Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 325Archive 326Archive 327Archive 328Archive 329Archive 330→Archive 335

Reliability of American cable news

This is more about the reliability of CNN/MSNBC/Fox News when discussing the area of politics. From what I have seen, these sources do a terrible job at reporting neutral information in the field of politics. There are only a few news programs, the rest is strongly opinionated journalism/propaganda. Anyone agree? Aasim (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Questionable - to corroborate material for inclusion in a WP article, one has to go outside the echo chamber of cable news, and the internet sources that are connected to them. If you can find neutral scholarly sources, that's a better bet for reliability. Atsme 💬 📧 23:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with what WP:RSP says about them.--Renat (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It is vital to distinguish the news programs from the opinion programs (It is also important to distinguish opinion within news segments - when they bring on a guest, or a talking head “contributor”, treat it as opinion). Opinion can be covered in WP, but should always be attributed (in text) to the opinionator.
Extra care is needed when looking at the outlet’s news app... it is not always easy to distinguish news and opinion. Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:OPINION: Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • As Renat mentioned, these sources have been discussed extensively and community consensus is summarized at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Please refer to that for answers to your initial question about reliability in general or for political topics. If you have a question about a specific source for a specific piece of content, then this is a good venue to ask. MastCell Talk 18:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not going to fly: "American cable news" is not a monolithic entity. It encompasses opinionated but fundamentally reality-based content (e.g. Maddow, whose hectoring style often overlays deep research, and has spun out books like Blowout, whihc is meticulously presented), blowhards like Tucker Carlson whose defense in court is literally that nobody takes him seriously, cable news from CNN, which is highly factually accurate, and conspiracist clownhorning that talked up the Big Lie for months. Mainstream news orgs are presumptively reliable, cable opinion shows are presumptively opinion and handled as such. However, we do need to address the elephant in the room: the latest version of Ad Fontes ([1]) shows Fox, OANN and NewsMax as substantially less reliable that RT/Sputnik, which are Russian state propaganda networks. OANN is less reliable that TruthOut. That's... not great. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
My only comment here is that Ad Fontes is not a reliable source as per WP:RSP, so citing it means nothing.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Guy here, we also already have WP:RSP about individual entries (and RSN archives that RSP attempts to summarize). —PaleoNeonate – 07:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaming news sites

So I asked this earlier and was redirected here. For the article I'm currently writing I had several sources but was advised to get more so my question is some of the websites I have found are not on the reliable source list as reliable or unreliable such as Gematsu,Dual Shockers,and Nintendo life so can I use these


P.S. Thank you for your time and if this question gets answered I have other sources to ask about as well Vessel of Domination (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

For easy reference:
Reliability is contextual, so it depends what you want to cite them for - they may not be usable for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims - but at a glance they're all established gaming news sites and are reasonable to cite for basic information about games and consoles and the like, or, attributed, for reviews and reception. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The video game WikiPeoject has its one souring page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, and while any consensus reached here would take precedent over the subject specific souring page it should still prove helpful. Nintendo Life is considered reliable for factual information though the reliability of editorial content would depend on the specific author. Gematsu is considered generally reliable and dualshockers is considered unreliable and its recommend that if any of the unreliable sources are used they should be replaced with one of the listed reliable sources.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Just stating the obvious: do not use for non-videogame/console related topics, —PaleoNeonate – 07:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting comments for sources being used to establish whether a category is defining

RfC - Screen Rant

Screen Rant is considered to be a marginally reliable source. It might not be appropriate for controversial statements in BLPs, but it is reliable enough for other uses. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Is Screen Rant a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Lazman321 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Pick an option below and explain your reasons why:

  • Option 1 - Screen Rant is a reliable source.
  • Option 2 - Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source, or should only be used under circumstances.
  • Option 3 - Screen Rant is an unreliable source.
  • Option 4 - Screen Rant needs to be deprecated.

Responses (Screen Rant)

  • Option 1 Screen Rant is owned by the same company which owns Comic Book Resources (otherwise known as CBR). I'd also like to echo the discussions of previous editors when they weighed in on this subject a few years ago, with JOEBRO64 calling it reliable as "a sister site of Comic Book Resources (considered one of the most trustworthy comic news sites in the industry) and they share staff. The staff is paid and experienced, and it's got good editorial oversight. It's also been cited by The New York Times, HuffPost, Cnet, CBS, Fox, ABC, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, and other RSs, and it's used a lot on comic/film-related GAs. I've never had a problem with using it before" and Flyer22 Reborn calling it "a reliable source for film material and some other material." While they do publish trivia, as some have pointed out, Poitrus pointed out, late last year that Screen Rant seems to be "usually reliable." I would be shocked if there is anyone who believes that Screen Rant is not reliable, marginally reliable, or should be depreciated. They call themselves the "most-visited independently owned movie/TV news site in the US." Also see:
Beyond this, they have policies for fact-checking, corrections, and ethics, among others. Perhaps some of the stuff they publish is trash, but that is true of any website like theirs. Removing Screen Rant would put a LOT of Wikipedia pages in peril, impugning their ability to have reliable sources, making Wikipedia for the worse for all of us. Historyday01 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for coverage of pop culture and entertainment. I agree fully with Historyday01's argument. In addition to this editor’s points, Screen Rant requires an application to write for them; the application requires applicants to show that they have “expert knowledge.” In other words, the website is not a content farm. Additionally, their editors have some very impressive credentials. I will note that Screen Rant routinely gives in-depth coverage to niche and trivial topics. Editors should follow requirements such as Due Weight, What Wikipedia Is Not, and GNG's multiple source requirement when relying on Screen Rant, but this is true of all sources. Basically, I don't think we should dismiss a reliable source because its focus is considered niche or low-brow.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC) (edited 1/11/2021 at 12:33 AM).
There's been a influx of 2 votes arguing that Screen Rant is only marginally reliable, and I'm legitimately confused as to why given its extensive editorial policies and positive reception by other, unquestionably reliable, sources. I've seen few arguments beyond mere assertions of unreliability and do not understand how this conclusion has been reached. Clearly, Screen Rant is a niche source to which Due Weight applies. However, this is a content issue of what information ought to be used, not a reliability issue of if the information can be used at all. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option1 seem to have good editorial standards and are cited by outlets such as The New York Times, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is probably the best fit. It's highly questionable for any BLP info, or determination of encyclopedic value and due weight. Trivia and entertainment of this type is of questionable value in general for encyclopedia articles. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I see what Hipal is saying, but I would have to agree with others like Atlantic306 and Spirit of Eagle in their assessment of Screen Rant. Historyday01 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable starting when? It's been around since 2003 "as a place for fans to speak openly about the movies they love", was acquired by Valnet in 2015 , and its editorial polices are only as of late 2019.[2][3] The low quality of its articles were discussed by WPVG in 2017 and early 2019. They apparently still offer a contributor program. I haven't looked into its quality since before those policies were added, but at the very least, it would not be appropriate to extend a blanket reliability verdict back to its founding. Separately, I'm not sure why sharing a parent company with CBR is seen as an extension of CBR's own editorial policy (especially when they only acquired CBR in 2016, a year after acquiring Screen Rant). Valnet owns a lot of properties and their stated focus is on entertainment and clicks, not quality of journalism. Unless they share an editorial staff or procedure, there's nothing automatic/universal about reputation for accuracy that extends from the parent org. czar 00:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Valnet’s website states that their goal is to “keep our readers informed and entertained…[w]ith reliable and trustworthy news stories.” While the language about entertained should raise some eyebrows, they state they desire to be reliable and trustworthy (a purported desire backed up by Screen Rant’s strong editorial policies). As for past debates, there were multiple editors vouching for Screen Rant’s reliability. I do not think either discussion had a clear-cut consensus. Regarding reliability over time, I largely agree with you. This is a website that went from a guy blogging his opinion to a reasonably respected media source. They’ve had editors for many years before the Valnet purchase [4] and reference editorial practices in a 2018 archive [5]. Personally, I think post-October 2019 articles should be counted as reliable while earlier post-Valnet purchase articles should be counted as probably reliable but use caution. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Spirit of Eagle has a valid point here and would disagree with Czar but would add that like what Armadillopteryx says, I've never encountered any errors or sloppy reporting from them when citing them in the past and often use them in articles, along with other related ones like CBR. I would say that CBR and Screen Rant are both, equally, valid sources to use. Historyday01 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Exercises editorial oversight and has a reputation for fact-checking. I run into this source reasonably often and have not encountered any errors or sloppy reporting. Armadillopteryx 01:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1; well-established and decent WP:USEBYOTHERS per the above. While higher-quality sources exist and should be used when available, I'm not seeing any reason to be skeptical of it - the fact that it primarily covers a niche area is not itself a reason to doubt its accuracy, and in some cases may mean it is the best source available. This does mean that it should sometimes be approached with caution when considering whether stuff only covered in it WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Czar, i.e. additional considerations apply. feminist (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Per Hipal. Use caution when using this as a source when sourcing really matters. Otherwise, sure. If someone has a problem with this source in a specific instance, dont dig your heels in. Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2—I don't know if I'd call it "marginally reliable", but I think it's one of those sources where, if the content exists somewhere else or the claim is exceptional, it really should be replaced with a stronger one. WPVG has a category of "situational sources" which I think is the category I'd throw them into. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Czar. It should not be used contentious/contraversial claims or any claims relating to WP:BLPs but perhaps can be used for less contentious statements of fact (though if more reliable sources like IGN cover the less contentious claim it should be used instead). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (yellow at RSP) per Czar and Hipal. They put it very well and I have nothing to add. Crossroads -talk- 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Source has good WP:USEBYOTHERS coverage and I have no concerns with its current editorial standards. To address concerns regarding the historical reliability of the source at hand, I suggest utilising the clause found in the RSP entry of the Apple Daily (RSP entry) (specifically "There is concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it is today."), but otherwise the source as it currently is fits into the "generally reliable" section, with the relevant caveat of WP:DUE per its focus on niche topics. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Historyday01. This is a solid source on entertainment. Obviously, we should observe the same healthy skepticism towards it that we would for any sort of source, but there's no reason to think its reporting is worse than any other average reliable source used on Wikipedia. Krow750 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Unreliable. I'm here because I raised a reliability question for MakeUseOf, which is another Valnet-connected website,[6] and Screen Rant caught my eye on this page. What is "HotCars Sites" in ScreenRant Terms? I am unimpressed by "Infotainment" label in the Infobox for Screen Rant, the journalistic (porn) background of Valnet operators Stephane Manos and Ouissam Youssef.[7], the "sources may not be reliable" tag on Screen Rant article, the fact that 2 of 5 articles I semi-randomly clicked[8][9] were sourced to other sites, with "Source: Other site link". TL;DR: Add infested clickbait, run by people who got their journalistic start as porn site operators. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Responding to @Yae4:'s queries:
  • "What is "HotCars Sites" in ScreenRant Terms? That refers to HotCars.com, which is also owned by Valnet (link is here) and which also has a similar webpage design.
  • "I am unimpressed by "Infotainment" label in the Infobox" Uhm, that would be the work of a Wikipedia editor who decided that Screen Rant should be labelled as infotainment there. Screen Rant does not describe itself as producing infotainment.
  • "the journalistic (porn) background of Valnet operators Stephane Manos and Ouissam Youssef" Unfortunately, I fail to see the logic/reasoning in how the background of Valnet affects the reliability of Screen Rant. I note that (as per Historyday01) many reliable sources (The New York Times, HuffPost, CNET et al.) cite Screen Rant in their own articles.
  • "the "sources may not be reliable" tag on Screen Rant article" That notice is for Screen Rant's Wikipedia article page, not Screen Rant's website itself.
  • "the fact that 2 of 5 articles I semi-randomly clicked were sourced to other sites" That is a common practice among news organisations: to reproduce and report an article made by another news organisation. It does not mean that Screen Rant is unreliable for reproducing articles made by other sources.
Hope this helps. JaventheAldericky (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@JaventheAlderick: Hotcars: They operate so many similar sites they just copy the terms, and the patterns of ad-infested clickbait. Infotainment fits succinctly, IMO as well as or better than “keep our readers informed and entertained…[w]ith 'reliable and trustworthy news' stories." Re Porn: "Stuff" flows downhill from owners to management to writers. HuffPo isn't a stellar example.[10] Unreliable tag: IMO It's an indicator of an article that is difficult to improve, or someone would have already done it easily, which reflects poorly on the subject. Copying articles: Does the NY Times copy articles from Screen Rant? -- Yae4 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yae4::
  • Re Porn: "Stuff" flows downhill from owners to management to writers Could you elaborate on what do you mean by "Stuff"? It doesn't suggest anything with regards to the reliability of Screen Rant.
  • HuffPo isn't a stellar example Per HuffPost's RSP entry (RSP entry), HuffPost is reliable for non-political topics, and entertainment is (mostly) non-political.
  • Copying articles: Does the NY Times copy articles from Screen Rant? No, what I meant was that other sources (such as NY Times) cite Screen Rant in their own reporting. It is common practice for newspapers to cite the sources that they are using, but do not own (for example, NY Times cites Screen Rant for information reported by Screen Rant). The NY Times cites information from external sources (i.e Screen Rant) if they think that the external source they are using meets their editorial standards to warrant inclusion into their articles, otherwise they wouldn't include it into their articles in the first place. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Unreliable. Screen Rant has been caught posting false information before. It is yet another fan outlet with an overall reliance on excessive clickbait topics and articles with extremely poor quality in writing from their staff. WhoKnew99 (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
WhoKnew99, do you have any links to either Screen Rant articles you consider to contain false information or to secondary sources lambasting Screen Rant for posting false information? This is a pretty serious claim you are making. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Link to Screen Rant stealing content WhoKnew99 (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Screen Rant falsely presenting Kevin Smith quote WhoKnew99 (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Spirit of Eagle: Hope these links help. WhoKnew99 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not particularly concerned with the Kevin Smith quote issue since the article title seemed like a fairly reasonable summary of the Smith interview (even if Smith later disagreed with that summary). However, the Wicked Good Gaming article (archive link) is pretty concerning since it shows proof of a rather serious breach of journalistic ethics. Even ignoring the ethics issue, if this is common then it calls into question both the provenance of Screen Rant text and quite possible whether it is as fact checked as the website alleges. I'd like to personally look into this a bit more (see if this is a common trend, whether this was just the result of many media sources leaping on the same scrap of news, seeing if they redressed the issue, etc). But to be clear, this is very serious. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: In this Vulture article, Screen Rant are thanked at the bottom of the article alongside various other reliable publications,

indicating we should consider it reliable as they have done. As such my vote would be Option 1. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Option 2 or Option 3 I think Screen Rant have been highly unreliable so far, but I stubmled upon a few articles before where they did proper research and source checking for their information. I'm undecided between option 2 and 3 as of now but I guess I'm leaning towards option 2.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Screen Rant)

