Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 325←Archive 327Archive 328Archive 329Archive 330Archive 331→Archive 335

RfC: Taiwan News

Is Taiwan News a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Does reliability still stand especially over political articles such as cross-strait relations?

According to Taiwan News, it is owned by I-Mei Foods, and openly leans Pan-Green politically.

Website: [1]

taiwannews HTTPS links HTTP links is currently cited on over 1,000 articles, and if I'm seeing correctly were all added in the last year or two.

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting, including politics.
  • Option 2: Marginally reliable or unclear, considerations needed.
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable and too partisan for factual reporting.
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Not sure if relevant: Taiwan News still largely refers to "COVID-19" as "Wuhan coronavirus", examples: 1 and 2. Not sure if these are unintentional and are being meant casually/off-hand or is being used deliberately as a political statement. 85.10.51.92 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Taiwan News)

@Newslinger: random IPs with no other contributions opening RFCs on the reliability of a major source in the absence of any actual dispute over their reliability is not something I’m open to endorsing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like "option 1", but the choice is yours. We have little insight on the reliability of Taiwanese sources, and this RfC is a good start. I don't treat IPs differently from other editors in content-related discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
With a neutral RFC question and an actual dispute escalated to this noticeboard from an article talk page or similar I wouldn’t be opposed to having the discussion. This isn’t how its supposed to work, I don’t need to tell you that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Speaking of neutrality, I have to question your strong hostility behind this RfC as well as your intention to have this snowball closed. I realized that the article I-Mei Foods, which owns Taiwan News, was created by your old account, Horse Eye Jack, back in 2019. You also seem to be a major contributor in using this website as a source on Wikipedia, so I hope it is not inappropriate to ask whether you have a conflict of interest or personal association with Taiwan News that you had not disclosed? 85.10.51.92 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not. Since its family story time have you ever edited under a different IP or account? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Nope. Just here to clarify what Wikipedia thinks of Taiwan News. 85.10.51.92 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Snowball close this RFC "Wuhan coronavirus” or “Wuhan pneumonia” was the original name of the disease in the Chinese speaking world, that includes both China and Taiwan. It is among the acceptable common names for the virus, it is not among the offensive ones ("China virus,” “Kung flu” etc). I note that this IP has no other edits. I also went and looked and piece from that same writer published today [3] uses COVID-19 exclusively. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. I am unable to find any reliability concerns that would take precedence over the news organizations guideline for Taiwan News. Taiwan: Nation-State Or Province? (2019), published by Taylor & Francis, notes:

Three English dailies also operated in Taiwan—China Post, Taipei Times and Taiwan News—though Taiwan News went to an online version only in 2010 and China Post did the same in 2017. China Post is pro-KMT; Taipei Times and Taiwan News are pro-DPP. Of the three, Taipei Times is the largest in terms of news coverage and commentary.

Copper, John Franklin (13 November 2019). Taiwan: Nation-State or Province?. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-80831-9. Retrieved 6 February 2021 – via Google Books.

Since Taiwan News is a generically-worded name, detailed coverage is difficult to locate. I defer to use by other reliable sources: The China Post, The Diplomat, The New York Times (RSP entry), BBC (RSP entry), The Indian Express (RSP entry), The Washington Post (RSP entry), Al Jazeera (RSP entry), and Fortune have all cited content on Taiwan News without comment. For Taiwanese politics, consider balancing Taiwan News with other sources such as The China Post to ensure that both major parties are represented. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 per the questionable articles listed by Thucydides411 below. — Newslinger talk 15:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
With the name Taiwan News being a difficult search query to use, I'm ultimately not confident enough to place a !vote. Copper (2019) still applies. — Newslinger talk 01:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 no evidence of unreliability presented. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2: I don't know how reliable they are for Taiwanese topics, but they have pushed a number of conspiracy theories related to CoVID-19, particularly in relation to China. A few examples:
  1. Update: Rise in sulfur dioxide could be sign of mass cremations in Wuhan: This story from February 2020 suggested that there was ongoing mass incineration of corpses in Wuhan due to the coronavirus outbreak. This same story was printed in British tabloids such as the Daily Mail (note that even the Daily Mail has updated its headline to note that this story has been debunked). Taiwan News appears to have gotten this story from a Twitter account called "Intelwave" (that has since been suspended), which Taiwan News quotes throughout the article. Taiwan News eventually updated this story with information that suggests it's false, but they still did make the original decision to print this conspiracy theory that they found on Twitter.
  2. Tencent may have accidentally leaked real data on Wuhan virus deaths: This story, based on a purported screenshot of Tencent's coronavirus tracker that someone posted on Twitter, claims that Tencent accidentally released the "real" case and death figures from Wuhan, which were supposedly about 100 times higher than reported. Tencent said that it had never released the numbers shown in the image circulating online, and it's likely that the "screenshot" was a fake. Again, Taiwan News simply repeated wild claims that it found on social media.
  3. Taiwan News has pretty relentlessly pushed the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was constructed in a lab. For example, there's this recent article titled, "WHO inspector caught on camera revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic". The WHO inspector wasn't "caught on camera revealing" anything. He appeared on a popular virology podcast almost a year ago to talk about research that has been published in internationally recognized journals for years.
What connects these various stories is that Taiwan News picks them up on social media, and that they're all various conspiratorial claims about mainland China. I don't know how Taiwan News' reporting is on other subjects, but editors should be aware of their strong biases and poor sourcing standards when it comes to coverage of mainland China and realted issues, such as SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Usable about a number of topics but biased about China (and the CCP) and less involved sources should be used for COVID-19 related information except regional stats/news reporting. —PaleoNeonate – 07:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Primarily per point 3 in Thucydides411's comment (!?) and Horse Eye's Back highly questionable remark in the paper's defense about how "Wuhan _____" is supposedly an acceptable name for the virus in 2021 (HEB appears to be unaware, or deliberately pretending to be unaware, of how "Wuhan flu" and variants thereof are used in sinophobic rhetoric, to the point of being a meme that was paranoid in the second Borat film; the virus having first emerged in Wuhan and therefore having been called that in some early reporting is irrelevant after more than a year). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you actually changing your opinion to punish me for a “highly questionable remark”? Thats not very civil even if I had made such a remark. I am also well aware that offensive uses exist as you are well aware of from my comment "It is among the acceptable common names for the virus, it is not among the offensive ones ("China virus,” “Kung flu” etc).” If you are suggesting that the reporters in the Chinese speaking world primarily of Chinese ancestry are engaging in the same sort of sinophobic racism as right wing American idiots I don’t think thats likely. Also if they had used Wuhan flu you would have a point, but they didn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The editors of these articles who still peddle terms such as "Wuhan virus" and "Wuhan coronavirus" as late as February 2021 as well as spread conspiracy theories in relation to CoVID-19 are named Keoni Everington and Matthew Strong. There is a very high possibility that the editors (especially the English edition) are freelancers that are not even in Taiwan, and if they are, are expats/emigrants that are not of Chinese ancestry. Another writer who spoke about how "Why the WHO's COVID inquiry will get us nowhere" or how "The BBC makes trouble in Taiwan's backyard once again" was written by David Spencer. Albeit "opinions", the second source was a direct attack on another news organization (BBC), and specifically its Taiwan news correspondent Cindy Sui, whose publication implies endorsement. They actually being "right wing American idiots" (your words) may not be all that far-fetched. 85.10.51.92 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Based on the OP alone, I was leaning option 1, then I saw HEB's comment and was going add an addendum that one or more of my fellow option 1 !voters was apparently doing so based on an incredibly flawed premise, and then I sawT411's comment, confirmed its veracity, and !voted option 2 because ... yeah, this website has pushed the "COVID-19 was manufactured/developed/released/whatevered in a lab" conspiracy theory on multiple occasions, and doesn't seem to have ever published a retraction or clarification. If @Horse Eye's Back: misunderstood my comment as being based solely on their inappropriate comment, I apologize for this misunderstanding; I am also opening to changing my !vote if some evidence can be presented that TN has posted a retraction of one or another of their bogus "lab" stories. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per examples provided by Thucydides411. Peddling stories that even the Daily Mail sees fit to retract after publishing should be a red flag tbh. All the examples cited have to do with the Covid-19 pandemic and the PRC, so is this a generally reliable publications that can't help itself floating conspiracy theories when it comes to China, or are there any examples on unreliable reporting on other topics? PraiseVivec (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. No reliability issues here. Of course any claims regarding Covid should be double-fact-checked, and ideally cited with additional sources.--Darwinek (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2-3, based on examples of false or fabricated information related to the coronavirus, as demonstrated by Thucydides411. Option 4 would be out of line since their reporting on other topics might be accurate or valuable for quotation with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 (for political articles) The term "Wuhan Pneumonia" (in Chinese) is the term used by the Taiwanese government and generally followed by the media of Taiwan, example [4],[5],[6]. It's not related to the Sinophobic terms used by some Western right wing/conspiracy theory riddled sources. I wouldn't consider Taiwan News unreliable because of this. The source might have a pro-Taiwan/pan-green bias though.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Nothing wrong with saying that something "could be" true or "may have" happened, even if it turns out to be false. Bottom line is that with China hiding the truth, people are going to have to make guesses, and some of those guesses will turn out to be wrong. Taiwan News acted responsibly by using the "could/may" type phrasing. Also nothing wrong with talking about "Wuhan Coronavirus" or "Wuhan Pneumonia" any more than there is a problem with talking about the "UK variant", "Kent variant", "British variant", or "South African variant" of that virus. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2. The source is an established news outlet that is generally reliable. However, the source has published questionable stories in the past that were too credulous towards social media rumours, per Thucydides411. The whole issue of them calling the coronavirus the "Wuhan virus" is irrelevant, even if you think it's biased phrasing, since reliable sources are allowed to have their own point of view per WP:BIASEDSOURCES.Jancarcu (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The headlines are too sensationalist and the crematoriums story surely doesn't look good but they did publish a correction. All the examples are about a specific topic, no proof of their general unreliability have been provided. Alaexis¿question? 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 - my position about news sources hasn't changed - excercise caution, corroborate, use common sense...Atsme 💬 📧 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I did see the site publish dubious claims, especially about COVID-19, and while not state-owned, in its reporting about topics concerning Taiwan or China it might as well be. However, in topics that do not concern Taiwan or China, it is mostly factual in reporting and as such I do not think deprecation is necessary.


