coverage, and opinion pieces and user-generated reports, with right-leaning sources maybe being more likely to either blur that line or not have significant straight ahead news coverage (though left-leaning opinion sites are also yellow/red for the same reasons). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

And the caveats have merit, their shows even promoted QAnon style nonsense. Something that would be very unlikely to happen on CNN, so any comparison is a false equivalence (I know that you know that, I'm not arguing with you, just adding). —PaleoNeonate – 03:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Examples of right leaning sources we regard as RS. given above. So no we do not only use left leaving sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

In general, en-wiki is reasonably tolerant of right-wing British sources (like most of those BobFromBrockley/Slatersteven listed), and tolerant of roughly zero right-wing American sources, so the criticism is a bit American-centric. It's hard to know how much of that is reflective of the biases of the users that participate in RSN discussions and how much of that is reflective of reality, though. From my own (biased) perspective, I do think right-wing American sources tend to have more reliability issues than right-wing British sources in reality as well. P.S., Bobfrombrockley, I think you meant to link Reason (magazine). Endwise (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

it might be worth noting that the few British sources we have banned are notorious for falsehoods and poor journalism. Whereas when they are right wing but have a high standard (such as The Times) they are almost what we might call gold standard RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the issues The Daily Mail and The Sun have with being, well, awful, aren't all that related to their political slant. Endwise (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We do list the Wall Street Journal as generally reliable. But in general I think the issue is the nature of the conservative movement in the US, which is a lot more monolithic, more lockstep, and which has done a better job of creating a "bubble", so to speak. This means that there's a ton of sources that significant numbers of people in the US read which have no real purpose beyond right-wing advocacy, without even a token effort at fact-checking and accuracy; and there are others that put in limited efforts in that regard but who were fundamentally created solely for advocacy. It's not like there are no sources like that on the left, of course, but on the American right sources like that make up, for many people, the only sources they use or trust at all. Hence posts like the above where people complain about a huge swath of sources that aren't really ideologically aligned and whose only shared feature is that they're all outside that bubble, because the American conservative movement has succeeded in creating a sufficiently uniform drumbeat that anything that doesn't reflect it is seen by its followers - or anyone who wants to appeal to them - as ideologically suspect. --Aquillion (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Eh? Are we seriously discussing the proposal made? Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The reality is that historically, the great majority of news media came under what you describe as "leftist." I assume you mean liberal. They are more likely to support conservatives over actual left-wing groups.

Conservative media was developed in order to address what they saw as liberal bias. However, their publications are mostly magazines that carry commentary, which is not considered a reliable sources, wherever it is published. Many conservative sources that carry news, such as CBN and the Daily Caller, carry obviously inaccurate and misleading stories.

There are a few conservative publications, such as the Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal that do carry reliable news stories and they are accepted on Wikipedia. However, their news coverage is the same as liberal media. One study of media bias for example found that the Wall Street Journal's news coverage was more liberal than the sources you listed.

TFD (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• One thing that we do need to improve… we are quite good at identifying when right leaning outlets stray into opinion/analysis/commentary (and correctly deem it either unreliable or UNDUE for that reason). We are not as good at identifying when left or center leaning outlets stray into opinion/analysis/commentary. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Agree. News media have an expertise in reporting news, but too often their opinions are treated as fact. They are used frequently for political classifications, such as far right, fascist, right-wing populist, when we should be using academic articles or textbooks. While we expect reporters to accurately report what happened at at demonstration, we don't expect them to be experts on the ideologies of the participants. TFD (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this tends to be a problem. We readily take opinion and commentary as fact from left meaning sources (often because of the media mixing news reporting and commentary in the same article), and also tend to reject any commentary from right-leaning sources even.though RSOPINION allows for them. UNDUE is often mised to the end that because we favor left leaning sources, that opinions from major right leaning sources are rejected as fringe because, hey, we have loads of left leaning.sources that are reliable that say the opposite. Basically, overall on partisan issues, we are not well suited to try to summarize opinion and analysis in the short term. Hence why we need more focus on RECENTISM and fight the urge to write about commentary on a current topic until well after the dust settles (eg the 10yr vuew) which should help provide the hindsight of what are the proper approach to summarizing opinions. Masem (t) 17:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I know that everyone here means well, but this question pops up at various noticeboards all the time, riles everyone up, and the various OPs inevitably vanish never to comment on the thread again. After a couple of answers it's really a waste of everyones' time to continue commenting as though there's a genuine discussion to be had here. Someone who is "deeply disturbed to see that ABC ... NPR and the Washington Post are all listed on Wikipedia as being generally reliable" is wp:nothere to really discuss the nuance of reliability vs bias. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliability and bias are in many contexts one and the same. For one example of many, a common form of bias is deciding what to cover or not cover, what to minimize or maximize coverage on, or what to give more or less time/space to. Distorted coverage or omissions in coverage / parts of the story are unreliable coverage even if they do not violate the narrow standard of factual errors/falsehoods. And wikilawyers can the interact Wikipedia's voted deprecation list, the binary "RS" criteria and creative use of wp:Undue to implement those omissions/ distortions into articles. North8000 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Die Junge Mommsen