The poster is supposed to give their own opinion on the matter, preferably with some evidence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Not required as per WP:RFC. Lazman321 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Lazman321, I haven't found this requirement as of yet, but if it is there, it still says "all editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC." In any case, hearing your opinion on the matter would make sense, as this RFC seems strange considering past discussions which have mentioned Screen Rant. Historyday01 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I simply said it was not required. The reason why I set this RfC up is that the previous discussions were inconclusive. In the last discussion, one editor thought Screen Rant was reliable, two thought it was reliable in certain circumstances, though the two disagreed on the circumstances, and one editor thought it was slightly questionable due to its clickbait headlines. My opinion on Screen Rant currently is that it is generally reliable, but to watch out for click bait articles. Lazman321 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Well, I think we have a general agreement, from those who have contributed up to this point, that Screen Rant is "generally reliable." --Historyday01 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is this under discussion? --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, I have the same question. I don't even know why Lazman321 proposed this in the first place. It seems unnecessary as previous discussions have already established it is a reliable source. Hopefully this discussion will end soon. Historyday01 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The reliability of Screen Rant has come up in several recent AfDs including SCP Secret Laboratory's nomination and the ongoing AfD on Dream (YouTuber). A lot of editors are unaware of past discussions, so I think having an additional discussion and getting Screen Rant listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources will be to the benefit of Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps. It does seem at this point that the consensus will be that Screen Rant is seen (and asserted) as a reliable source, from the comments I've seen up to this point. Historyday01 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

swordofthespirit.net for basic information about Sword of the Spirit

There's a dispute on Sword of the Spirit about whether https://swordofthespirit.net/about-us/ is a reliable source for the number of members and branches of Sword of the Spirit. Specifically, I added the information here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005235880&oldid=1005173503

and it was reverted here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005278572&oldid=1005235880

The website is the official website for Sword of the Spirit, so I think under WP:ABOUTSELF it is a reliable source for this simple claim. Another editor believes it is unreliable because those membership numbers are an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. We would appreciate help with figuring out whether the source is reliable for this specific claim.

(short) discussion on talk page here:

Talk:Sword of the Spirit#Membership Numbers

Sudonymous (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It is covered under criteria 2 of WP:ABOUTSELF, as it is a claim about the organisation itself. What the other user is saying about it being a claim about 14000 is off the mark here. If the numbers are considered exceptional it might be worth attributing the claim to Sword of the Spirit, to show it has not been verified by a third-party. My personal view is that it fine to include, but this is not a clear-cut case and you will only get subjective answers here.
Also please indent discussions in future for easier reading, that talkpage discussion may be short but is organised messily. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Attributing the claim to the site is reasonable "states its membership as" - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: @David Gerard: Yes so specifically the reason 14, 000 seems exceptional is that if we look elsewhere on the organisations webfront we can see their twitter has only 133 followers, though facebook has over 1500 likes. In either case '14, 000' seems wildly inconsistent. Caveat on the source of this figure sounds like sage advice to me. Thanks for weighing in :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Linn C Doyle, you are using the wrong numbers to determine that the claim is exceptional. The Democratic Party of the US has 47M members, but only 2M followers on Twitter and only 1M likes on Facebook. This difference is bigger than the SotS one both in absolute figures and order of magnitude, but both are reasonable as neither is primarily a social media facing organisation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
True, but do we rely on the Democratic Party of the US for that claim, or do we use third party sources?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: Well arguably there are different controls in the context of the countries governing party Vs an independent ministry association belonging to a fringe christian movement. In either case there is no argument for the twitter followers being used as a reliable source to contest the figure. It is more to say if we look elsewhere on the webfront there is no other self-published or otherwise material that we can look at and say 'well this clearly agrees and therefore 14,000 is probably factual'. Even the declared COI editor on the talk page seems to be quoting a smaller number. Would you at all be able to clarify whether you believe this information is most appropriate for the infobox or the lead with caveat? There seems to be one comment here for 'lead with caveat' so that is ready to be accepted into the article unless there is any disagreement.Linn C Doyle (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Linn C Doyle, I think it is fine with the caveat attributing it to the website. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Polish government-owned media

This post is not in relation to any particular incident or discussion, but nonetheless I think it is important to discuss the topic. Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model. Each of these individual articles have reliable sources pointing out the issues with each of them individually. However, with the ramping up of the rhetoric and the aggressive takeovers, as shown by the takeover of Polska Press (many regional newspapers and websites included, such as Nasze Miasto, frequently quoted) by state-run Orlen, maybe it would be sensible to start thinking about a more holistic approach, such as done in the case of Russian government-owned media platforms.

The list is in-exhaustive but in particular I have in mind:

Abcmaxx (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • It depends. One should check if each specific source is known for "fact checking and accuracy". One should also check if they are actually "owned" or funded by Polish government. There is a difference. At a first glance, some of these sources could be OK, but some others are not RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Reliability is not binary but often depends on the topic. For important news about Poland, we should use English language media with international reach. We would rely on Polish media for stories that don't receive such attention, such as municipal politics in small towns and villages. For articles about the president, PM and major parties, we should not include anything that Western media has ignored. That's not a judgment that Polish media is unreliable, but that it is less reliable and if something is only reported in them that it lacks weight for inclusion in articles about prominent topics. TFD (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • State media should be rated generally unreliable (2015–). Since 2015, Polish state media has not had a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Instead, it has a reputation for conspiracy theories and propaganda:[1] Radio Maryja is worse, it's always been like Polish Breitbart or InfoWars. If it broadcast in English it would be deprecated already. (t · c) buidhe 10:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for bringing this up, I think this is necessary for media in a lot of countries including that of Poland, as they are undergoing similar phenomena. Russian media were exhaustively discussed on an individual basis and I would suggest the same for polish media dependent on how widely they are being used on wikipedia. I went through the listed publications and a basic search seems to show that most of their uses are minimal to none with some expections. The exceptions primarily being the following, listed a bit generously:
Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Correction, Polskie Radio – prsa.com.pl HTTPS links HTTP links is used in 2 articles but polskieradio.pl HTTPS links HTTP links is used in 1,170 articles. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sources:
    • "A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy". Freedom House. Poland's legislative elections laid bare the extent to which the ruling Law and Justice party had politically captured the state media, whose taxpayer-funded broadcasts leading up to the voting amounted to partisan propaganda.
    • Kalan, Dariusz (25 November 2019). "Poland's State of the Media". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 27 September 2020.
    • Połońska, Eva (2019). "Watchdog, Lapdog, or Attack Dog? Public Service Media and the Law and Justice Government in Poland". Public Service Broadcasting and Media Systems in Troubled European Democracies. Springer International Publishing. pp. 227–255. ISBN 978-3-030-02710-0. As a result, news currently delivered by public service television 'is no longer pluralist, objective and independent' and that the political context in the country has turned the public broadcaster into a propaganda tool for the ruling party
    • "Poland". RSF. Reporters without borders. Retrieved 27 September 2020. Partisan discourse and hate speech are still the rule within state-owned media, which have been transformed into government propaganda mouthpieces. Their new directors tolerate neither opposition nor neutrality from employees and fire those who refuse to comply.
    • Kortas, Olivia (11 March 2020). "Poland's TVP public television rift reveals PiS party split". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 27 September 2020. In January 2016, shortly after the PiS won parliamentary elections, Kurski was named head of TVP. Under his leadership, the broadcaster has become a propaganda channel for the government. TVP defames opposition politicians and critical judges. Its manipulative chyrons are infamous and have served as the inspiration for countless memes on the internet. For the majority of people in Poland, TVP has taken things too far. According to a new poll from market research institute Ipsos, 51.6% of Poles believe that TVP is not fulfilling its mandate.
    • OSCE 2020 presidential election final report: "The public broadcaster (TVP) failed in its legal duty to provide impartial coverage, which could offset the editorial bias of the private media. Instead, TVP acted as a campaign vehicle for the incumbent."
    • Żuk, Piotr (2020). "One Leader, One Party, One Truth: Public Television Under the Rule of the Populist Right in Poland in the Pre-Election Period in 2019". Javnost - The Public. 27 (3): 287–307. doi:10.1080/13183222.2020.1794413. The election campaign before the next election won by PiS in October 2019 showed particularly clearly how public media became the property of the ruling party and practiced propaganda typical of authoritarian states instead of public debate.
    • Węglińska, Agnieszka (2020). "The Image of Germany in Social Media: Political and Social Aspects of Public Service Media in Poland". Central European Journal of Communication. 13 (25): 41–54. ISSN 1899-5101. Government control over TVP contributes to public service media being a tool for propaganda and politics...
    • Kalan, Dariusz (18 January 2021). "Poland's PiS-poor media". Balkan Insight. Retrieved 18 January 2021. Over the last few years, Poland's public television broadcaster TVP and radio broadcasters have been put squarely under PiS control – and even insiders admit they have been transformed into hardline government mouthpieces. This unprecedented move has been condemned by various international organisations, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Reporters Without Borders, and the Council of Europe, which called TVP "a propaganda channel for the ruling party".
    • Davies, Christian (11 October 2019). "'Cruder than the Communists': Polish TV goes all out for rightwing vote". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 October 2020. ... according to a programme on national broadcaster TVP's news channel, the [opposition] protesters [demonstrating for judicial independence] had a secret agenda guided by a hostile foreign power. The scenes on the street, it said, were a "street revolt to bring Islamic immigrants to Poland" and backed by EU leaders as revenge for the refusal of PiS to accept migrants under a European relocation scheme. Another programme on the channel, part of a network funded by a mix of TV licence revenues and advertising, described opponents as "defenders of paedophiles and alimony-dodgers".
    • According to Timothy Garton Ash, "the broadcaster has descended into the paranoid world of the far right, where spotless, heroic, perpetually misunderstood Poles are being conspired against by dark, international German-Jewish-LGBT-plutocratic forces meeting secretly in Swiss chateaux." Ash, Timothy Garton (10 July 2020). "Opinion: For a bitter taste of Polish populism, just watch the evening 'news'". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 27 September 2020.

So for those not aware it is a little more complicated as the ruling party is blurring the lines between government-owned and government-funded and placing their own people in private companies which are indirectly funded from state money through a complicated network of organisations, assiciations, trusts, charities and shell companies.

In essence there are 3 types here:

  • TVP and PR are state-owned, state-funded, directly. It may be worth distinguishing let's say TVP Info, a propaganda tool not unlike RT in Russia, from TVP Sport for sports news, which is generally unaffected. TVP Kultura is provably next on the hit list, having been focusing on cultural events only so far, so again, generally unaffected.
  • Do Rzeczy and Sieci, as well as wpolityce.pl and the sister sites (which I think are the most controversial), are "puppet independents". The sheer amount of scandals and court cases against them is astounding, makes the Daily Mail look like a teddy bear in comparison.
  • Tomasz Sakewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist owns Gazeta Polska, niezalezna.pl and TV Republika. I would liken it to Breitbart and Steve Bannon; although "independent" on paper, he clearly has the support and funding from the ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing.
  • Radio Maryja, Nasz Dziennik and TV Trwam is the same thing, except they are a radio station, newspaper and TV channel respectively. It is linked to Catholic fundamentalist Tadeusz Rydzyk and has shady financing of his endeavours through charitable organisations (he is wanted in Canada for various violations). He exerts significant power and us very cosy with Law and Justice, and has been so way before they were any significant political party.

Nothing I have said here isn't widespread public knowledge or controversial that isn't reliably sourced on those articles, and I am trying to remain as neutral as possible. However the big issue is that anyone pointing those obvious flaws in lack of transparency, lack of editorial scrutiny, or even obvious falsehoods is labelled a "left-wing nutcase" and "enemy of the state" by their supporters. I guess a similar issue has come up with Daily Mail and RT in the past. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG applies: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." There is no exception for state-run or state-affiliated media. ImTheIP (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The policy on questionable sources states that "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." State-run media has an apparent conflict of interest, so state-run or state-affiliated publications are not automatically considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 05:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Polish government owned media would be generally unreliable, they are neither independent and are actively invested in propagating disinformation. There is a plethora of evidence pointing towards such a case from reliable secondary sources.
However I would point out that many of the ones listed are not under direct state ownership but linked through members aligned to or affiliated with the PiS which makes it difficult and unsuitable to relay a singular standard for all of them. Most of them have minimal to no usage on en wiki so I do not see the point of such a large listing. I would recommend splitting the section into discussions about individual outlets, prioritising the ones which have the most usage, i.e say two seperate ones about TVP and wpolityce.pl. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@User:Tayi Arajakate Would you be against grouping them into the 4 groups I listed? I put this as one because a) the difference in content between all of them is far smaller than the structure would suggest, they're basically mirrors of the United Right and b) they are forever changing and morphing partly due to the sheer amount of defamation cases against them but also due to very poor sales, spreading the financial state aid to allies, and as a tactic of crowding out independent media. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Abcmaxx, I would say some of them can be grouped together, i.e Lux Veritatis Foundation owned outlets (Group 4) and Tomasz Sakiewicz owned outlets (Group 3). Same goes for the directly state owned ones but seeing as they are the most cited to, it might be more prudent to separate the two namely, Telewizja Polska and Polskie Radio.
I am doubtful about Group 2 though, they are seemingly organisationally unrelated and might need seperate discussions on the more popular urls. Small mirrors can just be ignored and if they are spammed on articles, they can be referred to at WT:BLIST. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Tayi Arajakate: understood. Logistically what is the best way to go about this? Create several topics on here (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) and put notification templates on the pages of the outlets affected? Can this be done as a subsection of this discussion? It is all interlinked but this may be quite a big overall task and will be requiring a lot of cross-referencing. The reason I say this is because behind a lot of these outlets the same people, organisations, foundations etc. are behind them. I do not want to start a legitimate discussion only for the comments to be "please redirect/rephrase/move to xyz" and get nowhere as a result. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Split the discussion. Lumping everything together under the label of "Polish government-owned media" is not a good direction. Some of the sources are definitely not reliable (e.g. Rydzyk's outlets Nasz Dziennik, TV Trwam, Radio Maryja). Others, like the TVP should be subject to a separate discussion. Not all TVP news are the same too. Political news from TVP are definitely biased to the point of serving as an outlet of the ruling party. Other news, say reporting on potential transport disasters or sport are completely normal.--Darwinek (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Abcmaxx, I think the best way to go about it would be make subsections for TVP and Polskie Radio under this section and initiate separate discussions for the rest on this noticeboard. I'm suggesting so because the number of outlets provided might be too many for a single discussion, of them the highest priority seems to be these two since they are the most widely used and are also the most relevant to this discussion, being directly state owned. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Split complete

As discussed, please see the following discussions:

Abcmaxx (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we ban this highly questionable source?