Discussion (Taiwan News)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. — Newslinger talk 05:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Rudolph Rummel

Danielbr11 is in the middle of an ANI case, so I would like to have a general discussion about the reliability of one of the sources mentioned above without any material related to Danielbr11's edits. Please move any comment specific to that case to the section above.

I do not consider the works of Rudolph Rummel to be either fringe or mainstream. They appear to be in that area between calls "controversial". There is some dispute over his numbers from other academics, and thus I think anything sourced to Rummel should be properly attributed, and when appropriate disagreement by prominent critics should be included. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that his figures are not suitable to be included in list type articles, as they are WP:FRINGE and there is not possibility of giving context in that case. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think they are fringe. You may be right about not using them in lists where there is no room for context or criticism. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 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)
You make a good point. I agree; Rummel should only be used in prose with attribution with context/criticism from other reliable sources. I have had to move several comments by a user who shall not be named to the section above because they want to discuss edits to specific lists. Would you be so kind as to make your excellent point about lists in the above section as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we need to ascertain whether his figures are in line with other people on non-Communist matters. It may be ok for other topics if he is just a bit funny about Communism. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I have looked at them in depth, and read most of his critics. The fact is that there are a wide variety of numbers on this, all from respected scholars. Some are no doubt influenced by a desire to maximize the numbers for democide in some countries. Some are no doubt influences by a desire to minimize the numbers for democide in some countries. This isn't a case of mainstream vs. fringe. There is no mainstream agreement for most of these numbers. So we should do what we always do when scholars disagree; present all notable views with attribution. The more I think about your comments on lists, the more I agree. we shouldn't just add numbers without a discussion about who disagrees and why. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me explain a little bit about Rummel. Rudolph Rummel is by no means a fringe author. He is a very reputable scholar, and his "democratic peace" concept is very famous. However, we must clearly understand what exactly his contribution to science consists in. His main contribution is introduction of factor analysis into social sciences. In particular, he collected all available data on mass killings and calculated correlations between various traits of each regime and the scale of killings. He obtained significant negative correlation between democracy and mass violence and strong positive correlation between a degree of totalitarianism and mass killing. That is why he is considered reputable.

However, can he be a good source for figures? No. First. His approach was analyzed by Dulic, who persuasively demonstrated that Rummel's approach (to take all published data on the number of victims and to calculate the boundaries of most probable estimates) inevitably leads to inflated figures. Dulic discusses Rummel's data on Yugoslavia only, but his conclusions are equally applicable to Rummel's approach in general. Interestingly, no other statistician joined the dispute (neither at Dulic's side nor Rummel's side), which is an indication of low interest of true professionals to Rummel's statistics. Second. Rummel used all published data non-critically, and he never re-considered his estimates to a lower side in light of new evidences. Thus, I checked his "Death by government", and his estimates of USSR deaths are based on outdated Cold-war era crude estimates. Despite the fact that a huge amount of archival data became available on the USSR after its dissolution, and now the USSR mortality figures are much better known, Rummel continued to publish dramatically inflated figures, which are more than an order of magnitude higher than actual numbers (and which contradict to most moderns demographic (Erlikman) and archival (Zemskov) data). Accordingly, it is not a surprise that most modern country experts essentially ignore Rummel's "estimates". The exception is Cambodia, for which the data dispersion has always been pretty low, and, accordingly, Rummel's estimates are reasonably precise.