I need an opinion on how reliable is Die Junge Mommsen, a students' journal of the Humboldt University of Berlin.

On the official website of the University, this is written about the journal:

"Die Junge Mommsen is an independent students journal. As an association founded by members of the FSI history at the HU Berlin "Die Junge Mommsen e. V.”, we publish excellent student work in this journal in order to make them freely available as examples.

In addition, Die Junge Mommsen offers an attractive opportunity for student authors to reach a wider readership with their work and to gain initial experience in publishing scientific work." [23]

Are there any peer reviews on the articles publsihed here?

The second issue is - can we cite a master thesis as reliable sources on Wikipedia?

--Governor Sheng (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP provides some guidance on doctoral theses, and I would suspect a masters thesis would have an even greater level of care called for. It's probably not a blanket 'no', but you'll have to point to multiple reasons why a particular thesis is reliable. For instance, being cited by other scholars. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Enough was said in the last sentence. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Bitter Winter RfC archived without closing

Does this RfC] need un-archiving to be closed? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Checking an older version, I couldn't see an RFC proposal tag somehow (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1091511470#RFC:_Bitter_Winter), although that was presumably an error. Still, I think it should be closed with the consensus of option 3. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley As do I. Certainly something needs to be done. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Indian caste sources

Anyone know whether these two sources would be reliable for information about an Indian "caste clan"? (Article's words, I have no idea what that means.)

• Krishna Majumdar, "Kumawat", in K. S. Singh, People of India: Rajasthan, pp. 562–564, Popular Prakashan, 1998 ISBN 8171547699.
• Shankarlal C. Bhatt, Gopal K. Bhargava, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories, vol. 23 (Rajasthan), Gyan Publishing House, 2006 ISBN 8178353792.

Someone recently tried to add a bunch of content to Kumawat and was blocked by an edit filter. The filter is private, so I can't just post the edit's contents. A lot of it was unsourced, inappropriate to an encyclopedia, blatantly false, etc. But if the sources are any good, I might try to salvage a little bit of the edit. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither o these works is a reliable source for the topic:

• For The people of India: Rajasthan see WP:RSCASTE#The People of India and follow the links to previous discussions, academic reviews etc.
• Anything published by Gyan is unusable (see various previous discussion on this board) since it is known to copy content from other sources including wikipedia and publish them with false and possibly fictitious "author" names; I haven't checked but it may be what activated the filter. That said, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories seems to have been published by Kalpaz Publications, which is a generic non-academic publisher whose process borders that of self-publishing. I didn't find any reviews of the particular works and the editors info (see here) doesn't suggest any particular expertise in the area.

(TL;DR)  don't waste your time with these sources. Abecedare (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

They felt questionable, but castes is not my wheelhouse and I wasn't sure where to even begin looking for info. Thanks a bunch! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Daily Mail as a semi-primary source

Hi, so I am a kind of infrequent editor of Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is the wrong place. I recently made an edit to Port Arthur massacre (Australia)#Gun laws in Australia before the Port Arthur massacre, adding in Barrie Unsworth's comments on a potential massacre happening in Tasmania if gun laws are not changed. However, I want to add a quote that says that he later regretted saying it, as:

Unsworth said in a 2019 interview with Daily Mail Australia that he regretted the quote, saying "I just regret that I said that but you've got to understand the history of the movement against the proliferation of guns."