  • Used in: several Wikipedia articles
  • Reason:
    • Author is not a reputed or mainstream south Indian historian
    • Serious factual accuracy issues
    • Book is full of conspiracy theories or misleading claims (promoting conspiracy theories)
    • General lack of inline citation in the book
    • Book is never cited by any of the other mainstream scholars.

Ouṃkāra (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that none of the major scholars even refer this book! Note the general lack of inline citation in the book.
The book is never cited any of the reputed/mainstream south Indian historians. However, you can find many references to this book in hundreds of sub-standard entries in Google Scholar!
Since its not been cited, no criticism by any reputed or mainstream south Indian historians exist.
Please read any part of the book, and you can see. Just see the title of first chapter "The Aryan Invasion of India"!. Can any scholar even imagine putting up a title like that ??
Do you want exact quotes from the book ??
Ouṃkāra (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, a few concrete examples would be useful. The lack of inline citation would not necessarily render it unusable, though if it is saying really weird things it is a serious worry. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You see can see casual langauge used by the author (who is not a professional historian)
Lets take, page 120
"the irrefutable testimony to the fact that Buddhism was popular and common religion of Kerala"
or page 113
"The thousands of groves called in vernacular kavus spread even now all over Kerala were once used as sangharams and viharas by the Buddhists"
or page 124
"an altruist, Ayyappa was cast in the mould of Bodhisatva"
or page 128

"the practise continued for centuries till the Buddhists were massacred and the temple had been seized"

These are just some them. I can give more if you need!
Ouṃkāra (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Ouṃkāra (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
If it is this S. N. Sadasivan I can see some issues, but I need to see some RS criticising this work.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that there is anything there that should lead us to deprecate or declare the book not to be RS, unless you can find an RS that suggests it to be completely inaccurate. Being occasionally wrong is not a criteria to deprecate a history book, or else there would be no RS at all. Some of the stuff you quote is valid historical opinion that might be true or false, some seems plausible, some is probably wrong. There is widespread RS coverage of persecution of Buddhists in southern India during the period, and Buddhism clearly was very popular in that area in the past. Reuse of religious sites is common the world over. I think that you are better challenging individual claims you feel to be inaccurate on the talk pages of the specific articles, providing contradictory sources and demonstrating undue weight. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


  • Please bring in any subject expert (and let him/her decide,please!).
  • I was just showing some random quotes. There are more!
  • Why there are no reliable sources criticising this work - none of reliable authors do not even read this !
  • None of the claims are made by me, but by professional historians
  • I can give reliable sources to refute all the claims (given the book+given above)
  • Individual claims - this will lead to end-less discussions on multiple talk pages
Please involve subject expert TOPIC - India - History - South India - Kerala (other than me!).
So please deprecate or declare the book not to be a RS.

Ouṃkāra (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I can do a modus tollens for all above points if you guys need them. But I think any scholar of south Indian history can see problems at first sight !!!
Ouṃkāra (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ::Ok, is it being used to support specific claims you disagree with? Take it to those talk pages and demonstrate the false information, or that it is undue weight on this one source. For example, if it is the only source supporting an extraordinary claim, then show what other sources say regarding the issue and see what other users think. It is also worth checking out the publisher, if it is not a reputable publishing house then perhaps it is not RS. But as it stands, it is a published work by an individual who seems to have had many books published and is quite widely cited, even though they are not an academic.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 12:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Proposed Book Ban: per Boynamedsue. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy close: Unless if you can link to evidence to show that the book you are mentioning is an unreliable source (probably third-party sources as we cannot view content behind paywalls unfortunately), I do not think this is a meaningful discussion. Plus, it is up to editor discretion to decide whether a source is reliable for a published topic or not, and if an editor ends up inserting claims backed by an unreliable source, the onus is on them to fix it. WP:RSPS only exists because of the number of editors that fall for otherwise unreliable sources, so we maintain that list so they don't. Aasim (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

niezalezna.pl

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

niezalezna.pl is a right-wing populist news portal, claiming to be independent and "pro-Polish".

The funding structure actually shows this portal to not independent as it claims to be. The Lech Kaczyński Institute owns 100% of Srebrna Ltd. Srebrna Ltd. in turn owns 30.4% of niezalezna.pl. The other 48.6% is owned by Tomasz Sakiewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist (who also owns Gazeta Polska and TV Republika) who has the support and funding from the ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Umm, what is "Lech Kaczynski Institute"? I mean, I know who Lech Kaczynski was but I don't see any info about any institute. Is this what you're talking about? I also see some mentions of such a thing on internet blogs but who knows what that means. Likewise I can't find any info for "Srebrna Ltd." I do find some stuff but it's about... silver jewelers ("srebrna" means "silver" in Polish). I'm not sure how you wish people here to evaluate your claims when you fail to provide any sources for your assertions.
Oh, and also, like mentioned below, please observe WP:BLP.
Anyway, EVEN IF this source has some connection to the current Polish government, so what? That does not render it unreliable anymore than BBC getting funding from UK gov makes it unreliable. If it is unreliable it's for OTHER REASONS, which you have failed to articulate (just "right-wing" also doesn't cut it). Volunteer Marek 01:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Instytut im. Lecha Kaczyńskiego is a institute in honour of Smoleńsk disaster: article. Well, given Poland's reputation for monopolising the media and cherry-picking news and journalists, it does have a big difference. Firstly, it claims to be independent, and is not officially state-run, even though its structure clearly states otherwise. Also, how can fact-checking and editorial scrutiny can be applied when it is in the hands of one or two people well-known to have tendencies bordering on authoritarian. It's basically siphoning public funds. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and assume that when you said "given Poland's reputation for monopolising the media and cherry-picking news and journalists" what you meant to say was "given *Polish government's reputation*. Otherwise your statement is ... kind of problematic. As far as this institute goes - does it even exist anymore? There's no info on it and you still haven't provided sources that these actually are connected. And again who owns is actually irrelevant. The "two people well-known to have tendencies bordering on authoritarian" is confusing and appears to be highly POV - who exactly are you referring to and what are you backing this up with? Volunteer Marek 00:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

*Unreliable. Closely connected to Gazeta Polska. "The image of the sticker was censored by Instagram as hate speech, according to Tomasz Sakiewicz, the editor in chief of Gazeta Polska. In the monthly Niezalezna, another paper connected to Gazeta Polska, Sakiewicz was quoted saying that “censorship was typical of Nazism, imposing ideology, too,” then connected the LGBTQ rights movement to Ernst Röhm, a gay Nazi militia leader, who — along with other gay Nazis — was murdered in the 1934 purge known as the Night of the Long Knives.", NBC is one of many troublesome aspects.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

The paper quoted Sakiewicz. Ok. That does not make it unreliable. Have you ever watched Fox News and the people they quote there? Volunteer Marek 00:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Do Rzeczy

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.

Although a supposedly private initiative, Do Rzeczy is a staunchly pro-government mouthpiece propped up by public money through a complex network of government-friendly institutes. The magazine seemingly looks for shock-value and to smear political opponents only. Its sales figures are notoriously low but seemingly never to be out of money, and has a fake rivalry with Sieci witht he intention of crowding out non-government friendly media. It was initially founded by disgruntled Rzeczpospolita (later split to Uważam Rze who split again) journalists who deemed the paper not right-wing enough (even though Rzeczpospolita has been traditionally centre-right and Law and Justice-friendly). Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to substantiate your assertions. Like there's a lot of WP:REDFLAG claims in what you write above, which call for some REAL substantiation. Also being "pro-government", even if it's a government neither you nor I happen to like, is not sufficient to declare a source unreliable). Volunteer Marek 01:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I was hoping not to copy-paste from the articles themselves, but how can it have any editoral scrutiny when Paweł Lisicki has near total-control? Abcmaxx (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem with that is that some of the sources used to cite various things in these articles are themselves reliable. Like, is this reliable? You're basically citing all the "negative" info about one media outlet to one of its competitors. Here's an older version of the article before you got hold of it. I don't really follow Polish politics all that closely but this looks like someone trying to drag those disputes from the internet onto Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 03:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

*Unreliable. It is now a government mouthpiece, and had a hard line eurosceptic stance years prior. For example, Anne Applebaum has describes it: "after Law and Justice won that year, I was featured on the covers of two pro-regime magazines, wSieci and Do Rzeczy—former friends of ours work at both—as the clandestine Jewish coordinator of the international press and the secret director of its negative coverage of Poland. Similar stories have appeared on Telewizja Polska’s evening news."--Bob not snob (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

Sieci & wpolityce.pl & associated portals

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.

Although a supposedly private initiative, Sieci is a staunchly pro-government mouthpiece propped up by public money through a complex network of government-friendly institutes. The magazine seemingly looks for shock-value and to smear political opponents only. Its sales figures are notoriously low but seemingly never to be out of money. It only takes one look at the sheer amount of court cases against them, their frequency and what they are for, and it makes The Daily Mail look innocent and left-wing by comparison.

The magazine has a website promoting the magazine, but it runs the portal "wpolityce.pl" to compete with the likes of interia.pl and onet.pl for online content, but it is the online version of the magazine. They also run the internet TV "wPolsce.pl".

It has the following topic-specific domains too, but they often redirect to the main site:

  • wNas.pl
  • wGospodarce.pl (economic news)
  • wSumie.pl (money news)
  • stefczyk.info
  • gazetabankowa.pl (banking news)
  • tygodnikpodlaski.pl (Podlasie regional)

The portal wpolityce.pl specifically has been described as junk news by various outlets.

The franchise is firstly not independent because of its funding structure. Grzegorz Bierecki (pl), a controversial Law and Justice member, and one of the richest politicians around, created and ran the infamous "Stefczyk's SKOK Bank". When the media started to uncover the inaccuracies and scandals within the bank he started a mass litigation campaign against the media; he emphatically lost all of them in the courts. So he set up an eponymous institute and a limited company (Apella S.A.) which own 23% and 69% respectively of this Sieci/wpolityce.pl franchise. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to substantiate your assertions. Like there's a lot of WP:REDFLAG claims in what you write above, which call for some REAL substantiation. Also being "pro-government", even if it's a government neither you nor I happen to like, is not sufficient to declare a source unreliable).
And again, even if there's some funding or something between someone in the L&J party and the outlet ... so what? You know that, for example, Democratic politicians in US may fund some left-ish media in US and... that matters not one bit for reliability? Or vice versa.
Look, Abcmaxx, I'm sorry, but while your list does indeed include a few clearly unreliable sources (Radio Maryja, Nasz Dziennik, Najwyzszy Czas!), it kind of just looks like you made a list of "the media that I, Abcmaxx, don't like personally" and then decided to ask us all here at Wikipedia to declare them all "unreliable". Sorry that's not how it works. Volunteer Marek 01:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well it's all in here Sieci#Controversies Abcmaxx (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also I would never say what you you should deem reliable or not, that's the point of starting the discussion. I saw a pattern emerge amongst the media, made a request, was asked to split it so I did. I am not doing this as some large political point or to ban a whole host of media outlets. But those were clear ones which do not stand up to any editorial scrutiny. In the US they may fund media one way or another, but they do not run it from public funds, using shell companies, and then try and claim they are independent when they are clearly not. FYI there are right-wing outlets that are reliable, Rzeczpospolita and Uważam Rze for example, which do stand up to editorial scrutiny and independence. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

*Unreliable. The issues are all listed in the Controversies section in the Sieci article, for instance spreading COVID conspiracy theories.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

1981 Judy Chicago interview as source for broad material about gender inequality in the United States

Questions: (1) Is an hour-long 1981 interview of artist Judy Chicago [12] a verifiable and reliable source for the statement, Sexism and gender discrimination have long been factors in the visual arts and the art world, inflected by cultural taboos and the sexual division of labor. This affects both occupation and opportunities available to women and public portrayals of women's roles, and is further intensified and complicated by the intertwingling of the political culture of the United States, where universal women's suffrage was not achieved until the twentieth century.? (2) Is a long quote of Judy Chicago (which follows) WP:DUE for Gender inequality in the United States#Occupational segregation by gender?

My answers: 1. No. An interview from 40 years ago with a single artist where she gives her point of view is not remotely a reliable source for such broad claims about opportunities for women in the present and tying in US political culture in general, even bringing up women's suffrage. The topic should instead be sourced to the expert academic literature on this topic in fields such as sociology. Editors also should not be expected to listen to an hour-long interview to verify anything. 2. No. A single artist's lengthy quote is not due and interpretations of art don't have to do with occupational segregation; the academic literature should be consulted instead.