Third, as Barbara Harff noted, Rummel's goal was not to provide the exact statistics, for even the amended data set would lead to essentially the same conclusion about "democratic peace". Therefore, Harff doesn't believes high precision of the data is neither required nor expected from Rummel. Therefore, although Rummel is a good expert in his field, the figures he provides cannot be trusted, especially for the countries or the events where a large number of contradicting figures were published, for Rummel just takes them all and obtains the average without analyzing reliability of each figure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Are Rummel's numbers really so far from other estimates?

From our article on Democide#Killings by Communist states

  • Rummel gives an estimate for communist democide including famine of 110 million, later revised to 148 million, with an estimated error range of "a probable order of magnitude", which means that it could be a lot lower or a lot higher.
  • Stéphane Courtois gave a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates" approaching 100 million killed.
  • Martin Malia came up with "between 85 million and 100 million."
  • Benjamin Valentino estimated 21 million to 70 million gave in the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China and Cambodia alone and stated that the "highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributed to communist regimes" was "up to 110 million."
  • Steven Rosefielde's number is "approximately 60 million people and perhaps tens of millions more."
  • Matthew White published estimates 70 million, including "people who died under communist regimes from execution, labor camps, famine, ethnic cleansing, and desperate flight in leaky boats", with 26 million people additionally dying in "Communist-inspired wars."
  • Stephen Kotkin estimated 65 million people killed intentionally with "even more" from starvation as a result of social engineering"

Several commentators on Rummel's estimates have noted that estimates for the holocaust (which we have far better numbers for) might be 20% or maybe even 40% off either way, while at the same time completely rejecting the claims of holocaust deniers that the estimates are a hundred times or more too large. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There is one fundamental problem with that. The estimates are made by the authors who (i) consider "Communist mass killing" as a single separate category, and (ii) use the figure of "killed" to convey some specific idea (usually, that Communism was worse than Nazism). However, this view is not supported by majority of other authors, and the criticism is not like "You say Communism killed 100 million, but, according to my data, they killed just 20 million". In reality the criticism is focused on the very approach: the very idea to provide some cumulative figure is considered as flawed and politically motivated. Thus some critics of Courtois note that he implicitly assumes that some "generic Communism" existed, whereas that is not correct, and each mass mortality event in Communist states had its own roots, and they were mostly unconnected to each other, so it would be deeply incorrect to combine them into the singe category. Other authors argue that the very term "victims of Communism" is vague, and inclusion/exclusion of some deaths into that category depends mostly on political views of each concrete author. And most importantly, an overwhelming majority of country experts just ignore the above authors. Thus, majority of scholars studying Chinese famine (which was responsible for nearly a half of "Communist death toll") do not use the term "killing" at all. Instead, they write that the famine was a result on a combination of natural factors and strategic blunders of Communist leadership, and it was just the last major famine in a series of famines that were occurring in China regularly, and they apply the same language to Chinese famine as to the Bengal or Irish famine (which are not considered mass killing at all).
In other words, the estimates provided by you are made by the authors who consider "Communist death toll" a separate category, and who use it to draw some specific conclusions from that. Taking into account that all those authors but Courtois faced almost no criticism, we may conclude they either express mainstream view or a small minority view. If the first hypothesis is correct, they must be being widely cited by the authors writing about each separate "mass killing" event (such as Chinese famine, Volga famine, the Great Purge, ets). If the second hypothesis is correct, they are expected to be ignored by country experts. My analysis demonstrates that they are fully ignored by such authors as O'Grada (Chinese famine), Wheatcroft, Ellman (USSR), Kiernan (Cambodia), etc. Moreover, most cases when the Black Book is cited by country experts, that happens because Werth's or Margolin's chapters of USSR or PRC are sited. However, both these authors severely criticized Courtois for his introduction, and they even publicly threatened to withdraw their name from the book. Which is by no means an indication of mainsreamness of the Courolis' views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Excellent analysis. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
...and that is why the piece of text that you copy-pasted from the Mass killings under Communist regimes article is not more that ideologically charged minority POV that does not reflect the view of the scholarly community, and, therefore, it should be put into a proper context to bring it into accordance with our NPOV policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, as a minor point, Valentino explicitly cites Rummel for the 110 million "upperbound" figure (while Valentino's own figures are considerably lower than Rummel's). It would be misleading to construe that as Valentino "corroborating" Rummel. In addition, Wikipedia probably should not be citing the self-published blogger/author Matthew White, who has no qualifications, academic or otherwise, relevant to any of the countries that he is ostensibly researching.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Valentino's main contribution is a concept of "strategic mass killings", which is aimed to explain (and predict) the onset of mass killings. He is not, and he never claimed to be, an expert in figures. Like Rummel's "democide", Valentino's theorizing is not affected by moderate errors in figures. A bigger question is that some deaths that are considered as "excess deaths" by most scholars are claimed to result from "mass killings" by him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Incidentally, few days ago relative of mine mentioned somewhat weird number victims for Czechoslovakia (65000), which is order of magnitude higher than any number I saw in recent scholarship. Basic source for such number is the very author we discuss here. Sources he uses for Czechoslovakia estimate (I list them on the article talk page) are all older than 1989 (before primary documents were accessible to scholars) - so wild guess at best. Note research in this field of study was really fruitful after 1989, which is not reflected even in later revision of his book (1997). In short: other issues aside, work of this author is so out-dated, I can´t recommend its use in any way other than an attributed opinion (where due). Pavlor (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem is more serious: if some author provides outdated figures, usually, more recent data are available. However, no fresh data on a "global Communist democide death toll" are available, which implies the very concept is beyond the scope of scholarly community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This is difficult then, logically speaking we would want to explain this in the article, but if it is so far outside mainstream scholarship that nobody even bothers to write about it, we can't do so! Boynamedsue (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Tentative conclusion Version 1:

I propose that we summarize the above discussion as follows:

Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas:

  • Democide (intentional murder by a government)
  • Democratic peace theory (few or no wars between democracies)
  • Mortacide (murder by a government through negligence, incompetence or indifference)
  • Democratic famine theory (few or no famines in democracies, deliberate or not)

All of these theories are controversial, but not fringe.

  • Rummel is also a reliable source with attribution in the far less controversial statistics areas covered in his books Applied Factor Analysis and Understanding Correlation.

Rudolph Rummel was a political scientist with an interest in history, 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. Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories.