The issue is that the quote was said in an exclusive interview with Daily Mail Australia, so the source of the quote is Unsworth, just published through The Daily Mail. Considering the article mentioned that the interview with the former Premier is rare, I personally think it should be notable enough, but am not too fussed either way. Thanks, Phillycj 14:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is banned as a source .

Notability in Wikispeak refers to a criterion for article creation. You mean noteworthiness. Noteworthiness is determined by the degree of coverage in reliable sources. Coverage in a banned source does not establish noteworthiness.

TFD (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not banned as a source; WP:DAILYMAIL explicitly says that The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail [my emphasis], and that the use of the Mail for WP:ABOUTSELF claims is permitted. So the Mail article is certainly a reliable source for "the Daily Mail Australia reported that Unsworth said in 2019 that he regretted the quote". It's at least arguably reliable for "In a 2019 interview with the Daily Mail Australia, Unsworth said 'I just regret that I said that but you've got to understand the history of the movement against the proliferation of guns'": I would think that even the Mail would baulk at straight-up fabricating interview quotes. Whether it's WP:DUE to include in an article would be a question for talkpage consensus – it's certainly possible to argue that if no more reliable source has reported on this quote, Unsworth's position in 2019 is not sufficiently relevant to include in the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree it's not "banned" but, no, that is not about-self. That is not the Daily Mail writing about the Daily Mail (employees, writers, publications, corporation) -- it is the Daily Mail writing about an unrelated "third party"living person, so does not fall within the exception. (As an aside, I believe there was a problem with the DM and fabrication regarding interviews, that led in part, to its disqualification). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

References

A with the above it is the DM quoting someone. So I would say its use is iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledged exceptions to the ban include opinions and very old articles and aboutself, but not interviews. In theory one could get something in if there was clear consensus (since WP:DAILYMAIL1 only prohibits as a reference "generally" and is not a policy), but I think it's already clear that won't happen for this case. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Although WP:DAILYMAIL says the paper is not banned, that is how it is described in reliable sources. WP:ABOUTSELF can only apply if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source." Furthermore, being reported in an unreliable source does not establish weight, which is based on coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

o001oo.ru

Is this forum post a reliable source? (o001oo.ru) https://o001oo.ru/index.php?showtopic=47389

No. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Forums are never considered to be a reliable source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Book of Revelation

This is about [24]. Partitioning the Bible into verses happened much later, after John of Patmos died. So it is quite anachronistic to attribute him patters which became apparent only after the Bible was partitioned into verses. I don't know if such error could pass for scholarship at any major university, apparently Liberty University is not a major university, to say the least. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this leaning into numerology enough to be as much of a WP:FRINGE question? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not WP:DUE for the article. The strength of a doctoral dissertation is not enough, especially when a text is so often dissected and discussed. Then again, reasonable minds can always differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, if it's a dissertation, that's another indication of unreliability. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not true. But I agree that it's highly unlikely that this information cited from this source meets WP:DUE so we don't have to determine if it's reliable. ElKevbo (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The source is also citing translations of The Apocalypse of John written thousands of years after the fact. That's not reliable for a text written around 60-90 C.E., even if the years 1560 and 1611 sound ancient by 2022 standards. A lot of the JudeoChristian theology from the medieval period was also made-up from trying to "fill in the blanks" (rather than discerning the author's intentions through scholarship). Case of point, the current "canon" version of Lucifer/Satan doesn't even exist in the Bible and comes from other sources (like Milton, Enoch, and Dante). And of course, there was no such as thing as a Holy Bible when Apocalypse was written.

TL;DR: This citation is bollocks. Darkknight2149 00:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• The cite appears to be a doctoral thesis, which are generally not great sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. They can sometimes be used, but on a topic like the Bible which has received so much scholarship from higher-quality sources it would be hard to argue that a dissertation is WP:DUE anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

India Today

India Today (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

indiatoday.in  

India Today is a weekly English-language news magazine in India owned by Living Media; it is the largest magazine in the country. There is an online edition at [25], and a TV channel with the same name. Although the website is linked from nearly 19,000 articles, it has never been thoroughly discussed on RSN, and does not have an entry at WP:NPPRS. The only substantive discussion I found at RSN is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262#India_Today_or_IndiaToday.com, which judged the print edition to be generally reliable, but did not make any consensus about the website or the TV channel. I intend to start an RfC if there is a substantial dispute.