Further context: The editor Struthious Bandersnatch insists [13][14] on including this material. My response to their last edit summary is that they are personalizing the dispute by making it about my supposed beliefs (my actual beliefs are inclined to agree with the text being added; my concerns are RS and DUE related [15]), that they are reversing the WP:BURDEN of sourcing, and that their accusation of WP:TE on my part does not apply because the material is not reliably sourced. I also believe that this editor has been around long enough [16] to know better than this sort of behavior and should be informed of what is proper. Because of how this editor is singling me out, and based on past experience with them, I strongly desire broad input on this matter. Crossroads -talk- 04:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

How about you address which parts of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability the source—which, as your first external link shows, was preserved by the NEA in its archives—would not meet? And speaking of what's proper—you've been reverted once, and instead of simply looking for more sources to support already-cited content you're supposedly inclined to agree with, you place a GamerGate DS alert on my talk page (the instructions for which say, by the way, Alerts are a neutral courtesy; never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor.) and you want to start a noticeboard discussion over a single interview from a single source, skipping even any talk page discussion?
Note that (as a fourth alternative in addition to what I proposed in my reverting edit summary, that you present contradicting evidence if you believe it exists) you could also have simply altered the text of the paragraph before the quote if you find any portion of it objectionable; it does appear you want to delete pertinent, reliably sourced content wholesale to which you've voiced no styling objections, as I said. (Unless the implication that politics and art aren't related is a styling objection?) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, the WP:BURDEN of proof is yours, but WP:SOURCE (part of WP:V) states: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An artist's recorded personal views are not fact-checked nor do they have a reputation for accuracy. If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science. This topic is covered by social science and absolutely has voluminous academic literature available to it. No idea what you mean by "styling objections". Note too that your edit warring your material in is contrary to WP:ONUS. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a lot to base on one interview with one artist 40 years ago. There are lots of scholarly sources that cover this. SarahSV (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with SlimVirgin. In the spirit of full disclosure, I saw Judy Chicago's monumental work The Dinner Party in San Francisco when it was first released 40 years ago, and I like it very much even though I understand the negative criticism of it. I have seen at least two other art shows featuring her work since then. I truly admire her and her work, but she is an individual artist rather than a respected art historian, and her individual opinions are fine with inline attribution in an article about her or her work and views. But her views should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice in an article about such a broad topic. Yes, scholarly sources are definitely preferred in this type of article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • So, just to be clear, the verdict being expressed above in response to the question is that an interview from the Drama and Literature Department of WBAI by Ann Stubbs, preserved in the archives of the National Endowment for the Arts, is not reliable or verifiable; and it's implied that per WP:UNDUE it represents the view of a tiny minority like the flat Earth concept does. As used here, none of these have the meanings of these terms as expressed in the corresponding Wikipedia policy pages, despite the promiscuous links; they are being given arbitrary meanings to fit another purpose—what that is I don't know—but it does not appear to correspond to Wikipedia processes and procedures. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 15:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that this is a correct assessment. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the issue here is that this is not the kind of source we use to make the kind of claim you're making. The issue is not the substance of the claim (which could be backed up by more scholarly and recent refs), nor whether this source might be reliable in another context. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Is question 2 this really a WP:RS dispute? Looks to me like it's a WP:NPOV, which should be discussed on WP:NPOVN.--JBchrch (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This appears to be a reliable source for something like the specific claim that Judy Chicago said/felt X 40 years ago. I do not see how Chicago's statement could be generalized to support a universal claim which seems to be the case here. To make this a generalized claim I think you would need more than one 3rd party source to make the claim. Chicago presumably is an involved source offering her opinion. Springee (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The source is reliable for the purpose of attributing the or paraphrasing the quote to the person in question, but not for making general statements about the topic. There are plenty of better sources for that. It's not a question of reliability. The source is reliable, in so far as we trust that Judy Chicago really did make those statements. The issue is issues of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, insofar as it places an undue emphasis on a specific viewpoint that may or may not represent the preponderance of scholarship on the matter. Several more general scholarly sources would be more useful here. --Jayron32 18:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Najwyższy Czas!

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

The magazine Najwyższy Czas! is a fringe right-wing Polish media outlet, linked to far-right and right-wing populist movements, attracting exclusively those, quite probably solely to further their cause. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

    • Yes, it was a mistake on my part, after looking at the ownership, nothing to do with the government. But that should not detract from the matter at hand. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

*Unreliable. It is a "far-right-leaning Polish tabloid". The company running this has also setup fake websites, copying text from real news (like France24) but changing some details to modify the meaning completely: "In reality, articles were rewritten with different titles, unproven or false details to modify completely the meaning of some stories, and therefore to spread disinformation".--Bob not snob (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

Gazeta Polska & TV Republika

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

Gazeta Polska, a newspaper, and TV Republika, are ran by Tomasz Sakiewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist (who also owns Gazeta Polska and TV Republika) who has the support and funding from the ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't paid attention to these in awhile so I'll have you check, but one thing: you might want to observe WP:BLP (!!!!!!) and NOT refer to someone as "far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist". I mean, he very well could be, I don't know, but that kind of statement WITHOUT a source to back it up is a quick way to get yourself blocked. I suggest you tone it down or strike it. Volunteer Marek 01:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Evidence points that I am correct. 1 2 3 4 Abcmaxx (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait. First source says that Sakiewicz, supposedly "far-right", insulted Janusz Korwin-Mikke, *definitely* far-right, by saying that the latter supported Nazism. How is that suppose to show that Sakiewicz is "far-right" exactly?
Second and third source (same thing) is just Sakiewicz talking smack about the former Polish President. Again, this doesn't show Sakiewicz is "far-right", just that he's in a different political party.
The fourth source has Sakiewicz saying some wacky shit, but honestly, this is the kind of wacky shit that is considered more or less mainstream, and even "moderate" in the present day American Republican Party (GOP) (For non-Polish readers, Sakiewicz claims that there was fraud in the 2020 US election, which is like what 80% of the Republican party believes, but he also says that Trump will have to accept the result if courts rule against him, which is the kind of thing that people are now getting kicked out of the GOP for saying). Volunteer Marek 03:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, tone down the WP:BLPVIOs. I mean that in a helpful way. Volunteer Marek 03:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

*Unreliable. "The image of the sticker was censored by Instagram as hate speech, according to Tomasz Sakiewicz, the editor in chief of Gazeta Polska. In the monthly Niezalezna, another paper connected to Gazeta Polska, Sakiewicz was quoted saying that “censorship was typical of Nazism, imposing ideology, too,” then connected the LGBTQ rights movement to Ernst Röhm, a gay Nazi militia leader, who — along with other gay Nazis — was murdered in the 1934 purge known as the Night of the Long Knives.", NBC is one of many troublesome aspects.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

Yes. Have you ever watched Fox News? Stuff like that is par for the course there. Have we ever made a decision regarding Fox News? I've lost track. Volunteer Marek 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Staniel_Cay

Please see recent edits by User:Cladeal832 - I do not believe the new source mentions the films they are referring to via the source. https://imgur.com/a/8Gqt7Bx I have attempted to provide alternative sources and archived versions of the previous source, but the editor does not seem receptive to input. I would like additional opinions on the sourcing. Thank you. DrGvago (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a dead link http://www.bahamas.com/node/54299, I updated it from the same website http://www.bahamas.com/natural-wonders/thunderball-grotto and the other users keeps reverting it back to the dead link. Also send me a link to an article on Yahoo News instead of just adding it themselves which I also added. Also I don't believe the information in the article is being disputing for its accuracy so I don't get all this hoopla about sourcing. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
You have made 9 different edits to the article. I have expressed my concern with the new source not mentioning anything about the reference to the film you are trying to attribute the source to, provided you with an alternate source, and added archive links which have been removed by you. Is there a specific reason you have an objection to other sources or WP:COI that is driving your determination to use bahamas.com as a source even though the screenshot I provided of the current source you changed it to makes no mention of the film? DrGvago (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

I am trying to edit the article to show 150 million as maximum estimate for Mass killings under communist regimes by providing The following peer reviewed scholarly sources https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=The+Russian+GULAG+Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Marxism+Combined+With+Totalitarianism&btnG= (https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors) https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 even a third and fourth backup source https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/ https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1985/0606/ecomm.html Even if necessary this fifth source from harvard says 162 million communism deaths between mao and stalin. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/

In the policies below it is stated non neutral sources are allowed its simply the editing such as sentence phrasing in the article that must be neutral. The article has both points of view because it has a minimim estimate AND a maximum estimate. My edit is simply a number. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_means_neutral_editing,_not_neutral_content In fact look what it says here under achieving neutrality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "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." Again the article shows both point of views as minimum and maximum estimates.

The other users have been violating the above policies by deleting my edits simply because they view my sources as biased.