Agree? Disagree? Any suggested changes? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally yes, but something is a little bit ambiguous. What do you mean under "Democide" and "Mortacide"? The actual phenomenae or theories? I am asking because such phenomenon as the Holocaust really existed, whereas "democide" seems to cover both actual killings and the deaths that either never occurred (like the deaths of tens of million GULAG victims), or were not considered as "killing" by other authors?
I also am unaware of any "democratic famine theory".
The second question. If we come to some common conclusion, how will that affect the articles that use Rummel as a source? Maybe, we need to invite the users who are working on those articles to join this discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Re: "The actual phenomenae or theories?", theories. Feel free to suggest clearer wording.
Re: "I also am unaware of any democratic famine theory" please pick a label that you think describes the theory described in Rudolph Rummel#Famine, economic growth, and happiness. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable appraisal. I would be very uncomfortable with the use of his figures, but his other work seems to be fine with attribution. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I would generally support. His political theories are notable, but I don't think Rummel's death estimates should be cited either. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Rummel is considered a "first generation genocide scholar", and his democide concept is somewhat obsolete. Therefore, his democide theory should be discussed in a context of more recent studies, whereas his figures should not be used at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Tentative conclusion Version 2:

I propose that we summarize the above discussion as follows:

Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas:

  • Government intentionally murdering its own people (what Rummel called "Democide")
  • Government unintentionally murdering its own people through negligence, incompetence or indifference (what Rummel called "Mortacide")
  • Few or no wars between democracies (what Rummel called "Democratic peace theory")
  • Few or no famines in democracies, deliberate or not (in Rummel's words "no democratically free people have ever had a famine. None.")

All of these theories are controversial, but not fringe.

  • Rummel is also a reliable source with attribution in the far less controversial statistics areas covered in his books Applied Factor Analysis and Understanding Correlation.

Rudolph Rummel was a political scientist with an interest in history, 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. Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories.

Note: there was an objection to the label I previously picked for "few or no famines in democracies" but nobody suggested an alternative. The phrasing "In Rummel's words..." is clunky compared to "What Rummel called...". Please speak up if you have better wording. This part of Rummel's theories is at [ https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.3.19.05.HTM ] with the title "Democracy? Prosperous, and Never a Famine".

Agree? Disagree? Any suggested changes? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"Reliable with attribution" means it is reliable for his own opinion, right? If yes, he falls into the WP:NEWSBLOG category when he writes not about factor analysis. With regard to his works on factor analysis, I see no reason to consider them less reliable that other scientific works. His works on factor analysis are widely cited, and, even according to our strictest criteria, they should be considered top quality reliable sources.
In addition, I am not sure if mortacide is a legitimate term at all. Rummel determined intentionality in a very unusual way, so even the death that are usually considered an unintentional result of the authorities activity are considered as intentional by him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with the summary by Guy Macon. But thinking logically, if his works in these areas are RS, then his estimates of deaths (the numbers) can and should be cited on any pages, probably with explicit attribution to Rummel. This is good. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I apologize for being late to this discussion. I do not follow this page closely but I was recently linked to this thread by Paul Siebert in a discussion at Mass killings under communist regimes, where I am an active editor. I would say that Rummel and his figures are not the majority view on that topic and fall in the "significant minority" bucket for weight purposes generally (the three buckets being majority, significant minority, and fringe). As such, like all significant minority sources, he is appropriate to be cited with in-text attribution along with other significant minority (and majority) views, rather than being being used to assert facts in Wikipedia's voice. In other words, citing his numbers in stand-alone list articles with tables of numbers that have no room for in-text attribution are probably not appropriate, because that is essentially an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice (unless the assertion of fact is specifically about Rummel himself or Rummel's work itself). Citing his numbers in embedded lists in an article, as is done at Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates may be appropriate, given how it is worded and the context he is being cited for. I think that is very close to Guy Macon's summary, although I am very uncomfortable with blanket determinations being made on sources on this noticeboard, since context on their exact use in an article is crucial information. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Ultimately there's no evidence that Rummel has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy in terms of his statistics (and some to the contrary). He was not a demographer or historian trying to create the most accurate estimates possible of the death toll for different events. Therefore, since such careful estimates do exist for most or all of the events he evaluated, these sources should be cited instead. (t · c) buidhe 07:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
You are saying that Rudolph Rummel, a "political scientist and professor at the Indiana University, Yale University, and University of Hawaiʻi", who has published multiple books on the subject of mass killing/democide through a reputable publishing house (Transaction Publishers), whose figures have been cited by other respected academics as worthy of consideration, with at least one explicitly saying that his figures are within the bounds of what is plausible (Benjamin Valentino, on communist mass killing here), has no evidence of a "reputation for fact-checking or accuracy"? I think you're wrong. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
As said above, Rummel wasn't in the business of making the most precise or accurate estimates of these sorts of figures; his contributions were in theorizing. This is explained very well at the top of this section, which you've chosen to ignore. You're misrepresenting Valentino (who, similar to Rummel, is not a historian or demographer, but at least uses more up-to-date figures). He is hardly cited at all in scholarship for his death estimates. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING.
Also pinging participants of the discussion below: Bob not snob, Boynamedsue, NightHeron, Slatersteven. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not misrepresenting Valentino. One response to you in this thread is WP:BLUDGEONING to you? Is pinging sympathetic editors not WP:CANVASSING? AmateurEditor (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Pinging all participants to a related discussion is not canvassing. Most of your bludgeoning is below for all to see. (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
What "discussion below"?Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion presents a strong case that Rummel uses historical estimates to support his agenda, without adequate regard for their accuracy. NightHeron (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I think Guy Macon's summary is fair and accurate. Also we are at the point that there are newer secondary sources analyzing and incorporating Rummel's earlier work, and they are probably more to date in terms of accuracy. Estimates have progressed since the 80s and 90s.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The Irrawaddy

Hello all, I'm very tired and this is my last discussion. Firstly, user:CommanderWaterford, a vindictive user, have added negative tags on every articles that I created. It appears to be negative tag-bombing to me, for the article to be tagged with {{UnreliableSources}} when there is used The Irrawaddy as source and no information questioned at all. [7], [8] and [9] and many more today. He is always looking for problems on my articles. Do justice to me? Hay guy, what is your problem? Why do you always bite me? Would you be happy if I left from Wikipedia ? I know you hate me because of my user page. This is my retirement.