The associated opinion outlet, DailyO.in [26], has an entry at NPPRS, based on discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#DailyO.in which deemed it unreliable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Is statmuse.com a reliable source?

I fairly recently asked the same question but there were no comments/answers. StatMuse is similar to Sports Reference; it documents sports-related records and statistics of the four major United States sports leagues from a user-generated query. Not much appears to be known about it but it's backed by Disney, Google, the NFLPA, and former NBA commissioner David Stern. Any thoughts? NSNW (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

USA Today

Regarding the listing of USA Today in Wikipedia's perennial sources where it states "There is consensus that USA Today is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its centrist alignment.", there should be an update regarding its reliability and the way it sources its references. It recently removed 23 articles due to fabricating sources or organizations. One of its reporters was forced to resign. This proves it does not have a robust editorial process. Also most of the articles in question are news articles attributed to social media sources or emails. Here is the news reports on this matter:

(Source 1)

(Source 2)

(Source 3)

Even if they had done an audit, there are many articles from that said reporter that haven't been removed. This is something here at Wikipedia we have cannot tolerate. eg Daily Mail, Sputnik. Time for a review.F2Milk (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues with one reporter – with a publication retracting their articles, and the reporter in question being forced out – are rather different from the Daily Mail case (the 2019 RfC concluded in part that "evidence for unverified, fabricated, and incorrect information is widespread"), let alone Sputnik (described in its RSP entry as a "Russian propoganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation"). A more comparable case might be the 2018 revelations about Claas Reloutius' articles for Der Spiegel (RSN discussion), where a note was specifically added to RSN to say that his articles were considered unreliable. Unless there is evidence of more widespread issues at USA Today, that might be the way to go. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yup, USA Today's behavior is what we expect of an RS with editorial oversight. Editors are not going to be able to fact check everything and when wrong facts do make it through, we expect a good RS to redact and take steps to correct in a timely manner, which is what happened here. --Masem (t) 13:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly: issuing retractions is what generally reliable sources do, what we need to address is the specifically unreliable articles, at a minimum the retractions and the rest on a case-by-case basis. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope, there's no clear difference, Daily Mail corrects stories too and WP:DAILYMAIL2 said "widespread" not "more widespread than what you find in USA Today". That said, I see nothing that needs doing about the perennial sources description except to observe yet again that it's an essay-class page which only reflects some opinions. What might need doing is a look at the particular pages that Google tells me that "Miranda, Gabriela" has been cited for: Tiffany Yu, Disability Pride Month, Melinda French Gates, Jetpack man, SARS-CoV-2 in mink, SARS-CoV-2 in white-tailed deer, 2022 State of the Union Address, Dika Toua, 2022 New York City Subway attack, White-tailed deer, Sofía Jirau. I didn't try to match the cites to the list of retracted articles that USA Today listed. I think they're harmless but maybe somebody who knows those subjects should care. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

DM may fix a few, but they still have plenty of articles that have been shown to be containing false information, and that's across multiple staff editors. The USA Today issue here was one specific writer and doesn't extend to anywhere else (that we yet know about). They're clearly different when it comes to RS evaluation. --Masem (t) 17:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are suggesting that 1. when the closer of the Daily Mail 2 rfc said widespread they meant and the community understood them as meaning "confined to a few dozen articles by a single reporter who has since left" or 2. USA Today has more widespread problems than just a single reporter. Feel free to provide any evidence at all for either of those claims. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I made neither of those claims. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It was a problem with a single reporter. They fired her, and deleted the offending articles. Is there any reason to believe that USA Today has issues beyond this one individual? If no, I see no reason to change anything in the RSP entry. Endwise (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Uses of AuthorHouse and CreateSpace self-publishers

If anyone's interested in clearing out the inappropriate ones.

Searches:[27] and [28] Doug Weller talk 15:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Blanka Matkovich

I am writing to receive feedback about the reliability of Blanka Matkovich, a Croatian ... uhm, author ... whose views about the Holocaust have been widely criticized in mainstream academia (to put it mildly).