It was discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll_discussion

The volunteer in the dispute resolution noticeboard refused to make a decision to enforce the policies on sources.Danielbr11 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the first claimed "peer reviewed scholarly source", The Russian GULAG: Understanding the Dangers of Marxism Combined With Totalitarianism. It's a student thesis for a degree at Liberty University, which the lead of that article describes as "a private evangelical Christian university". I couldn't be bothered even looking at the rest after seeing that clearly wasn't a "peer reviewed scholarly source". FDW777 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 can you tell me how it being a christian university allows it to be unreliable when policy states: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "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" and can you read the other sources.Danielbr11 (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's written as clear as you like at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate are reliable under certain circumstances, except that isn't for a doctorate. It doesn't even appear to be for a masters degree, which might have got over the bar of Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. So it's straight up unreliable, and it's not peer reviewed. FDW777 (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well the source that the liberty thesis uses for the 150 killings is Martin, Prevailing Worldviews, 182. Please tell me why i cant just use that source? Or why even when this page says 161,990,000 estimate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22 am i allowed to use that source for that figure Danielbr11 (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop forumshopping, you're already on ANI and I suspect you will be (in my view justly) blocked shortly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Danielbr11, Looks like that book is on a vanity publisher, definitely not peer reviewed either. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me hemiauchenia i was told in dispute resolution that i should come here to discuss the reliability of my sources (not just one source).Danielbr11 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie if you found that then i accept it. Now can you say why my other three sources would be unrealiable? https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1985/0606/ecomm.html https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/ remember that the policy states you cant delete a source for being biased.Danielbr11 (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would ask that the volunteers here please be patient and answer Danielbr11's questions. As the person they opened the ANI about- they have been directed to this noticeboard over and over since they do not trust those of us who have engaged with them on this policy. Even the admins on the ANI have recommended they come here. Thank you.
And Daniel- it says you can't delete it JUST for being biased. You can deleted it for being unreliable. And bias is one of MANY things that can determine reliablility. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The majority of scholars don't group together all communist regimes into a single "anthropogenic disaster" since they had considerable differences. Instead, events in the Soviet Union, China etc. are listed separately. (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Buide the majority of scholars say the death toll of European Colonization is way lower than the one on the list of 140000000 because they are mostly due to famine and there were also many countries involved. Can you please state why my last three sources above are unreliable. Once again there is a wiki article here that lists 161,990,000 estimate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22Danielbr11 (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So you would also exclude deaths from Famine in Communist regimes? Boynamedsue (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Harvard Crimson: Opinion piece, not peer-reviewed, probably valid for authors opinion, doesn't state a total number of deaths. WP:WEIGHT would keep it out, the writer's opinion is not very important. Future of Freedom: Obviously an ideologically biased opinion piece (when you hear the word "Freedom" listen out for the splashes), but that doesn't discount it. However, it is not peer-reviewed and it is a source that does not claim to make any serious analysis of the numbers of dead, merely citing "Historians" that give a figure of 150 million. So to include it we would have to say "Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership Richard M.Ebeling says that historians say that 150 million people were killed by Communist Regimes." That's basically just tittle-tattle, not valid to support the claim. Christian Science Monitor: Opinion piece, no workings shown, no scholars cited, from 1985. Same problem as above. Liberty university Not RS, student work. Independent Review Opinion piece, no workings shown, cites Conquest for the 150 million deaths, Conquest actually cites considerably fewer in his own work, summarised here., and his top estimate of 100 million is almost certainly an overestimate. Same problem as the others, except here we would have to say "Billy-Jo Unremarkable says historians claim 150 million deaths, citing Conquest whose own work says 85-100 million", which becomes OR to clarify the misinformation we have introduced by choosing to quote an Opinion piece. Not RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your input on those sources. Can you tell me why this source would be unreliable which says at the bottom communist regimes 259,432,000 as maximum estimate of deaths. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF and why is this page allowed to show 161,990,000 killed with its source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates Danielbr11 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide more information about that table of data? as it is it is merely a list of numbers with no provenance. In the other article, the phrase "In the dissident blog..." suggests to me that this number does not come from a RS, and therefore should be deleted. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The table is from here https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM where it says "For all final estimates, see the summary table in Statistics of Democide" btw this source is used throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page Danielbr11 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The website is not RS in itself, by the looks, but it comes from the work of Rummel which seems to me to come under WP:FRINGE, according to his wikipedia page he claims numbers of up to 400 million. When rampant anti-Communists wind up claiming German casualties in WWII as "victims of communism", and barely scrape 100 million, I don't think Rummel merits a place in the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As i said he is sources throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page and i dont think you can call him fringe if you allow 1 source to say 140000000 deaths from european colonization when most scholarly sources and historians say way less deaths because many were from disease.Danielbr11 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. His actual death toll proposal is 400,000,000. That is way out there. The difference in numbers for European colonisation is justifiable as disease is not a neutral force. It occurs in a social context, and is specifically deadly in situations of social collapse occasioned by cultural domination. People who are enslaved and abused and under-fed die more easily, and frequently simply stop trying to live. It is arguable whether it is correct to include all of these deaths in the death toll, but is a serious argument made by a serious person. 400 million dead in 70 years is simply not credible, and is not treated as such by other researchers. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Moved from section below. Danielbr11, you already have a huge section on the reliable sources noticeboard AND two reports at the admin noticeboard AND a case at arbcom. Please let me discuss the general reliability of Rummel on RSN in a seperate section without making everything be about your edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon as i said rummel is used as source throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article and i can easily properly attribute it with appropriate disagreement by prominent critics as their is a box for notes where editors write that. As i have also said before, the article is neutral with both point of views because it has a space for minimum and maximum estimates. I am using the maximum estimate while anyone can put a mimimum estimate with its own source! I am not using any 400 million figure which is the total democide estimate for ALL GOVERNMENTS (not communism)- i am only the 259,432,000 figure for communist regimes at the bottom here https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIFDanielbr11 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about Rummel being fringe or somewhere-in-the-middle, personally. But even if he's in the middle, I agree that attribution is necessary. I'd also suggest that it's UNDUE to cite him throughout the list, as if he's some unquestionably renowned expert. My preference is that Rummel should only be used in prose—with attribution, of course—when we can provide context/criticism from other reliable sources. And if a significant number of sources show up demonstrating that he's fringe, we should remove him entirely. Woodroar (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Copying my comments from below so they appear in context. Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Woodroar rummel is used as source throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article but i can easily properly attribute it with appropriate disagreement by prominent critics as there is a box for notes where editors write that. As i have also said before, the article is neutral with both point of views because it has a space for minimum and maximum estimates. I am using the maximum estimate while anyone can put a mimimum estimate with its own source.Danielbr11 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I think there's a misunderstanding about neutrality here. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we give both (or even all) sides. It means that we, as editors need to neutrally summarize what sources say and also weight them proportionally. In other words, we can't read into or analyze sources, or make them say something they don't, or make minority viewpoints appear like majority viewpoints (or vice versa). Sometimes that means minority viewpoints need to be contrasted with majority viewpoints, and sometimes it means that minority viewpoints get excluded entirely. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
In the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article, european colonization and genocide of indigenous americans gets about 140000000 from 1 source while MOST scholars say its way lower even on the european colonization and genocide of indgenous articles themselves because disease takes many of the deaths as well. So 140000000 is a minority view but you include it on the list.. why? because there is a MINIMUM estimate space for the opposing view. Rummel is used a source on all the wiki articles that talk about mass killings under communism, mao, stalin, etc.Danielbr11 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
But that minimum number still needs to be reliably sourced, otherwise we could find some crackpot who claims 1 death and add that. The existence of a field doesn't mean that we need to fill it. As for Rummel being cited in other articles, that doesn't mean much. Sure, it could be a sign that the community has vetted a source, like many of the sources at WP:RSP. But it can also mean that someone's added it to articles and...well, nobody's bothered to revert or bring it up for a wider discussion. We're (mostly) all volunteers here and we can't be everywhere. So we're having the discussion now. It might end with everyone agreeing to use Rummel, but it might end with everyone agreeing to remove the source entirely, or somewhere in the middle. Woodroar (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Rummel is reliable and one cannot delete a source simply for bias. While they debate Rummel below, i found another source with a neutral reliable publisher: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20millionDanielbr11 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis is that in the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article, european colonization and genocide of indigenous americans, which was done by many different countries and most deaths were due to disease, gets about 140000000 deaths from 1 source. MOST scholars say its way lower even on the european colonization and genocide of indgenous articles themselves because disease takes many of the deaths. So 140000000 is a minority view but you include it on the list.. why? because there is a MINIMUM estimate space for the opposing view. Rummel is used a source on all the wiki articles that talk about mass killings under communism, mao, stalin, etc. Furthurmore rummel is not far off because some reputable sources have estimated stalins deaths at 60 million and maos at 70 millionDanielbr11 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can somebody tell me if this neutral reliable publisher source Is reliable https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20millionDanielbr11 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It's probably not unreliable, in the sense that it can be used for uncontroversial facts and opinions of the author. It is outdated and probably has been superseded by more up to date sources on Chile. If it is another source which uses a throwaway line about a large number of dead victims of Communism, I would probably just forget about it, tbh. If it quotes a source for this large number, have a look at this source and see if it is valid.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This source is reliable and meets the criteria, so i am free to use it in my edit to the list without others deleting it?Danielbr11 (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Danielbr11, That's not what was just said. But even if it were, you would still need to discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus for inclusion. The mere fact that a source is reliable is not the only factor involved in such a decision. - MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So you say "Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas: "Democide (intentional murder by a government)" but that hes "not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger." so "Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories."? If you dont allow me to source him as the maxmimum estimate NEXT to the minimum estimate for opposing views with other sources than i will take this to arbitration at this point since you guys discussed this and completed this dispute resolution.Danielbr11 (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Do what you think you have to do, but be aware that the community is getting tired of your disruptive edits and your continual attempts to make other pages and other sections of this page be about your edits when you already have a huge section where you are WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration does not take content disputes. If you do not accept that the answer to what you are asking is no, what's going to end up happening is a block. This is not a threat- its not even a warning- its a prediction. You're not going to force your way on this one.... Its not happening, move on and find another article to edit. You already had one admin saying their first impulse was to block you for a week- the reason you're not blocked is because other editors stood up and wanted to give you a chance to follow proceedure and see reason, if now, after doing that, you are just going to escalate things to ridiculousness again- no one is going to stand up and ask you to be given another chance. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
No point in trying to stop a WP:BOOMERANG in mid flight. Clearly nothing that you, Nightenbelle, are going to write will stop the behavior or the predicted conclusion. Probably best to just stop responding and let things play out. (Reaching the point where you stop responding is looked upon very favorably at ANI and AE, BTW.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Advice taken. Sitting back and observing from here on out. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am being civil about it without personal attacks which is what the admins were worried about. The arbitration only got declined because it had not been discussed enough yet. But now it has. There will be a reckoning because rummel is used all over including on the list article. Now you guys are gonna change your mind and remove rummel just cause of little old me? Ya arbitration will take it..Danielbr11 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Danielbr11: FYI, as an uninvolved outsider, former Arb, and periodic ArbCom watcher who has seen this blow up in 3-4 different places the last few days: I can pretty much guarantee ArbCom won't take it, and you'll very likely end up blocked indefinitely for disruption. A bunch of people disagreeing with you is not the kind of dispute ArbCom handles. We don't have a content-related review board, if there's consensus against you (and it looks to me like it really, really is), that's pretty much that. Right or wrong, you move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam arbitration does take content cases look at the Kurd case they are doing now its there only active case. They only denied my first case because they said i didnt do enough dispute resolutions yet because it has to be a long standing issue. Do you understand whats being done here? They are blocking me from using rummel as a source WHEN he is used all throughout the article and many other articles.Danielbr11 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Danielbr11, If it wasn't a long standing issue on Monday, it isn't likely to have become one two days later. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Because i never made it about the rummel source but now it will be because below as you can see, even though rummel has been everywhere on wiki for a long time, these editors have stated that they never felt solid about him and that maybe he should be purged.Danielbr11 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

When you are inevitably blocked, it will not be about the 'rummel source' but about your inability to constructively participate in consensus making and your inability to walk way from a clearly losing argument. - MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Mrollie i have not made any personal attacks which is what the potential block was about. You cant call everyone who disagrees "disruptive" because we are free to debate these things why do you think arbitration has a Kurd case. I already accepted everyones opinion on the other sources but the Rummel one is extremely controversial because it is WIDELY accepted all over this website except NOW just because of me using his communism regimes killings estimate??? Thats a problem.Danielbr11 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I am going to repeat the advice from days ago, it is time to drop the stick and take your fingers out of your ears. This is a collaborative work of volunteers who have now spent an inordinate amount of time on researching, analyzing and commenting on your requested edits. You have no right to your edits being accepted. Once the edit was challenged, burden fell on you to convince others that the edit should be included. That has failed.... repeatedly.
If you stopped obsessing over a single edit on a single page, you would see that the discussion is leaning in the direction of removing Rummle's statistical data except from pages concerning his specific theories. No one has a specific grudge against you or Rummel, they just don't see the data as accurate or useful. That's their right and really our obligation to the readers.
You will not get some glorious last stand at ArbCom. ArbCom will not be telling you that you were right all along and everyone else was mean. Further pursuit of this matter will undoubtedly lead to not just a Page/Topic ban but a site ban as battleground mentality and tedentious editing are not welcome. Slywriter (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter its indeed sad that you guys have obsessed all this time in preventing my communism edit after i provided so many sources several of which were reliable or peer reviewed YET you all have given no scrutiny to the absurd highest estimate of European Colonization. The overwhelming majority of scholarly sources say the death toll (especially due to disease) is way lower yet you allow 1 source that goes against all those? Fortunately even universities tell people not to trust or use wikipedia. When people type in google "what event killed the most"- every other website and source other than wiki says ww2 by a long shot while european colonization is way down the list.Danielbr11 (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Way lower? Nonsense.
"Estimates of total dead in World War II vary from 35 million to 60 million."[17]
"Worldwide Casualties: Battle Deaths = 15 million, Civilian Deaths: 45 million.[18]
"European colonization of Americas killed so many it cooled Earth's climate: Research finds killing of native people indirectly contributed to a colder period by causing deaths of around 56 million by 1600"[19]
(Of course none of these numbers are exact.)
Please read WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Good read. Could have used that being dropped on me months ago when I was the one in an MOS disagreement. Slywriter (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
You loonies are the only website that say it killed 140 million which is basically the whole pre colombian population even though many sources say it was way less. Here the top 2 websites on google that have such a list say european colonization is wayyyy down the list. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2020/06/graphic-wwii-and-the-100-deadliest-events-in-history-feature/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/magazine/rights-exempt/2020/06/ww2-anniversary/wwii_anniversary_og-05.ngsversion.1588774396334.adapt.1900.1.png if you cant stop the website midload before the popup) and https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/08/The-100-Worst-Atrocities-over-the-last-Millennia-New-York-Times-Data-from-Matthew-White0.png
but i already tried adding on the list the 200 million abortions under family planning policy in china with these two sources [1][2]. and thats not counting the 200 million abortions in ussr[3] everyone can see communism truly killed more than anything.. wish me good riddance all!Danielbr11 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Danielbr11:, I think "wish me good riddance all!" is the best solution at this point. You have posted huge walls of text on multiple pages and from what I can see nobody agrees with you. Given the situation that you have created you can either voluntarily walk away from such controversial and disputed topis as communism and abortion, choosing some other area to edit in, or someone is going to document your WP:IDHT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior and post a report at WP:ANI, with the probable result of you being topic banned from editing about abortion and communism. It is time for you to drop the WP:STICK. I have further advice for you on my page at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Language and Culture: Reflective Narratives and the Emergence of Identity

Would " Reflective Narratives " be considered reliable sources for encyclopedia articles? Google preview--Prisencolin (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like a collection of short autobiographical stories, with an academic twist? Interesting stuff but I think it falls under WP:PRIMARY.--JBchrch (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
To me this looks like fairly typical ethnographic writing, and should not be simply considered WP:PRIMARY because the whole point of ethnographic methodologies incorporates the goals of WP:SECONDARY, featuring an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources - the main primary source in question being their own recorded experience. Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me like ethnographies are secondary sources to the extent that they make a statement about the culture that is studied. Reflective narratives, on the contrary, are "self-centered" in the sense that they only seek to make a statement about the writer [20][21].--JBchrch (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a continuing scholarly discussion about ethnography and autoethnography; one recent statement is found here. My immediate reaction is to see this terrain as a continuum rather than a binary. 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
What kinds of statements would anybody want to source to this book? Most of it seems to be concerned with quite personal observations, so I'm not sure what kinds of encyclopedic content it could possibly be used as sourcing for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, the encyclopeadia presently incorporates quite a lot of "personal observations", through ABOUTSELF and RSOPINION citations but also in more routine journalism and other independently published sourves. I would suggest that peer-reviewed autoethnography tends to be a cut above most of that - which we already routinely use - so I see no need for undue skepticism. Newimpartial (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Can we just wait for the OP to tell us some concrete example of what he saw this being used for, before we start judging if it could be used? I really see no sense in speculating. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

www.figma.com/blog/

Edit where used: [22]

Reliable for claims about fonts? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am going to say no, per WP:BLOG. I was hoping to have an RSN entry to point to, but it is what it is. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The author is writing for a company, so it's not a personal blog. He's also an author on this topic in reliable sources, e.g. [23], so "self-published expert" seems to apply. The source seems OK to use to me. Fences&Windows 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Fences and windows, In that case, use with attribution? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea. Fences&Windows 09:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

New Europe (newspaper)

Does anyone know anything about this publication? It has an article--but the article is lousy, and I just redirected the founder's article (Basil Coronakis) as a blatant piece of spam for a person whose notability is unproven. I cannot find any reliable information on or assessment of the publication; I became interested in it because of this article, an interview with Stanley Clarke (a great bass player) which essentially promotes Scientology. That interview is linked with this outfit (with a [https://faithandfreedomsummit.eu/steering-committee Scientologist at the head), and if you look through the history of the Coronakis article you'll see that Coronakis is the (self-)publisher of a Deep State EU conspiracy book.

So I have a few interests here. I already think that New Europe is a partisan rag of a paper, but I'm wondering if it's Scientology or not. I'd like our article to either be AfDed or improved to where it actually verifiably says something about the paper. I know some of you know the media business much better than I do, and I'd appreciate any help. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

For EU/Europe news some of the best English-language sources are Politico.eu and EURACTIV as well as some UK based outlets such as The Economist or Financial Times although they might focus less on Europe going forward because of Brexit. I never heard to New Europe before, but this paper states that "New Europe, de son côté, est une initiative d’origine grecque. Les principaux responsables de l’hebdomadaire sont d’ailleurs grecs."[24] and not much more. (t · c) buidhe 17:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sweety High

Hi. What are the thoughts for the reliability of Sweety High, specifically this. I'd like to use the content in this interview on YaYa Gosselin, specifically "Pedro and I were shooting the breakfast scene and all of a sudden Robert says, "YaYa, happy birthday!" And I said, "Huh? My birthday isn't till January!' In walked Taylor Dooley in her Lavagirl hair and all. I was so shocked I walked backwards into a wall. It was an amazing moment!", but I'm not sure if the source is reliable enough. Any thoughts? Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I would say this source is marginally reliable. Looking around, I haven't seen any evidence of unreliability, fabricated information, etc. However, the source hasn't been mentioned as reliable in any other reliable sources, from what I can tell. I'd use it cautiously. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yale University and Pasadena Now sources

Do you believe that these sources [25], [26] are reliable to be added in the University of the People article regarding the institution's collaborations? Weatherextremes (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I never challenged the reliability of the sources, I raised WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Glaukopis journal

Is this source reliable for the Antisemitism in Poland topic area?