Secondly, He says that The Irrawaddy is not reliable ! The Irrawaddy is second biggest media of our country after The Myanmar Times. Yes! Long long ago, "the media was produced by former Burmese activists who fled violent crackdowns on anti-military protests in 1988, it has always been closely associated with the pro-democracy movement". (the founder activists were retired from this media company nowadays and some have dided). But now, The Irrawaddy stands as independent media and a leading source of reliable news. The Irrawaddy may be not reliable on dictatorship news report and fairly neutral point-of-view reports on the military's moves. However, The Irrawaddy's is strong-pretty reliable on other news reports and categorys. Burmese editors will not accept this at all. Therefore, I would like to invite our respected and oldest Burmese editor @Hintha: to participate in this discussion. Pls see above my discussion wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Voice of America (VOA) and Talk:2021 Myanmar coup d'état#Some good, current major-media sources for further information. So sorry, my English is not good and I cant explain very well but as much as i could. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Taung Tan: Most other editors have agreed with you, whether it be on your sourcing choices or whether your articles are notable. It would be a shame for you to retire due to the actions of a single user. That said I think that The Irrawaddy is a usable source, as it is not subject to oversight by the Myanmar govt and is a well established and respected publication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for being on my side. I did my best to help Wikipedia as a Burmese speaking editor even though my country is now in the darkness of military rule. I hope I didn't do nothing wrong on Wikipedia. I've fullknowledge on Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I can no longer editing on Wikipedia anymore because I'm very tired. Taung Tan (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Well Taung Tan, don't know if you do yourself a favour here - no, I am definitely not happy if you leave Wikipedia and I (next to several other editors) tried to give you hints and advices how to improve your edits. You seem to revert almost every (!) edit of others editors which seem not be going into exactly your personal opinion, yesterday you reversed twice mergers from very experienced editors with comments barely acceptable. You are threatening editors if they are reverting with statements like "I know exactly what I am doing, take me to AfD, don't bother my time" etc. etc. What you need to see is that an article you created is not "your" article since this is a collaborative platform and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to be strictly neutral. Your article creations happened due to the very unhappy events in Myanmar and I personally do not favor at all this military coup BUT since this is an encyclopaedia we want to have accurate, reliable information - and I for myself added several of your statements with by far better sources (e.g. Forbia Asia directly today, you noticed that) or corrected them (source reported 170,000 protesters, you wrote at least 200,000 etc. etc.). Irradaway is a source at least doubtable IMO, it is driven by Burmese people living in the exile. That Burmese editors - currently under a military government - do have a different view on the reliability on this source is obvious. I personally do not have feelings if all others are of the opinion that it is reliable - no problem at all but what I do not want is Wikipedia being in the news with articles going (perhaps) into WP:Activism, that's all. At least: Content Disputes - and IMO those are content disputes - are not topics for the ANI usually, several other editors told you so a couple of days ago, too. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I did not write this "(source reported 170,000 protesters, you wrote at least 200,000 etc. etc.)" you said above. Check edit history. I already noted that the articles I created are not my own. The Irrawaddy is definitely a reliable resource for a different category. Dear experienced editors pls kindly comment on this source. Taung Tan (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This Financial Times article from 2018, entitled "Hate speech, atrocities and fake news: the crisis of democracy in Myanmar" is the only discussion of the publication I can find in English-language sources. While in the introduction of the article it describes the publication as a "pillar of journalistic probity". It notes that after 2015 the publication gained a reputation for supporting the National League for Democracy and suppressed negative stories about them. It also demonstrates that their coverage of Rohingya issues is also questionable. I think that their coverage is reliable if what they are covering cannot be considered to have a conflict of interest with the NLD such as Rohingya related issues, like similar to how we treat Xinhua (RSP entry). Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
We currently have 686 citations to the publication per Irrawaddy.com HTTPS links HTTP links. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • a) "The Irrawaddy (Burmese: ဧရာဝတီ; MLCTS: ei: ra wa. ti) is a news website by the Irrawaddy Publishing Group (IPG), founded in 1990[1] by Burmese exiles living in Thailand."
  • b) Comments like "Dear experienced editors pls kindly comment on this source" are not useful at all.
  • c) Suggestion to close this dispute for now and future edits: Perhaps it would make sense to put recently created articles related to the Myanmar Coup to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - so other, more experienced editors with WP:NPOV have an eye on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderWaterford (talk • contribs)
Taung Tan's first language is clearly not english and you should cut them some slack. Your judgement of any sources related to Myanmar doesn't appear to be based on any informed analysis but instead on hazy suppositions. Perhaps you should leave topics that you are not familiar with to more experienced editors? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hum? Why not useful CommanderWaterford? Most of my creations are not related to the Myanmar Coup, see my edit history! Btw The Irrawaddy media is now running by many reporters and staffs, the office located in Building 170/175, Room 806 and 312, MGW Tower, Boaungkyaw Street Middle Block, Yangon, Myanmar [10], not in Thailand. Taung Tan (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, so you are telling me the fact that 686 citations are mentioned makes this source a neutral, reliable source in articles about Myanmar protests - seriously? I have not seen an independent analysis so far. Anyway, as I said - perhaps better other editors or better sysops - will have an eye on this, we should take this to the NPOV Noticeboard. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't compare the bias of The Irrawaddy to that of the Chinese state-run Xinhua. To give an example of an English media equivalent, it's like American conservatives being upset about CNN and MSNBC for their favourable coverage of liberal politicians. Yes there is a biased slant, all media is biased to some extent including Wikipedia, but I don't think The Irrawaddy twists narratives to the point where they don't sound similar to news reports by other news companies. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Myanmar, Talk:2021 Myanmar coup d'état, Talk:2021 Myanmar protests, Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi. — Newslinger talk 06:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Our Myanmar Wiki project is not active now, User:Hintha is only one active user on our project at this times. Btw, so poor hater negative tagged on this even that the Irrawaddy is reliable on other topic not political news. Sure I’ll left from Wiki when this discussion was closed. “My opinion on my self is “A little dog need a bone” So..... Taung Tan (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the Irrawady is considered credible by a large number of high-quality news outlets internationally: The New York Times [11][12] ("independant") [13], The Associated Press [14][15], Reuters [16], Nikkei Asia [17], Le Monde [18][19] ("the voice of the exiled dissenters during the dictatorship"), Le Figaro [20], Courrier International [21], which also translated one of its articles in French [22]: Courrier International has a stellar reputation in the selection of foreign sources, DPA [23][24], Neue Zürcher Zeitung [25]--JBchrch (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch, out of sheer curiosity: why do you think that they consider them credible just because they once quoted them? Journalists nowadays do not have to cite only from reliable sources, that's one of the differences by the way between an encyclopaedia (strictly has to be neutral) and media. The NYT and the FAZ do quote from non-reliable sources as well if they have to (just because they need some quote at all).
Looks btw that unfortunately they have cut off once again the Internet Access at Myanmar. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
PS: Interesting Interview I found today with the chief editor of Irradaway a couple of days ago where he is mentioning deep concerns against the military Government, so IMO hard to believe that they really can and will report in a neutral way of manner: https://cpj.org/2021/02/irrawaddy-editor-aung-zaw-speaks-to-fears-of-a-post-coup-media-crackdown-in-myanmar/ CommanderWaterford (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
CommanderWaterford, if I had found only one quote, then no I would not consider that. But since there are multiple citations backing up factual assertions in highly-reliable sources, it's strong evidence to me that The Irrawady is generally reliable. I am not aware that the NYT cites non-reliable sources to back up their reporting. Regarding the interview, WP:BIASED does not require sources to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.--JBchrch (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, I guess you are referring to "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" - I agree that we could take this source into an article if there are no others but this does not imply that it is reliable and this needs to be flagged for the reader, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
CommanderWaterford, the NYT, the WSJ and the WaPo are all biased, though, and they are all great sources which do not require attribution (echoing CentreLeftRight). I think if you have doubts about the reliability of The Irrawady, you should provide evidence of such non-reliability, because a slight anti-authoritarian bias is not sufficient—at least in my opinion—to treat it like you suggest.--JBchrch (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

User edit warring to add back sources older than 100 years.