The scholar Jovan Byford, describes her as an "exponent of right-wing revisionist ideas", such as that Jasenovac was "merely a labour camp" or that the site had been used as a concentration camp by the communists in the post-war period. [29]

Historian Rory Yeomans calls her a "prominent ... negationist historian", describes one of the books she co-authored in Croatia as "manipulative, poorly researched and transparently agenda-driven" and notes that her "rhetorical tropes ... will be familiar to scholars of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial." [30]

Ivo Goldstein, Croatia's most prominent Holocaust scholar, has stated that Matkovich likely played a role in last year's David Goldman fiasco, in which a certain "David Goldman" (almost certainly a pseudonym) authored an opinion piece in The Jerusalem Post denying the extent of the killings at Jasenovac. [31] The piece was taken down after an outcry from Holocaust researchers.

Additionally, Matkovich is a close associate of revisionist author Igor Vukić and has co-authored books with him positing that Jasenovac was a myth fabricated by the communists. [32]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Matkovich is a favourite of revisionists on Croatian Wiki [33] which has historically had quite a problem with neo-Nazis and historical revisionists hijacking its articles. [34] The really unsettling bit is that her works are now being cited on en.wiki as well. [35] I would be interested to hear what users from outside the topic area have to say. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This indeed seems problematic. Probably we should avoid citing her work in contentious areas. Alaexis_¿question? 16:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia)

as you can see in April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks's alleged attacks part sources, there are a lot of TASS sources and a couple Interfax and RIA Novosti sources, due to these sources being Russian state-controlled, id like to know if we can put them as Unreliable for Russian-Ukraine war related content.

-in addition to fake news, ria Novosti has also published "What Russia should do with Ukraine".

-TASS is probably one of the only sources (the rest being also Russian state-controlled media) to report on some of the alleged cases of "Ukrainian attacks on Russia", which is quite interesting, considering that i have seen no RS report on a lot of these alleged attacks (although not all of them, as Reuters and others have reported on some cases, but, still, a lot of cases reported by TASS havent been reported by any RS)

-Interfax has also spread news about Ukraine supposedly making a nuclear Dirty Bomb (Per this part)

187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The underlying problem here is that some editors use this whole "it's ok to include if it's attributed" or "it's reliable for statements by the Russian government even if generally it's a garbage source" to do a run around our WP:RS policies. This is junk that would normally never be included but hey, as long as you put "according to Russian government sources" in front you can put in any ridiculous claim you want. Basically it's being used to platform various Russian gov disinformation or conspiracy theories and increase their exposure. I remember back in 2014 the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 became full of disgusting and false conspiracy theories ("the bodies were moved there from a nearby morgue", "it was false flag" etc) all justified on the basis of "bUt IT's aTTribUted!". Same thing is being done here. Basic rule should be "don't include unless it's ALSO discussed in multiple other reliable sources". Volunteer Marek 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

finally someone that agrees that the people using these TASS bs sources (and using bs excuses) are being quite annoying. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Cuts both ways. Plenty of editors feel that because reliable sources print verbatim text of Ukraine officials without any fact-checking or due dilligence that the corresponding Wikipedia article must be updated immediately and can point to the running bbc or cnn blog of the day to justify inclusion with attribution, only for it to be walked back a day or two laterSlywriter (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. But if Ukrainian sources are discussed in other RS sources then that makes for the difference. Also, let's be clear here - Ukrainian sources ARE more reliable than Russian ones. We also have the same problem on the Attack on Snake Island article because some users insist on including Russian fantasies (hundreds killed! Helicopters destroyed! Ukrainian jets (that supposedly were destroyed two months ago) downed!) just because ... "it's attributed". It's straight up WP:GAME behavior. Volunteer Marek 23:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure the sources are generally more reliable, but it doesn't mean that Ukranian government officials are always an accurate source of military maneuvers while in the midst of a existential crisis. Just as not everything a Russian source prints is a lie, not everything Ukrainian or Western sources publish is true.Slywriter (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