  • Not reliable Although it is indexed in Google Scholar (not an indication of reliability), none of the papers appears to have been cited more than 2 or 3 times[27] It is published by Fundacja „Glaukopis”[28] (rather than, as is more common, a university press or other reliable publisher).
    • According to Andrzej Żbikowski [pl], Glaukopis is "a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ)".[29] Historian Grzegorz Krzywiec [pl], reviewing a book that involved several people associated with Glaukopis, stated: "They are engaged in a persistent dialogue with a numerous group of people who see the world in a similar way and they do not care at all about anybody else."[30] Note, WP:SCHOLARSHIP cautions against "journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs."
    • The publication was founded and edited for most of its history by Wojciech Muszyński, who is known for controversial and often extreme opinions:
    • Muszyński's replacement, Sebastian Bojemski, is quite obscure. I cannot find much information about him, but his books have only 61 library holdings[34] compared to 6,704 for Wendy Lower, one of the editors of the mainstream The Journal of Holocaust Research (published by University of Haifa and Taylor & Francis).[35] (t · c) buidhe 11:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Whoa whoa whoa. Buidhe is using "oko-press", a highly partisan outlet (I'd say roughly comparable to something like The Jacobin, itself not reliable, to attack Muszynski. These charges may or may not be true, but you can't do this here - this is a pretty serious BLP violation. Volunteer Marek 17:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
        Neither Jacobin nor Oko.press are rated as unreliable at WP:RSP (or by consensus elsewhere) and I would strongly disagree that citing either of them is inherently a BLP violation. The article includes quotes where Muszyński publicly expressed his opinion on certain topics, you could probably dig up the original source but the article does have them all in one place. (t · c) buidhe 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Lol. And neither is Glaukopis, so I guess it means it IS reliable? What you mean is that neither - not oko press, not Jacobin, not Glaukopis - are even MENTIONED on WP:RSP.
Oh and wait a minute. You say "you could probably dig up the original source". Ummmm... the Polityka piece you cited IS the "original source". Did you actually read the sources you're bringing here? Volunteer Marek 18:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The other source cited by Buidhe above, Polityka is better (I'd characterize it as "oko press is to Polityka as The Jacobin is to The Nation (that might be a bit too generous for oko press)) but the thing is that that source (by Motyka) isn't as unequivocal as Buidhe or oko press pretends (which again shows the unreliability of oko press). Yes, it criticizes the book along several dimensions but also says it's a "valuable monograph on the nationalist underground" and treats the work seriously (for the record I agree with Motyka regarding this dispute among historians). Buidhe compounds their BLP violation above by using non-reliable sources to smear academics, by misrepresenting the more reliable sources on the matter. Volunteer Marek 17:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable -peer reviewed, includes notable cited historians,involved with notable scholarly debates. Above criticism seems to be based on highly controversial non-RS sources like oko.press addressed not against the journal itself but against long replaced individuals.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    I cite the news article only for the stated opinions that Muszynski has chosen to make public. I believe it's a reliable source for that. (t · c) buidhe 16:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • My reading here is that this is marginal (e.g. self-published by its own foundation, rather than being an independent journal), and should probably only be used to support clearly mainstream and uncontroversial material. If it's being used to support controversial or fringe material then it would be undue I think. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Generally Universities have their own presses and publish their own journals, with articles from their own faculty (some places, like MIT or Chicago, MOSTLY their own faculty). As long as the editorial board includes outside scholars and so does the peer review, then this shouldn't be a concern. Volunteer Marek 17:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, universities, yes. but "Institut Glaukopis" is not Oxford University Press. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@JzG: Guy, I'm actually particularly interested in your opinion here since you're the only uninvolved editor to comment - in this instance at issue is whether a book review from the journal, by a professional historian, should be included. So we're not actually using it to make claims about any historical facts but rather reporting on a source's opinion. Wouldn't this be okay as long as there's attribution (perhaps both to author and journal)? Volunteer Marek 19:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable - Glaukopis is an obvious peer-reviewed scholarly publication. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • There is no such thing as "obviously" reliable. The WP:BURDEN is on any editor seeking to cite the source to show that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by basic WP:RS standard. (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I tried to find some information about that journal and the foundation, but that appeared to be not easy [36]. The Polish Wikipedia page about that journal says that the journal's editor is a person who has no Wikipedia article even in Polish Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia has no article about that journal and the foundation. The fact that it is not easy to find information about that journal is an indication that something is wrong with it.
I also would like to note that majority of users who commented here (except JzG) seem to be not uninvolved users. This noticeboard is intended for obtaining an additional input from the users who have not been involved in this dispute before. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. The subjects for which this journal is usually used on Wiki fall under WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations, which state that Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. I am not at all clear that Glaukopis can be considered a "high quality source", or that the foundation behind it is a "reputable institution". The fact that Glaukopis has been criticized for its right-leaning publications; that some of the people behind it - like Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Jan Żaryn and the non-existent "Mark Paul" - are either associated with the far right or have been criticized for spreading antisemitic myths; that they actually publish someone by their pseudonym, which goes against scientific transparency; and that, at least from my experience, there's a lot of cross-referencing in the above's publications, suggest that this is not the case. François Robere (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, that's funny because previously you thought it was reliable and cited it yourself ... on this very board [37] [38]. For even more stringent info. I think an editor's !vote can be discounted when they argue that the same source is reliable as long as it agrees with them, but unreliable if it doesn't. Volunteer Marek 18:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

*Is this a joke? One couldn't think of a less reliable source. Not reliable This publication is about rehabilitating the NSZ and the national camp. It has an awful reputation, and is peer reviewed in the same sense Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, it is peer reviewed by highly suspect individuals. Nobody of note cites this trash. Over at their library section they push trash like Polska dla Polaków!. Their program committee says it all. Kazimierz Braun is a playwright and scholar of theatre, not a historian. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is famous for anti-Jewish and anti-gay views. Dr. Ryszard Tyndorf of Canada may have a PhD, but is a lawyer and activist, and is known for his unsavory views. It only gets "better" when we head on to priest Dr. Jarosław Wąsowicz, who is the priest of extremist fans of Lechia Gdańsk, an ultra, whose homilies include gems like: "We want a Christian Europe, because only by appealing to fundamental values can we defend the continent against annihilation". And then we have Jan Żaryn, a historian turned politician, who is known for his extremist dialogue, for instance claims of disproportionate Jewish international influence, attacks on museums for not being Catholic enough, calls for expelling the Israeli ambassador who complained about rising antisemitism, prosecution of Holocaust survivors, and other statements.[41][42][43][44][45].--Bob not snob (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

Wow, you really are doubling down on the BLP violations. And you're a brand new account who immediately jumped into the controversy. I believe you're in violation of the 500/30 restriction [46] imposed by the ArbCom, which was imposed due to widespread sock puppetry in this topic area, particularly from an editor who had been topic banned (then indef banned) for making precisely the BLP violations you are now repeating. And I do mean precisely because you're even attacking the same BLP in the same way as that banned user, as one of the Findings of Fact from the case demonstrates [47].
You are also grossly misrepresenting the journal in a pretty blatant way. You claim: they push trash like "Polska dla Polaków!" <-- that's a title of an article ABOUT (not "in support of") Polish nationalism. The title actually is "Polska dla Polakow - who are the Polish nationalists?" If somebody wrote a history of Spanish Francoists with the title "Una Grande Libre - who were the Falangists?" that would not mean that they are supporting the subject. Maybe this is surprising to some but historians do write histories of fringe political movements.
Also it's a general humanities journal so there's nothing surprising about the fact that the editorial board has some non-historian scholars on it. Volunteer Marek 19:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

:::Wrong, just like the rest of your bludgeoning here. I've been here for more than a year and have more than 500 edits. Do you confuse me with User:Herzog von Teschen? He has less than 100 edits, and registered last September. That this obscure foundation lists a football ultra priest is a strong warning sign.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

"Nobody cites this trash" Really? Here is a book from Oxford University Press by prominent historian Jochen Böhler [48]. Apparantly good enough for Oxford University Press but not good enough for Wikipedia (although I guess it depends since it appears some editors want to use it as source themselves, they just don't want OTHER editors using it). Volunteer Marek 20:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable per buidhe, François Robere and Bob not snob. The evidence appears pretty overwhelming that this is not a source where articles are reviewed by competent experts in relevant fields of study, but rather by self-selected ideological fellow-travelers. The comparison with Mankind Quarterly is apt. Generalrelative (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • You might not like the people who review the articles, but they are certainly content experts. (No, it's nothing like "Mankind Quarterly" - you want to back that up with sources?) Volunteer Marek 19:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I mean, I can just quote back to you what Bob not snob has stated perfectly clearly: it is peer reviewed in the same sense Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, it is peer reviewed by highly suspect individuals. The above references presented by buidhe make that apparent. Also, you may consider trying to restrain yourself from WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. It does not help your cause. Generalrelative (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Glaukopis" is:

  • a peer-reviewed journal [49].
  • is indexed in the Polish Scholarly Bibliography (Polska Bibliografia Naukowa; component of a country-wide system POL-on, a System for Information About Higher Education in Poland, developed for Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland) [50]
  • from 2013 to 2018 was on the list of scholar journals prepared by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on that and discussion above, this is a reliable, but possibly an opinionated source. The citation index is irrelevant. Kavkaz Center was cited a lot, but this is not an RS. Yes, as some participants noted, the journal has been criticized, but so was CNN, The Lancet and almost everything else. One should look at specific publication and specific author, they are more important than journal. My very best wishes (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the Polish state has serious problems with freedom of speech on precisely this issue, and supports a strong unhistorical POV. Acceptance by Polish governmental institutions is probably more of a black mark than an endorsement.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This is xenophobic (Acceptance by Polish governmental institutions is probably more of a black mark than an endorsement). This list included many scholar journals, eg. American Historical Review. He should also stop using AHR because user Boynamedsue thoughts? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    I stand by the statement. The Polish state has criminalised commentary on the holocaust which implies that Poles had some responsibility in what occurred, and they promote a "state line" on history which diverges from historical fact. If we are talking about WWII, sanction of a source from the Polish government would be an element of concern rather than something which added credibility. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    You read something in the American magazine and you use this as an argument about European peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Did the Atlantic write something about this particular journal? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    I have not offered an opinion on whether the journal is reliable or not. I have merely stated, due to what I have read in a myriad of reliable sources, that the Polish government has criminalised certain historical facts and actively promotes a POV on WWII. Therefore, imo, the acceptance of the journal by state or parastatal organisations in Poland can not be used to support claims it is a Reliable Source.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Boynamedsue, that's a good point. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It is good to have scrutiny on the reliability of sources always but nation states have a very high position of dignity where they are equals (formally). Rejecting carte blanche Polish opinions on the history of their country is not a likely consensus position. Free speech restrictions (even the US has restrictions for seditious speech) impact the balance of what is published but not the reliability of what is published. The only question is if it meets Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source (fact checking, not UGC, etc.) or if there are additional sourcing restrictions for this, François Robere comment below may be cogent. Spudlace (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that fair analysis François Robere. Spudlace I think you have misunderstood me. I have at no point rejected any scholarship for being Polish. I am entirely happy for wikipedia to use Polish scholarship on history, even scholarship which is endorsed by the government where it meets WP:RS. However, due to the revisionist tendencies of the Polish state, endorsement from Polish governmental organisations can not be seen as supporting the reliability of a given source.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely unreliable as per nomination. To say that internationally awarded investigative journalist outlet oko.press is "highly partisan" is nonsense and shows how any criticism or proof of misdeeds in the country is currently dealt with. Polish academia is still a free for all with very few checks and balances and always has been. Poland also has a long history of historical revisionism. Professorships had been awarded on basis of cronyism and nepotism in many cases, especially during the PRL-era. I suspect there are many more journals like this, one doesn't have to look much further than to see how IPN works to see this in action. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I would argue it's unreliable and also biased as a source, particularly given the sourcing restrictions in the topic area. Historian Andrzej Żbikowski [51] writes that in the Polish historiography of this topic, we can see the "persistence of two basic contradictory scholarly trends in the historiography of the mass murder of Polish Jews, accurately categorized by Krupa as a critical historiography and a historiography glorifying Poles’ wartime attitudes" [52]. He writes that Glaukopis is "a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ)," whose WWII newspaper argued that " the liquidation of the Jews in the Polish territories is of great importance for future development because it frees us from a million-headed parasite." This kind of far-right, ethno-nationalist source and viewpoint has no place here. Probably worthwhile noting that Żbikowski offers examples of historians advancing these historiographical approaches: the "martyrological narrative" or something like a "Jewish-Soviet sympathy" narrative, etc. -Darouet (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • While I think some people here are going way overboard and using this as an excuse to grossly violate our BLP policy by attacking historians they don't agree with (based on very partisan sources), I've become convinced (particularly by comments by User:JzG) that given the "extra" sourcing restrictions in this topic area, even though the journal has an editorial board staffed with professional historians and independent peer review, we shouldn't use it in this particular case. Volunteer Marek 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Highlighting cronyism and how controversial academics game the system in an attempt to get their extremist views into mainstream is in no way "partisan" nor "attacking" them; citing them is not a BLP violation either. The title "historian" does not mean much on its own even when merited; a strong example in the same way Harold Shipman was unquestionably a qualified legitimate doctor. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable with caution. Caution should be focused especially towards historical facts and data/numbers appearing in Glaukopis articles. I believe the journal can be used here but I'd like to see additional citations from other sources, especially at potentially controversial claims. As a side note, I am really disappointed to see some users here resorting to xenophobic comments about Poland, its education system etc. I thought the WMF's recently passed Universal Code of Conduct strives to make also this project more inclusive. Regarding the IPN, I don't see any problem with the institution as a whole. If one group of people accuses you of "promoting Polish nationalism and antisemitism", and other people accuse you of "promoting Jewish interests in Poland" (whatever that means), then you're doing something right. By the way, e.g. Czech ÚSTR is subject to various bogus criticism of "historical revisionism" too but you won't hear about that here. Bashing Czechs is not as sexy as bashing Poles.--Darwinek (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • This seems to me like a misrepresentation of the above discussion. Criticizing the Polish state is neither xenophobic nor anti-Polish. Speaking as an American, I would readily observe that the Trump administration attempted some atrocious historical revisionism with its so-called "1776 Commission", and if he had won re-election would likely have continued to erode the US government's reputation as a reliable source of information. The general consensus seems to be that the situation in Poland is just a bit further along this road. Also, the idea that being accused of promoting Polish nationalism and antisemitism is somehow a sign that you're doing something right so long as someone even more loony than you is also accusing you of promoting Jewish interests is a truly problematic epistemic criterion. You may wish to re-examine that. Generalrelative (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      State-sponsored sources (which Glaukopis is not, it has no affiliation with the IPN), have to meet the same WP:RS criteria as any other source. To give another example, scholars do not take seriously the Rwandan government's claim of more than 1 million victims in the Rwandan genocide; neither should Wikipedia. This stance is not anti-Rwandan but rather because we aim to be reality-based. (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The argument to moderation is a logical fallacy. In 1940's Germany, some people wanted to kill no Jews and some people wanted to kill all the Jews. The correct number of Jews to kill was not 50%. Concern about Polish state misrepresentation of WWII is entirely based in reality, it is therefore inappropriate to use Polish state support of a source related to WWII as evidence for its reliability. The idea that this is a xenophobic position is utterly laughable. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
        • No, what’s actually laughable, is comparing Polish government’s historical policy, as flawed as it is, to... murder of Jews by Germany during WW2. If you have to use a crude analogy, find something less offensive. Because that kind of hyperbolic comparison actually IS xenophobic and has led to topic bans in the past. Volunteer Marek 02:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I will second the previous responses in saying that "xenophobia" or "anti-polonism" is completely out of place. I would also add that although increasingly popular, it is a dangerous and harmful statement to make. Firstly, the criticism comes from other Poles first and foremost, and having an opposing view does not make them "foreign agents", "unpatriotic" or other such nonsense. The same can be applied to 2020 Belarusian protests, opposition to Brexit, 2021 capitol riots; they do not make you anti-Belarussian, anti-British nor anti-American just because someone levies those accusations, which by the way, can easily be made in the other direction. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I fully agree that comparing the Polish government's current policy of historical denialism to the holocaust would be unacceptable, which is why I have never done that. What I have done is use a reductio ad absurdum argument to demonstrate the falsity of the idea that if a position is criticised by "both sides" it must be the correct one.--Boynamedsue (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Darwinek: Note that the TA is subject to special sourcing expectations that raise the bar beyond what is required by WP:RS. If something should be used "with caution" under RS, then it's probably not good enough for the TA SE. François Robere (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