Jonathan A Jones seems to be edit warring in University to add sources from 1911 and 1898 [26]. Especially the 1911 Britannica source should be removed, as it was superseded by newer version of Britannica entry which doesn't repeat the same claim [27]. Can someone weigh in on the usage of extremely dated sources? Should they be directly removed and replaced with citation needed tags? Bogazicili (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The following academic source may be a better replacement:

The university was born in the Middle Ages. Even if medieval universities were very different from modern ones, they contributed decisively to our conception of what a university should be (lsray 1933, Radshall et al. 1936).

The Medieval Legacy

Universities appeared in Roman Catholic Europe in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century. Schools had developed in many cities for the training of priests. They were dependent on bishops' authority and control. Because of the division between civil and religious powers which was then normal, they escaped the direct control of the King. When conflicts with bishops occurred, the students and teachers of some schools transformed themselves into self-organised and self-governing communities. In Paris, this community took in 1215 the name of Universitas magistrorum et scholarium parisiensium–hence the name of university, which meant community. It developed under the protection of the pope, a distant authority, who only controlled the kind of theology which was taught.

Claval, Paul (1998). "Politics and the University". The Urban University and its Identity: Roots, Locations, Roles. GeoJournal Library. Vol. 45. Springer Netherlands. pp. 30–31. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5184-9_3. Retrieved 13 February 2021 – via Google Books.

— Newslinger talk 17:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm sure there are better sources for the claim that the word comes from Latin as well. My question was also about usage of extremely dated sources. Is there a general consensus on this? Should they be removed? Bogazicili (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The relevant section of the guideline is Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Age matters (WP:RS AGE). For academic sources, if claims in older sources are superseded by claims in newer sources, then the newer sources should take precedence. But if newer sources simply omit the claim, I'm not sure. — Newslinger talk 17:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
In the case of a topic as commonly written about as "university", if a piece of information is not found in any modern source, but only in a century-old source, then in addition to calling into question whether the info can be considered reliably sourced, it calls into question whether the info is WP:DUE, doesn't it? (Btw, for a more obscure topic that's sourced mostly to sources from 1870 and 1909, take a gender at Chizerots.) -sche (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It does. Spudlace (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing inherently wrong with old sources, in fact they are often best because they have the most in-depth coverage on a topic of interest a while back but little interest since then. The etymology of a word is more than fine to cite EB1911 because it is a free public domain source we can link and not worry about copyvio, reliable (EB1911 has a high reputation), and not contradicted by OED or Websters. -- GreenC 20:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not clear to me whether Bogazicili is seeking to report me for edit warring (in which case this is the wrong place) or to ask a general question about policy, or to ask a specific question about two references. With regard to the first point I invite any editor to look at the sequence of edits rather than the selected reports given above: suffice it to say that I simply restored a pair of very longstanding references which Bogazicili removed and then removed again after I restored them (per WP:BRD). With regard to the seocnd point, WP:RS AGE does indeed caution against using old references when these have been superseded by modern scholarship, but that is hardly the case here: the points supported by the references are utterly uncontroversial in the field. I accept that it is nevertheless preferable to use more modern references to avoid raising false concerns that WP:RS AGE might apply, which is why after restoring the references I added "better source" tags. Genuinely interested editors might wish to review the discussions at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation to get a clearer idea of what this discussion is actually about. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't there already a discussion in the article's Talk page? It's difficult to believe that a controversy requires the input of the broader community if it hasn't even been addressed on the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Using 100+ years sources seems to violate Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Age_matters to me. This is a discussion about that, whether those sources should be removed and replaced with citation needed tags, or if it's a case by case issue. This is a Wikipedia-wide issue. Bogazicili (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Using 100+ year old sources per se does not violate Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Age_matters. The policy says that they should be used carefully and the editors must check if there is newer contradicting information. In many cases there is none and therefore such sources are fine. Specifically here it's hard for me to imagine that the scientific consensus on the etymology of the word university has changed in the last 100 years. If it indeed happened surely it would be easy to provide a more modern source - and in that case it would take precedence. Alaexis¿question? 18:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
That's why it should be easy to find a more recent source for something as basic as etymology. At best, using 1910 and 1898 sources seem low-quality to me. But there doesn't seem to be a consensus here that they should be removed, so I guess Jonathan A Jones's method of putting better sources tag is preferable. Bogazicili (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of Radio Free Asia

DUPLICATE
Please participate in the active request for comment at § RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA). — Newslinger talk 10:07, 16 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.

User:CommanderWaterford appears to have a history of tagging articles without meaningfully engaging in discussion around the reliability of specific sources and Wikipedia's policies. The most recent case of tagging was on the Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing article, where they simply left an edit summary comment stating: "Radio Free Asia+The Irradaway+Progressive Voice are not reliable sources." I wanted to seek community guidance on whether Radio Free Asia, which is similar to the Voice of America from a funding perspective, can be used as a reliable source. I will also note that in Myanmar's historically restrictive press environment, RFA has been one of the few uncensored Burmese language news sources. This has been especially true during the ongoing media blackout in Myanmar, related to the recent coup.

There are ongoing discussions re: Voice of America and The Irrawaddy (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Voice of America (VOA)) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Irrawaddy) also related to said user's edits. Thanks. -Hintha(t) 08:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hintha, Please refrain in future from insinuations a la "without meaningfully engaging". You are constantly publishing articles with the help of using at least of dubious sources in the shadow of the recent Myanmar Coup. I had to correct several statements done by you, last time e.g. today saying that UN Counselor of Burma condemned the shooting as a crime on Twitter which he clearly not did etc. etc. We can fairly discuss the reliability of those sources but I like to remind you on one of the 5 pillars of WK which is WP:NPOV. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes same problem here Sir Hintha. I do not really understand What does he want to be?. CommanderWaterford...Are you deliberately harassing us? Your actions are not normal. Taung Tan (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I also would like to mention a natural editor Doncram who helped me in problem. Pls See also Talk:Khin Thiri Thet Mon#sources, ([28]- [29]), ([30]-[31]), [32], Talk:Nang Lang Kham#Edit War and many more... Shame on you CommanderWaterford. Taung Tan (talk) 09:08, 16 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.