My general frustration is with Wikipedians increasingly rushing to cover Breaking news. It's impossible to do, articles will be wrong at times and the consequences are zero for doing so because "reliable sources" aka mass media cover everything these days and it's easy to find unverified information presented as fact especially in the immediate hours after an incident.Slywriter (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Also discussed here: Talk:April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks#Sources. I'd like to stress that no conspiracy theories or disputable sequences of events are involved. The discussion is only about brief statements by Russian officials, coming from their official Telegram channels. Most of these statements are covered by both Russian and non-Russian agencies, and there is no substantial difference in coverage. The difference is that the Russian agencies publish these governors' statements a bit earlier (sometimes, a day before a non-Russian one does the same thing), and some of the statements (probably, considered of lower importance) aren't covered by non-Russian agencies. No independent party has questioned the fact that these governors actually make their statements, or suggested they were false. It's just that more noticeable events get coverage abroad, while some less noticeable receive only local coverage VanHelsing.16 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  If these events are covered by independent reliable sources then what's the problem? Just use the independent reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  Direct cites have greater fidelity and traceability. The third party coverage is what establishes notability, but may be processed or partial portrayals. Citing them would wind up convoluted indirect attributions such as ‘BBC noted Russian reports of 200,000 refugees crossing into Russia’ or ‘The London Times disputed Russian accounts of military progress’ — you’re getting what BBC said in talking about the item(s), not a link to what the Russian source said. Difference is of having RS be reliable as a source, something sure to be there and looked at by many instead of thinking it has to be a source of truth, Truth, or TRUTH. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  My opinion is that we should not use any Russia-based sources on this war. For example, they routinely attribute Russian attacks to Ukrainians. Just the last paragraph of this report[36] is wrong in multiple ways. Ukraine was not shelling LNR and DNR at this time, precisely because they knew Russia would use it as a pretext. The use of the verb "liberate" is just grotesque. Putin was "recognizing the sovereignty" of LNR and DNR within regions they have never controlled. The article also talks about the "conflict's escalation", rather than the "Russian invasion" of Ukraine. In fact, I'll start an RfC on TASS right now. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to adopt the Russian Wikipedia solution

Should points 10 and 11 of rules for mediation in Ukraine-related topics on Russian Wikipedia, as modified here, be implemented for the purposes of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?

• Do not use the mass media materials of outlets based physically or online in Russia, Belarus or Ukraine [RUBYUA] that appeared after the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the invasion itself and related events. Some usages may be allowed if a specific edit request is made, only if independent secondary reliable coverage from outside these countries on the topic requested is unavailable, is published in what would otherwise be a generally reliable source at least two days after the event's occurrence (with the exception of official statements of government entities), and there is consensus to introduce it. In particular, avoid using sources liable to censorship by Roskomnadzor.
• The official statements of the sides shall be described according to independent, secondary, reliable sources [further mentioned as ISRS], limiting the scope of mentioning of the official position by the extent to which these positions are expounded on in these sources. Military advances should not be stated as fact unless confirmed by both sides of the conflict, either as separate statements as quoted in ISRSs, or by summary of the statements in ISRSs. All mentions of these positions shall be added with appropriate attribution, in a neutral form, without excessive citations and preserving due weight to them. The addition of the positions of the officials from one side that are not mentioned in ISRSs in order to balance the mentions of the positions of officials mentioned in ISRSs is forbidden, nor should independent assessments of ISRSs be balanced by the statements of officials denying said assessments. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Note. The fragments in italics are modifications of the currently standing version in the Russian Wikipedia. Basically, since enwiki (unlike ruwiki) does not have mediators, we are either left with admins or with starting RfCs purely for whitelisting purposes. Outlets catering to the audiences of RUBYUA but outside the countries (e.g. Meduza) will be exempt and should be assessed on their merits. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment. This is a sensible proposal which would limit the amount of breaking-news-style coverage on Wikipedia. The only issue I can see with it is that "independent, secondary, reliable sources" have almost no access to the areas occupied by Russia, DNR and LNR and therefore the coverage may end up unbalanced. Alaexis_¿question? 21:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Which is why the exception is there. Basically, if wants to write some section using Ukrainian sources from the occupied territories (for example by using articles like this one or this one, that's basically OK but because the quality of such reports may vary, this should be vetted via consensus. As for official statements, they are covered in independent secondary sources fairly well, so I don't see an issue with this one. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, this certainly makes sense. One more thing, why do we need the last sentence? It seems superfluous considering that we already say that Russian sources should not be used unless there the criteria for the exception are satisfied. Alaexis_¿question? 08:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's for emphasis. In general, don't use RUBYUA sources, but particularly not Russian sources because of the "fake news" law (and which Belarus already started enforcing back in 2018). Ukraine doesn't as of now have criminal liability for making misleading/false statements and the censorship is far from being as bad, but it exists, and three TV channels were ordered closed without meaningful explanation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following wording then "Do not use the mass media materials of outlets based physically or online in Russia (liable to censorship by Roskomnadzor), Belarus or Ukraine [RUBYUA] that appeared after the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the invasion itself and related events. Some usages may be allowed if a specific edit request is made, only if independent secondary reliable coverage from outside these countries on the topic requested is unavailable, is published in what would otherwise be a generally reliable source at least two days after the event's occurrence (with the exception of official statements of government entities)." This way it doesn't feel like the Roskomnadzor part is an exception to the exception. Alaexis_¿question? 11:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