*Dr. Wojciech Muszyński, who is listed as the publisher of Glaukopis is infamous for statements in which he suggest left-wing Polish politicians (Left Together) should be dealt with in a manner similar to the Pinochet regime with death flights, [53] [54].--Bob not snob (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

OK, that settles it for me. An extremist source of this nature is not reliable. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used

Greetings all.

I need an assessment of how reliable the sources used in the article about Tomislav Vlašić are regarding the subject discussed. @Red Rose 13:, you are invited to discuss the issue as you requested at Talk:Tomislav Vlašić. These are the sources:

Books

  • Bulat, Nikola (2006). Istina će nas osloboditi [The Truth will set us free] (in Croatian). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar.
  • Kutleša, Dražen (2001). Ogledalo pravde [Mirror of Justice] (in Croatian). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar.
  • Laurentin, René (1987). Racconto e messaggio delle apparizioni di Medjugorje [The account and message of the apparitions of Medjugorje] (in Italian). Brescia: Queriniana.

Journals

  • Perić, Ratko (2009). "Vlašićeva upletenost u "međugorski fenomen"" [Vlašić's involvement in the "phenomenon of Medjugorje"]. Službeni vjesnik biskupija Mostarsko-duvanjske i Trebinjsko-mrkanske (in Croatian) (2). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar: 181–189.

News articles

Thank you. --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It'd help if you'd explain what the concern is, Governor Sheng.
I can see a general issue with independence of the sources. Crisis Magazine is a Catholic publication, so should be attributed due to this COI. The Spectator article discussed on the talk page seems OK to use, though the author Simon Caldwell has worked for the Catholic church so should also be attributed: [58]. On the books/journal, Laurentin is a supporter of the Marian visions and Perić and Kutleša are local Catholic bishops, so are not independent and need attributing. Irish Times is fine. Fences&Windows 11:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
As you know, Governor Sheng, I have taken a stricter line with some of these on Our Lady of Medjugorje because not only are they not independent, but some are basically self published AND directly involved in the controversies surrounding Medjugorje.(e.g Peric, Bulat, Dražen Kutleša, Laurentin ). For a WP:BLP, you should use the highest quality independent sources available, and there are lots and lots available for this man. There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life.Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Washington Times

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
With no new insights being contributed to this discussion recently, I believe it can now be safely closed. Basically, this RfC affirms the existing consensus regarding The Washington Times. Details are as follows:

There is a consensus that The Washington Times is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a partisan source. Some editors noted a history of publishing inaccurate or false information, of being slow to issue retractions or corrections, and of sometimes only doing so under the threat of legal action; a considerable minority favored deprecation on these grounds. The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available. The Washington Times is generally unsuitable for contentious claims, especially about living persons. A majority of editors regard the The Washington Times as generally reliable for non-politics, non-science topics. Opinion columns are governed by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors observed that The Washington Times has a conflict of interest regarding the Unification movement and related topics. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Not to be confused with The Washington Post, which of these best describes the reliability of The Washington Times HTTPS links HTTP links, which is currently listed as "no consensus" at RSP? (RSP entry)

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for news
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for news
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 01:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (The Washington Times)

  • Option 2.5 It's been cited by reliable sources including PBS, USA Today, Reuters, NBC Boston, the Washington Post, etc. ([59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]). At the same time, it's also been noted publishing errors or falsehoods; however, in a number of these cases - though prolific - it's also published corrections or removed the offending material (e.g. [65]). Despite the glaring examples of issues with the WT - and there are many - just looking at its website on any single day it's apparent that these are not the paper's grist and, 95% of what is currently on its site as of this datestamp can't be differentiated from wire copy and is fairly straight-laced. My sense is it should not be used as a source for content regarding the Unification Church, nor should it be the only source for extraordinary claims. And, obviously, WP:RSOPINION applies. Chetsford (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
All the references except NBC Boston's are uncontroversial dates and figures, and about half are on topics they're directly linked to. Naming the source just to be safe isn't necessarily an endorsement for that kind of thing. I also wouldn't say that retracting an article whose central premise is fabricated after the threat of legal action is the kind of correction that indicates editorial oversight. Many "unreliable" sources are at least 95% true (most blogs, Wikipedia, etc), the question is more whether we can be confident the editorial process reliably functions as a barrier to misinformation. From what I've seen, the Times' process pushes writers towards untruths at least as often as it does away. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 Washington Times is a source with a conservative lean that has strong links to the Unification movement. It has had a reputation for being one of the most partisan broadsheet papers in the United States since the 1990s.[4] It may be the case that it generally unreliable for politics and science issues (the entry for The Washington Times document these extensively), as well as issues related to the Unification movement or its founders. However, it does not appear to be generally unreliable for news outside of those areas. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you disagree with what's listed at RSP it would be helpful to provide arguments/evidence. If you don't disagree, an RfC isn't necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I agree with Chetsford's "2.5" (which is actually just a specific 2, "additional considerations apply"). I would also point out that the paper and its website are of questionable to low reliability on American politics, for the same reasons as Fox News and New York Post, i.e. a strong right-wing bias. No, not because the opinions are conservative (National Review and Wall Street Journal are much more reliable but even more conservative), but rather because in this era and with this sort of publication it translates into poor fact-checking and even some dissemination of proven falsehoods that are popular among the far-right political base. I have not assessed its science coverage in great detail, though that's always a concern with far-right media (actually far-left, too, which is responsible for a lot of pseudo-medical nonsense). Washington TImes's more rote reportage is probably just as reliable as the average smaller newspaper; it is not quite in the same league of reliability failure as Breitbart News and Newsmax, which exist simply as far-right propaganda farms. Honestly, I would be okay with option 3, but 1 is out of the question, and 4 may be a stretch. Unfortunately for WT as a source here, most of its original reportage, most of what people are apt to try to cite it for, is American politics material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I think it is reasonable that it not be used as a source for the Unification movement due to a clear COI, but for all other things it just seems to have a political angle that many news organisations (left and right) all have. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for political, social, religious, or other contentious matters; option 3 for other matters. Clearly a very-low quality source. Let's review what our own article notes about them (all well-sourced):

The Washington Times has published many columns which reject the scientific consensus on climate change,[5][6][7] on ozone depletion,[8] and on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.[9][10] It has drawn controversy for publishing racist content including conspiracy theories about U.S. President Barack Obama,[11][12] supporting neo-Confederate historical revisionism,[13][14] and promoting Islamophobia.[15]

References for those interested.