support, but I'm not clear on what is being proposed. Would this be MOS, Guideline or policy? It seems commonsensical under NPOV to assume that there will be biased reporting from both sides, but as long as we are stating in the text who is making the claim, it seems fairly workable without special new rules. "Ukraine sources says X" "Russian sources say Y" is a fine way to trust the readers' ability to discern. This should've been how things are done all along. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

On ruwiki, mediatorship rules serve partly as MOS and partly as guidelines, depending on the specific text of the points. For example, point 1 of the mediatorship FAQ reads like a typical MOS rule (itself a sort of guideline), while points 10-11 are more like guidelines. I envisage this to be a temporary guideline/MOS-like rule (let's say, for half a year), and, if it proves successful, can be made a template for next military conflicts and may possibly be promoted to part of policy on NPOV. It might be a rule imposed by ArbCom as part of discretionary sanctions, but there would first have to be some sort of articulable problem, and I try to avoid the war articles unless the quality was really bad.

The reason this is introduced is to limit additions of mutual finger-pointing of breaking news that only muddle the article with what might be irrelevant details. E.g. saying "Russians say Ukrainians attacked Belgorod <Russian ref>, while Ukrainians say Russians are bullshitting and are making false flag attacks<Ukrainian ref>" is a suboptimal way to refer to the actual events in the war. For example in WP:ARBPIA or WP:ARBAA2, IDF's, Palestinian, Armenian or Azeri claims are not taken for granted, and I don't see much difference in this one other than that we can afford Ukrainian sources some benefit of doubt, but not to the extent that would justify the treatment of UA resources on par with foreign media. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• This all seems a bit complicated to me. Can't this just be summarised as: "Russian state news sources are considered generally unreliable for content related to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine", which fits well within our established reliability processes. The second point I don't agree with introducing, because a) the section above doesn't show an issue relating to that (outside of the issue with Russian state sources in general); b) few military advances are agreed on by both parties. You can't even get a realistic death toll out of Russia; c) most of the RS reporting follows claims of either side or claims of allies of either side. The provision either means gutting our articles, or doing exactly what we're doing right now, it's not clear but either way the provision doesn't seem necessary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• This proposal may be well intention but it creates more problems than it solves. Ukrainian sources are generally more reliable (of course not all of them) than Russian ones so why should they be treated equivalently? There might also be a couple Russian sources that are still reliable. Additionally, sources from outside the geographic area very often are, to put it bluntly, clueless about basic factual info. Confuse cities, people, developments, etc. The main problem overall is the WP:UNDUE space that is given to Russian claims, often absurd and ridiculous, as filtered through reliable sources. What we need rather is a higher bar for inclusion of Russian claims - only if they're WIDELY discussed and analyzed by RSs, not just restated here or there, should they be included. Volunteer Marek 06:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• I support the proposal that will at least make it certain that we should neither rely on the official statements of Ukraine, nor Russia unless they have been confirmed by both sides. A  strict balance is certainly necessary. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  'strict balance' of an agressor and a victim. No, no, no. Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose in strongest possible terms. I could see some potential argument for rejecting sources from Russia (because they have strict press controls), but the argument for omitting sources from Ukraine entirely lacks any basis in policy. Would you accept a similar proposal to, for example, ban sources from within Israel or Palestine from the entire ARBPIA topic area? Should we reject sources based in the US that cover the Iraq or Vietnam Wars? It is possible that a Ukrainian source could be considered WP:BIASED (although even that, I think, should be on a case-by-case basis), and depending on context some would be WP:PRIMARY; but the solution to that is to make it clear that the source is Ukrainian in the text, not to bar it entirely, and I would strenuously oppose even making that much a formal requirement. Yes, sources close to a conflict have potential bias, but they can also be some of the best sources available; and it is insulting to imply that an entire nation is incapable of objective journalism with no basis beyond "well it concerns them." You need at least some argument for why there is a structural problem to sanction all sources based in an entire region; we might be able to make that argument for Russia or similar regions with strict press censorship, but for Ukraine, no. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. confirmed by both sides of the conflict — as in "the war, according to Ukrainian sources, or the special military operation, according to Russian sources"? Also, per WP:NOTNEWS, why does 2022 Western Russia attacks (and other articles like it) even exist? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Space4Time3Continuum2x An unimportant person (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As written, it also excludes independent statements and observations about conflict developments. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There are no Russian independent media outlets left, as far as I can tell. Ukraine maintains a reasonably free press. Many Ukrainian outlets seem pretty reliable. I don't think reliable and unreliable outlets should be treated equivalently. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• You can't use "free press" and "independent media" interchangeably. Read this article which proves that you are wrong. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  @ArvindPalaskar: is that a standing article by a still active Ukrainian publication that is critical of the Ukrainian government? Maybe Telekanal Dozhd’ or Radio Ekho Moskvy could provide us with a similar opinion concerning the Russian government's management of the press... If they still existed. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Russian Wikipedia has to give lip-service to the idea of equivalence between Russia's strict censorship of media and Ukraine with it's relatively free media, but here on EN Wikipedia we don't have to do that. FOARP (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments

You have got to be kidding right? We should accept Russian-controlled media outlets because there are no policies or guidelines against it? It is argued that the news provided by such outlets is published earlier than others. The European Journal of Communication (Measuring news bias: Russia’s official news agency ITAR-TASS’ coverage of the Ukraine crisis) wrote, "This result reveals Russia’s strategic use of the state-owned news agency for international propaganda in its ‘hybrid war’, demonstrating the effectiveness of the new approach to news bias." Does Roskomnadzor control the Russian news media? Is there any doubt that this can and will lead to propaganda?

• • Policy:

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper (Specifically #1 and #2)

WP:Verifiability: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The reliability of TASS has been continually questioned.

See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

See also: "...not all verifiable information must be included".

WP:NPOV All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. When we are using a state run news media, especially when used alone for "early print", there can be no neutrality. When one side abides by fair journalism and the other can "print what they want", how can this be true NPOV. We exclude other sources because they have been found wanting and I see this as the same.

• • English Wikipedia content guideline

Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view above). "Sources" is plural.

WP:RSBREAKING: Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published, especially if those original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution.

Deprecated sources would be those sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues.

• • Explanatory essays:

Recentism: is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view.

Is a Thesis from Boğaziçi University a reliable source?

I recently added a source titled "The scramble for Iran: Ottoman military and diplomatic engagements during the Afghan occupation of Iran, 1722 - 1729" by Mehmet Yılmaz Akbulut from Boğaziçi University onto the Ottoman–Hotaki War (1726–1727) page. It was labeled with the better source needed template by another user, inferring that the source isn't reliable. I don't understand why though, since the university is relatively well known and the source is cited in other reliable sources. I would like to hear other users' opinions on this, since I am not as familiar with the guidelines. Is it a reliable source? Kailanmapper (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It might be helpful for you to ask the editor who placed that template what concerns they have about that source. ElKevbo (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

See the heading “Dissertations” at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. —108.48.69.126 (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Meta-analysis and systematic review of Feldenkrais Method

Article(s): Feldenkrais Method and List of topics Characterized as Pseudoscience

Claim: A 2015 systematic review in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine found that Feldenkrais has "broad application in populations interested in improving awareness, health, and ease of function". Meta-analysis showed significant improvements in both balance and functional reach. The authors noted, "as a body of evidence, effects seem to be generic, supporting the proposal that [Feldenkreis] works on a learning paradigm rather than disease-based mechanisms. Further research is required; however, in the meantime, clinicians and professionals may promote the use of [Feldenkreis] in populations interested in efficient physical performance and self-efficacy."

Cite: Hillier S, Worley A. The effectiveness of the feldenkrais method: a systematic review of the evidence. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:752160. doi: 10.1155/2015/752160. Epub 2015 Apr 8. PMID: 25949266; PMCID: PMC4408630.

Rejected by: @roxythedog @Ixocactus

Is the source reliable for the claim?

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, our article Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine currently notes that "One of the founding editors, Edzard Ernst, has described the journal as 'useless rubbish', primarily due to ineffective peer review.". Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)