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fertility_Family_Planning_and_Population/8od_AgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
  2. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_on_the_Family_and_Marriage_in_C/eOpBDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
  3. ^ http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp3318.html
  4. ^ Freedman, Allan (March–April 1995). "Washington's Other Paper". Columbia Journalism Review. Archived from the original on February 23, 2004.
  5. ^ Beilinson, Jerry (April 29, 2014). "Playing Climate-Change Telephone". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on July 20, 2017. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  6. ^ "Analysis of "Deceptive temperature record claims"". Climate Feedback. August 28, 2015. Archived from the original on April 8, 2020. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  7. ^ Hiltzik, Michael (December 4, 2015). "The attack on climate change scientists continues in Washington". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on July 24, 2016.
  8. ^ Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M. (2010). "Constructing a Counternarrative: The Fight over the Ozone Hole". Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press. pp. 130–135. ISBN 9781608192939. LCCN 2009043183. Archived from the original on May 16, 2020. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
  9. ^ Singer, Fred (1995). "Anthology of 1995's Environmental Myths". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on December 29, 2018 – via the Independent Institute.
  10. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (2011). "Tobacco Tactics: The Scientist-Deniers". The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. pp. 57, 198. ISBN 9780231527842. LCCN 2011018611. Archived from the original on May 25, 2019. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
  11. ^
  12. ^ Blake, Mariah (February 11, 2013). "The Washington Times takes a giant step—backwards". Columbia Journalism Review. Archived from the original on April 28, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
  13. ^ Blumenthal, Max (September 20, 2006). "Hell of a Times". The Nation. Archived from the original on April 28, 2020.
  14. ^ Beirich, Heidi; Moser, Bob (August 15, 2003). "The Washington Times Pushes Extremist, Neo-Confederate Ideas". Intelligence Report. Southern Poverty Law Center. Archived from the original on March 10, 2016. Retrieved April 28, 2020.
  15. ^ Winston, Kimberly (June 20, 2016). "Report says list of 'Islamophobic groups' reaches new high". Deseret News. Religion News Service. Archived from the original on April 18, 2020. Retrieved December 25, 2018.
In addition to the issues above, the newspaper promoted Seth Rich conspiracy theories (echoing Russian disinformation) in an op-ed column, for which the newspaper issued a lengthy retraction and apology in 2018—after being forced to do so by a lawsuit (cite). Nor is the problematic content in the newspaper limited to op-eds, editorials, and columns: it also plagues the news side:
  • In 2001 and 2002, the Washington Times ran a series of stories falsely accusing seven biologists of engaging in fraud to trigger endangered species protections (see here, here).
  • During the 2020 campaign, the Washington Times used a quote from a university official in a misleading way (a "dishonest light") to make it appear as if Joe Biden had misstated where he attended college (here, here)
  • The Washington Times has published news articles baselessly suggesting that COVID-19 virus was a "biological weapon" (here)
  • Just two weeks ago, the Washington Times had to retract a bogus "news" story claiming that a facial recognition company had "identified" perpetrators of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as "antifa" (the riot at the Capitol was, in fact, a far-right attack). The newspaper only retracted the story after the company's lawyers had demanded it do so. here, here
This is an encyclopedia; we should try to use mainstream journalistic sources and academic sources and avoid scraping the bottom of the barrel. Neutralitytalk 01:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and the links. I haven't reviewed all of them, but the Islamophobia one relies on the opinion of the Council on American–Islamic Relations which is itself hardly a reliable source (see here). I'm not sure we can take their characterisation at face value. Alaexis¿question? 17:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Quite a lot of issues, but it appears that they tend to issue corrections and retract problematic articles (see User:Neutrality's examples above and [70], for example). Many outlets classified as reliable also make mistakes ([71]), so as long as corrections are made I think it should stay 2. Alaexis¿question? 15:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem with your argument is (a) the number of mistakes and (b) the pattern. Washington Times's history is clear that they don't make the initial good faith effort to get the reporting right. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I voted based on the examples provided in the thread and all of them are about specific inaccuracies which seem to be subsequently corrected. They do not support your claim that they make more or graver mistakes. If such evidence is presented I will reconsider my vote. Alaexis¿question? 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the bias, this study found that "Interestingly, our measure implies that if one spent an equal amount of time reading the Washington Times and Washington Post, he or she would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," so it doesn't appear that it's uniquely biased. The study is from 2005, I haven't been able to find something newer - but then a lot of studies provided to support deprecation are even older. Alaexis¿question? 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2.5 as per above. I have seen concerns that their near confusion in name with the Wa Post is also of issue which makes them a tad suspect in additional to their conservative bent. They aren't DailyMail fabricators of lies, but they're not anywhere close to a clear reliable source. --Masem (t) 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually did research before saying things that aren't true, like claiming "they aren't DailyMail fabricators of lies"? SPLC Report: The Washington Times has History of Hyped Stories, Shoddy Reporting and Failing to Correct Errors. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a big different between shoddy/poor reporting and deliberately false reporting as the DM has been proven to do (deliberately changing people's quotes for example). --Masem (t) 16:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 2 Generally reliable source. Almost all of (if not all of) the most prolific sources have made errors on occasion. The name obviously comes from the city it was founded in, not an attempt to confuse people it the WaPo. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 . . . but we should be specific. I want to draw a contrast between different types of situations. I think they are completely fine in situations where they are reporting on publicly-available primary sources.[72][73]. We should avoid them in situations where the underlying facts are murky.[74]. In reporting on a murder, obviously the whodunit aspect is a matter of great dispute. In their favor, they do have a corrections page.[75] Adoring nanny (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Neutrality. Their false reporting on environmental issues ([76][77]), the coronavirus ([78][79][80]), the recent election ([81][82][83][84]; they retracted the last one, but, as noted above, only after they were threatened with a lawsuit), the 2016 election ([85][86]) and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory ([87][88]; again, only retracted after they were sued) in particular are concerning because these don't seem to be mere innocent mistakes; they're overtly false stories that serve the purpose of supporting the Times' bias. This covers more examples. See [89] for a paper about how they cover things in a misleading way to support specific biases, or [90][91] here for discussion of how its biases influence its reporting. Simply being WP:BIASED or sometimes getting things wrong aren't, individually, enough to get a source depreciated; but a biased source that repeatedly gets things wrong in the direction of its bias, and which doesn't generally issue a retraction or apology for this unless compelled to by legal threats, ought to be treated as intentionally publishing false or fabricated information ala WP:DUCK. --Aquillion (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
How is publishing an article that says Coronavirus may have originated in lab linked to China's biowarfare program in January 2020 (and adding an editor's note in March) different from publishing an article that says that masks will probably make little difference if you’re ... taking a bus in April 2020 (this is just an example from the paper I read regularly)? In hindsight both statements are likely false, but that doesn't mean automatically that it's false reporting. If it were found that they lied about a source of their claim, that would have been false reporting. Alaexis¿question? 08:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for American politics, Option 3/4 otherwise: mostly per Aquillion and Newslinger Neutrality. I believe deliberately reporting false information merits deprecation. (t · c) buidhe 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for American politics and topics that inherit the contentiousness of American politics (e.g., environmental science and climate change, COVID) per Aquillion and Newslinger Neutrality. The examples cited above all seem to pertain to that area, but I am doubtful they are frequently cited for anything else (arts and culture, say). XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 The details cited above are adequate for this. When we have good content mixed in with bad content as a regular occurrence, overall the source can't be considered reliable or trusted. Spudlace (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 promotion of voter fraud [92] and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory and most recently false flag antifa stories shows that this is an outlet with equivalent reliability to that of Breitbart. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - fabrication, conspiracy theory advocacy, COVID misinformation push it over the line. This is a source we shouldn't use for anything - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I came across a WT article used as a source for Carol Browner: "Obama climate czar has socialist ties." It falsely claimed that Browner was a member of the Socialist International (SI), that the SI called for "global governance" and that it was a radical, anti-American organization. In fact she was invited by the UK PM to speak to a meeting of social democratic leaders about climate change. Juan Guaido, who leads a member party of the SI and is recognized by the U.S. government as Acting President of Venezuela, was invited by Donald Trump to his state of the union address, was praised by Nancy Pelosi for his courage and got a standing ovation from both Democrats and Republicans. In this case WT clearly misleads readers by the selective use of facts and a few false statements thrown in. The article has never been retracted. TFD (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Much as I enjoy phrases like "Telegram’s main rival, Twitter", this is basically the Trumpischer Beobachter now. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I wouldn't use this source, since there are a lot of better sources in the American media market. However, on some occasions, there might be a unique news article that is useful. Articles in such cases would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 2.5-3 The problem with deprecating sources like this even if they "deserve it" is that then their content can't be used at all. For example, here is an article of theirs that paint PragerU in a fairly positive light. That article could be a useful source for certain claims in the PragerU article. E.g. that it has some 60 employees. If WT is deprecated, it can't be used at all. ImTheIP (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Chetsford and Masem.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2, maybe 3 in some areas Being a politically partisan newspaper doesn't make it unusable per WP:BIASED. While this isn't top quality mainstream media source, it's still a pretty established newspaper that was set up in the early 1980s. Over the years, it indubitably has had a lot of non-controversial information relevant for an encyclopedia. The publication seems to issue corrections. In most disputes, content sourced just to Washington Times would probably most often be removed. Such editorial judgment is always required in all Wikipedia articles.--Pudeo (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Leaving aside the editorial line, no evidence shows that this established newspaper has some uniquely bad record on its standard reporting. As Chetsford shows, its journalism is widely cited by others, so this is not on the level of Infowars or anything like that. It may be somewhere between Washington Post and Daily Mail, but I'm sure we can cite the basic reported facts from the majority of its articles without any problems.Hko2333 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4, per a mountain of evidence from Aquillion and Neutrality. The pattern of deliberately misrepresenting quotes, and insider accounts of their editorial process make it impossible to argue that the parade of blatantly false stories is just a large series of oversights. There's a difference between getting details wrong and publishing articles whose central premise is fabricated, and a difference between correcting errors when you notice them and doing so when you're forced to by legal action (or not at all). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. Citing by reliable sources does not mean anything. Kavkaz Center was cited a lot. However, if it's been noted publishing errors or falsehoods (as it actually was), that makes it a questionable source. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3, Too partisan. Being skewed in favor of one political side is enough to consider it unreliable. Therefore I agree with everyone that found it unreliable although I'm not sure it should be deprecated or not. I understand the opinions of those who want it to be deprecated but it's too harsh in my opinion.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
  • Option 1 or Option 2 Being partisan is not a reason for being unreliable we allow partisan sources --Shrike (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • option 3 for politics, option 1 for other fields Here's the thing: for any kind of political reportage, if I read something in the Wash Times, I would be wary of it unless it were also reported elsewhere, and even then I'd want to compare coverage. I could never be entirely trusting of something only they reported. In other areas, they are a perfectly decent big city newspaper; I don't know how it is now, but back in the day they were the only NE newspaper with decent religion coverage, Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I want to add that the editorial page on any paper is only reliable as a primary source for the writer's opinions. People can criticize the op-ed page all they want, but Post or Times, it's not a reliable source and shouldn't be automatically extended to the rest of the paper. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - per WP:USEBYOTHERS mentioned use by "PBS, USA Today, Reuters, NBC Boston, the Washington Post, etc.", and extent of WP acceptance shown by www.washingtontimes.com HTTPS links HTTP links 5,450 citations to it. And it seems a major WEIGHT media player. I would suggest that any use should as always follow WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and the question should be is it a good cite for a line in question. If it’s an opinion piece, then don’t use it as fact cite. I would note WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG should still apply and any issues about pieces clearly stated as opinion should be mitigated by that. I would also note the ownership may be something to consider on specific topics, as it should be for any media source. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - all news sources should be handled in this manner, no ifs, ands, or buts. The political position of one newspaper is not superior or more trustworthy than another's, and believing that it is would be noncompliant with NPOV. That is not a productive way to view sources because it chips away at WP's claim to NPOV. Atsme 💬 📧 21:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4. It is a misrepresentation to imply that this RfC hinges on the "political position" of the Washington Times. While all sources may have a political position, that doesn't mean that all sources are equally biased. No one would reasonably question, for instance, the reliability of the Wall Street Journal's reporting, despite their conservative editorial line. The issue here is the fact that this particular news source has a demonstrable record of unreliability, as Neutrality and Aquillion have shown above, which makes it quite unlike other sources which are rightly considered reliable. Generalrelative (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 4 Long history of blatant falsehoods on climate change issues, among others. Zaathras (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 - Per Neutrality's expert fisking above - a publication which flat-out denies the existence of climate change in the year of our Lord two thousand and twenty simply can't be trusted to publish facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 Have not seen any convincing evidence that it is unreliable. Neutrality's analysis which many of you are praising is completely invalid. When a source publishes an op-ed with opposing or even unpopular viewpoints, it has absolutely no effect on the source's reliability. Op-eds are opinions that need to be attributed anyway. Saying that a source is unreliable because it presented an opinion article that disagrees with consensus is ridiculous. Unlike some of you diversity of viewpoints is op-eds is something I welcome. A source needs to be evaluated on the quality of its actual reporting, not op-eds. Also, every major newspaper has issued retractions, so I don't see how that counts against them either.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I see that you're completely ignoring the part of my comment that immediately follows: "Nor is the problematic content in the newspaper limited to op-eds, editorials, and columns: it also plagues the news side..." And issuing retractions is different from retracting an article after the newspaper is sued... Neutralitytalk 00:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
First of all, the Washington Times did not get sued, a lawyer sent a cease and desist letter (that's not the same thing). Second, if the forced retraction of an entire story is a disqualification, then I guess CNN must be considered unreliable too. A Costly Retraction for CNN and an Opening for Trump- The New York Times--Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 The Washington Times is a right-wing rag (to show my own bias), but Wikipedia is not censored. In cases where the topic is not controversial it can be cited. In cases where the topic is controversial, editors might choose to cite it with attribution, acknowledging that it is a biased source. -Darouet (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Darouet, as it happens. JG66 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 This source is strongly biased and should generally be avoided - calling them "news" is generous. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Elliot321, please see WP:BIASEDSOURCES "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    Emir of Wikipedia indeed true in general, but the source's strong bias makes it seem likely to me that they would not have accurate journalism. This has to do with my personal interactions with the source, not a general rule. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 We already have an WP:RSP entry about it that's pretty accurate. I'd even add to those who propose it should be used for sports that if better sources are available they should still be used to avoid promoting suboptimal media. —PaleoNeonate – 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 mainly per users Atsme and Darouet. This is a well-established newspaper. There are partisan bias present, sure, but that applies for virtually all American news outlets.--Darwinek (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - "additional considerations apply". Yes it is biased, as are most news outlets, but that does not mean it should not be used as a source for most things. That being said, they should not be used for issues of science, due to their history on issues such as climate change and COVID-19.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 They do publish corrections [93] [94]. They do have editorial control. As demonstrated above, they have some WP:USEBYOTHERS. But they have also been too slow to retract some false stories, although they have done so eventually (Seth Rich). Adoring nanny (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I say this for their corrections, and their use by ultra-reliable sources like Reuters. Contrary to what another editor said, WP:USEBYOTHERS is a factor we should take into account when assessing a source. The fact that the source is biased does not necessarily mean that they get the facts wrong more than other sources. Editors have made valid points related to specific instances of misinformation, but I do not think they are egregious enough to warrant Option 3. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3. As the newspaper that started the COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy [95][96][97], I highly question its reliability and its content. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Per documented issues listed in prior discussions on this board, as linked in RSP. If material is sufficiently prominent to appear in reliable sources beyond WT, then they should be used instead. If WT is the only source, then the material is probably undue or fringe anyway. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Washington Times)

  • @Buidhe and XOR'easter: Responding to the "per Newslinger" ping. Those words might be a mistake, since I haven't commented in the survey yet. — Newslinger talk 11:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey all, I'm looking at probably closing this in a couple of days, assuming no new arguments of significance are raised before then. Everyone seems to agree that with regards to politics and science, they are unreliable, and most people seem to prefer outright deprecation to a Fox News-style "usable within in-line attribution." I would like to solicit some more feedback regarding their non-politics, non-science articles. Some people early on suggested they are probably reliable for other topics, and a quick perusal of their website indicates they cover sports extensively. Could someone who knows more about these topics than I check whether these and any other non-politics, non-science articles seem reliable? In addition, several people have indicated that they consider the source unreliable regarding the Unification movement, but nobody has said whether they think this merits deprecation regarding that movement, use only for attributing opinions, or some other remedy? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • We've previously deprecated sources in their entirety for fabrication in politics and conspiracy theory and pseudoscience advocacy - are you proposing a "partial deprecation"? - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Not proposing, just trying to foster discussion. Some people have suggested that Washington Times is worth not completely deprecating because of its content on non-political topics (sports being the most prominent on their website). Others have suggested deprecating the Washington Times because of its political content, which could mean either that they don't see the non-political content as meriting any distinct treatment (and thus said nothing about it) or that they simply hadn't considered that aspect when voicing their opinions. I'd like a better idea of what people are thinking. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Emir - and also with Jimbo relative to what he said to an editor about the Daily Mail being deprecated. See Jimbo's response. Atsme 💬 📧 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rydzyk's media empire

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.

Tadeusz Rydzyk is a controversial Catholic fundamentalist and business mogul.

There's a lot to be criticised: from calling anyone who criticises him or the church a "worshipper of satan", far-right stances on LGBT rights, frequent and public controversies regarding blatant anti-Semitism, his controversial support for paedophile priests, peddling COVID-19 conspiracies, accusations of inciting hatred, peddling false claims about any politician who is any further left than right-wing populist; and that's not even touching upon the conflicts with the intellectual wing of the Catholic Church, stance on abortion and women's rights, and his very public dislike of the current Pope.

What is more concerning is the fact that he has shady financing of his endeavours through charitable organisations. He is wanted in Canada for various violations. He exerts significant power and us very cosy with the ruling Law and Justice, and has been so way before they were any significant political power, who are now repaying his support with giving him generous government grants.

His umbrella organisation concerning the media is the Lux Veritatis Foundation and has 3 main outlets:

Now the issue can also be that there are at least dozens other registered charities, foundations, organisations and limited companies as well as a bogus university as well, all in order get as many governement grants and tax breaks as possible.

In terms of reliability, they are nothing more than a vehicle for his private interests and to maintain his political prowess.

However, it is worth pointing out that Radio Maryja has a fervent and loyal fanbase, is broadcast all over the world, and has around 1%-1.5% of the radio market share in Poland, which is quite a lot given its profile. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This one's a no-brainer. NOT reliable. Although, again, NOT "Polish government affiliated" or "owned" (in fact, IIRC, Rydzyk and head of the current Polish ruling party hate each other or at least did in the past. Rydzyk accused Lech Kaczynski's wife of witchcraft or something). Volunteer Marek 01:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

*Unreliable. Anything related to Lux Veritatis is extremist religious mumbo jumbo. For example: "The station and Rydzyk have been known over the decades for spreading anti-Semitic and homophobic views.", CBC or "His Radio Maryja station, which reaches millions and is often the sole source of information for many older voters in rural Poland, offers a daily diet of horror stories about a world without faith, where gay people control the political agenda, universities are corrupted by “neo-Marxists,” and the Roman Catholic Church is under mortal threat", New York Times.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_328&oldid=1085560952"