Encyclopaedia.com

Is this an RS [[33]] for the claim the nazis were not facists?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The source is RS, but what's the quote from it you are basing the claim on? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not, its being used by another user to prove their point we can't call the Nazi's fascist because modern scholarship says they were not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
What talkpage? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
NAzi Germany, but its split between three threads, here is the one in question [[34]], its all over the place and is getting a bit hard to follow.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems it is a collection of works published elsewhere. Thus, a quick googling of the phrase "Fascist and Nazi movements appeared throughout Europe during the period between World Wars I and II" gives this (which is a reliable source). This source speaks about Nazism and Fascism as somewhat different categories, but I didn't find a clear claim that Nazis were not Fascists. I would say it is an original research to say that.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Is encyclopedia.com a source at all? I thought they were an encyclopedia collator. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but I think it is supported by the publishers of the original encyclopaedias, so it would be exactly the same level of RS as the volume it cites? In this case it is almost certainly kosher. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it? I don’t see the claim that the Nazis were not fascists in there. I also don’t think the Encyclopedia of European Social History is a WP:RS. What makes you think they are? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, it doesn't support the claim that the nazis weren't fascists, but it does look to be RS. Published by Charles Scribner's Sons, academic contributors. Like I say, looks kosher. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah good, that was getting tedious. Also lets have a little sensitivity re Nazis and kosher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Splinter News (Splinternews.com) & G/O Media

  1. https://splinternews.com/proud-boys-failed-to-redact-their-new-dumb-bylaws-and-a-1830700905
  2. https://splinternews.com/the-proud-boys-hilarious-slow-motion-disintegration-con-1830739264

These two sources as used in the article Proud Boys. From what I gather, I see Splinter News is the successor to Gawker and they appear to have some connection. Gawker which is listed as unreliable in WP:RSP. The wiki article on Splinter News suggests its a liberal bias opinion and news site. Is it any different in reliability and neutrality from Gawker as far as Wiki source usage is concerned? Graywalls (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

G/O Media owns a number of web properties with different reliability classifications, including The A.V. Club (RSP entry) – generally reliable, Jezebel (RSP entry) – marginally reliable, and The Onion (RSP entry) – generally unreliable. I wouldn't automatically link Splinter News to Gawker (RSP entry) unless there is a clear connection, e.g. if it inherited prominent members of Gawker's staff. — Newslinger talk 07:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The last articles by the authors of those two articles were "A Guide to Today's Juiciest Feud Featuring Two British Footballers' Wives and a Fake News Sting" ("image removed due to legal reasons") and "The Queasy Power of Shamelessness" respectively. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Telewizja Polska

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

Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model.

Telewizja Polska (called TVP for short), is the flagship state broadcaster. But since 2015 it can now be likened to RT or KCT, in particular TVP Info, but also the long established news programs Panorama, Teleexpress and Wiadomości have basically become nothing more than outright propaganda outlets.

Now this did not happen overnight, and it would be fair to point out a few things first:

  • No directly state-run outlet is ever fully independent of its government
  • This has steadily increased since 2015, to its current somewhat obvious levels, it did not happen overnight.
  • TVP has never really been free from politicisation; during Civic Platform's rule the network was also accused of being biased; however the levels of politicisation and the levels of bias are not comparable to what we have now in the slightest.

I would point out that Sport for now seems to be unaffected, therefore I would exclude TVP Sport from the list. Same may go for things like Polish soap opera channel TVP Seriale, and children's cartoon channel TVP ABC. However, TVP Historia and TVP Edukacja is still very much selective in its content in line with the others, people have started to be fired from TVP Kultura for not being pro-government as well. TVP1, TVP2 and TVP3 seem to be just as affected as the infamous TVP Info. TVP Info also has a large online presence.

I am not going to list all the sources, because actually a lot of the pages have criticisms sections and plenty of sources within them, so I do not see much point in copying and pasting those. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

*Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. The United Right's control over this organ after legislative changes has been compared, unfavourably, with communist era TV. At least back in the communist days everyone knew the news was lies. The sports coverage, weather, or anything else that doesn't touch politics or socials issues is still OK. This November 2020 item is relevant.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

Polskie Radio

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

Polskie Radio (PR for short) is the flagship state-run radio network in Poland.

It runs the following:

  • Polskie Radio Program I (Jedynka – One) – information and adult contemporary music
  • Polskie Radio Program II (Dwójka – Two) – classical music and cultural
  • Polskie Radio Program III (Trójka – Three) – rock, alternative, jazz, and eclectic
  • Polskie Radio Program IV (Czwórka – Four) – youth oriented
  • Polskie Radio 24 (PR24) – news (without music)
  • Polskie Radio Chopin – Polish classical music
  • Polskie Radio Dzieciom – children programming (daytime), parents magazines (evenings) and Jazz music (nights)
  • Polskie Radio Kierowców – music and information for drivers'
  • Polskie Radio Rytm – pop music – internet only
  • Radio Poland – external broadcasts in Belarusian, English, German, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian

Now after the governement intereference and censorship scandal of Trójka, where the journalists and presenters who worked there for several decades were forced out of their jobs, creating competing Radio 357 and Radio Nowy Świat stations in protest, and Polskie Radio 24 working hand in hand with the controversial TVP Info, I would question the reliability of the network.

Now this did not happen overnight, and it would be fair to point out a few things first:

  • No directly state-run outlet is ever fully independent of its government
  • This has steadily increased since 2015, to its current somewhat obvious levels, it did not happen overnight.
  • PR has never really been free from politicisation; during Civic Platform's rule the network was also accused of being biased; however the levels of politicisation and the levels of bias are not comparable to what we have now in the slightest.

Now it could well be that classical music, sport, drivers info are all unaffected and there is no reason not to see the network as reliable on those matters; the main concern is political news. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

*Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. The United Right's control over this organ following the legislation and 2016 purge is problematic. They are even questionable for music, as they manipulated the music charts poll after a protest song topped them.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))


Polska Press

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

Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model. The ramping up of the rhetoric has been emphasised in late 2020, with the takeover of Polska Press (a collection of many inter-linked regional newspapers and websites) by state-run Orlen.

The following news agencies are affected:

  • Polska Press Information Agency (Agencja Informacyjna Polska Press)

The following daily regional newspapers are affected:

The following TV magazines are affected:

  • Tele Magazyn
  • Super Tele
  • TV Pilot
  • Tele Program

The following advertising newspapers are affected:

  • Moto Express
  • Autogiełda Wielkopolska
  • Jarmark
    • Motojarmark

The following free newspapers are affected:

The following internet portals are affected:

  • Motofakty.pl (motoring)
  • naszemiasto.pl
  • strefabiznesu.pl (business)
  • stronakobiet.pl (women's)
  • strefaagro.pl (agriculture)
  • telemagazyn.pl (TV)
  • gol24.pl (sports)
  • sportowy24.pl (sports)

I would point out that this would only refer to those from 2021 onwards. The sports, TV, small ads and motoring are likely to be much unaffected, the issue is that it becomes incresingly similar to TVP Info in the way they report political news. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No to this. Sorry but even your wording/rhetoric ("Poland's rulers" - you mean its democratically elected government? Or was there an insurrection on the capitol or something?) suggests that you're here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Being state owned doesn't render you non-reliable. Otherwise we'd have to toss the BBC (or does this "state owned" criteria only apply to the Polish government).
Some of these may very well be unreliable. But we need to go here on case by case basis and things like what exactly these sources are being used for matters. That's kind of a key consideration of WP:RS - reliable for what?
Incidentally, this reminds me a bit of the discussions we've had about Russian state owned RT (TV network). I *very strongly* argued that it was not reliable and should pretty much never be used. BUT. That argument was based on the nature of the source itself, not ownership (indeed, some commentators tried to defend RT by pointing out that other state owned media was considered reliable). Same thing here. You want to declare these unreliable? You got to do the work. Show why. Not just "cuz state owned and I don't like the current government". Volunteer Marek 01:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, The BBC is not state-owned and neither is it government-controlled. Polish media are quite different. GPinkerton (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Neither is "Polska Press" which is actually owned by Verlagsgruppe Passau GmbH, a German media company. Or at least it was until recently when apparently it was bought out by PKN Orlen which is ALSO a private company. That's the whole issue here - these are NOT media owned or controlled by the Polish government. Some of them may (I honestly have no idea since some of them are pretty obscure) have a "pro-government" editorial line or something but describing these as "state media" or anything close is simply incorrect. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

*Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. This company has been "re-Polishized" by the government: "Adam Bodnar, the national ombudsman for citizens' rights, told Wirtualna Polska that this was "a historic moment and, unfortunately, it shows that the authorities decided to take steps similar to those we could previously observe in Hungary under Viktor Orban." He said the transaction demonstrated what direction the ruling party was going in. "After full control of state media," he said, "now it's time for the private media."[37] --Bob not snob (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

This is ridiculous. You have a PRIVATE oil company. The Polish government happens to own some shares in this oil company. Simultaneously this oil company happens to own some media companies. And this is suppose to mean that the Polish government "owns" these media outlets? It doesn't.
Anyway, actually all of this is beside the point. If you think these sources are unreliable then you must make a case on the basis of policy - WP:RS. The phrases "government owned" or "state owned" (and these aren't even that!) don't actually appear anywhere in WP:RS policy. It doesn't matter. You have to show that these outlets fail the criteria that actually ARE laid out in RS. This is simply a misguided proposal for several reasons. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Are opinion pieces, blogs reliable sources for factual information?

Some editors are claiming so at Talk:Welsh fiscal deficit. They also try to cite sources that don't mention Wales or deficits. (t · c) buidhe 10:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  • At a glance it looks very like a political argument rather than a sourcing argument - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The factual accuracy of opinion pieces can vary... and a lot depends on the specific author giving the opinion. That said, information taken from opinion pieces should always be presented with in-text attribution, and not as unattributed fact in WPs voice. It is never wrong to tell the reader who says what. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

Is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation website a reliable source for the article Mass killings under communist regimes?

There is a dispute over whether the article should quote an estimated range of Communist mass killings published in an article by "DISSIDENT" on the website.[39]

The Foundation is a partisan organization headed by Edwin Feulner, the founder and former president of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The previous chairman was Lee Edwards, the founder of the American branch of the World Anti-Communist League.

Their Mission Statement says, "Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance. New generations need to confront the reality of Marxism in practice. Socialism is not a kind, humane philosophy. Marxist socialism is the deadliest ideology in history."

I realize that some editors might say that whether or not it is a reliable source, it is reliable for its own views. But if it is not reliable then its estimates, which are substantially higher than reliable sources, would lack weight for inclusion.

TFD (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: there was a previous discussion on this noticeboard about the Global Museum on Communism, which was run by the same people but is now offline. TFD (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, why do you say it does not have a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy? And per WP:NPOVHOW, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems." AmateurEditor (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, this organization's purpose is to present a negative view of Communism/Marxism/socialism (note the lack of distinction between them) regardless of whether it misleads the reader. (FYI I detect at least one inaccuracy in the above: "Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States" Opinion polls don't agree[40])
I believe the burden of proof is on those who are trying to show that it meets RS standard. Is it cited in peer reviewed scholarship for its information on Communist death toll or other information on Communist societies? AFAIK it is only cited as a source on anti-Communist viewpoint which does not show it is a reliable source for factual information. (t · c) buidhe 06:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The RS standard is not just peer-reviewed sources. It is clearly a reliable source for its own views. The "misinforms or misleads readers" bit is not about expressing the views of a biased organization, because biased sources are clearly allowed. The question is essentially whether the organization is lying. I don't think you think they are doing that. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
For it to be cited in an article for statistics it has to have a reputation for accuracy in compiling such statistics, otherwise it does not meet WP:RS standard. (t · c) buidhe 07:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe I don't think you understand - AmateurEditor is not claiming they are a reliable source for statistics, they are claiming that they are a reliable source for what their own claims are. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
buidhe, the citation is for their own view, it's not even arguable whether they are a reliable source for that. This isn't about "statistics" at all. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The issue is whether the source (specifically this page from the organization's website), is a reliable source for this sentence in the wikipedia article: "In 2016, the Dissident blog of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation made an effort to compile updated ranges of estimates and concluded that the overall range "spans from 42,870,000 to 161,990,000" killed, with 100 million the most commonly cited figure.[ab]" It clearly is a reliable source for that statement. Whether there is an undue weight issue is a separate matter. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not, because you haven't show that they (or this one blog) has any reputation for fact-checking or accuracy whatsoever when it comes to compiling statistics on alleged Communist killings. That's a basic WP:RS requirement and it can't be handwaived by claiming that it's just an opinion. (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an organization established by an act of the US Congress and a member of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience, which is acknowledgement of expertise. And here is an example of the organization being cited in a book published by Cornell University Press. The "blog" is just a page on their official website. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone who disagrees with you. I looked through 10 pages of Google Scholar results so that you don't have to [41] I see no evidence that the foundation is cited in academic research for actual facts about Communist governments. It is cited for one of two things: affiliation of a mentioned individual, and anti-Communist POV (more rarely, and usually unfavorably[42]). FYI I checked the Cornell book you cite and VOCMF is indeed mentioned... only once, as the source of the cover art. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Elliot321, you are right that this really an issue of weight and not reliability at all. But the source is clearly reliable for the sentence it is being cited for: that the organization posted the estimate. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
AmateurEditor of course they're reliable as a source for their own claims - but that's all they are - claims, not indicative of reality in any way. This isn't the right place for determining due weight so I don't see the point of bringing this up here? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why TFD decided to bring it up here. Even he says the issue is really about weight. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I explained that above: "...if it is not reliable then its estimates, which are substantially higher than reliable sources, would lack weight for inclusion." TFD (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Not "it's" estimates, they provided a range of estimates found in a survey of other sources, so of course the high end will be high. The low end is also low. The whole point was to report the range from low to high. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

TFD, it says at the top of this page to please include in posts here links to past discussion of the source on this board. You said in your post here that there was one, but you did not mention it above. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That means it is a tertiary source of unknown quality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Boynamedsue, per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources: "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." AmateurEditor (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that in a collection of opinions it would be valid (i.e, "The conservative anti-Communist Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation believes Communism inevitably leads to mass killing") but not for statistical data or opinions on statistical data ("The victims of Communism foundation believes 10,000 Cubans were murdered by Che Guevara"). They are simply not competent to be giving factual opinions, so why would they be used? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
It isn't generating these numbers, it just compiled them from other sources, which it cited. AmateurEditor (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
If they aren't RS, their compilation/selection of other people's data is not RS either. It's also useless, as if we wish to quote a primary source (which in effect VCMF are, if we consider them to be valid only for their own opinion) we can simply quote the primary data sources which they themselves cite, and which are probably generally more reliable.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a blanket reliable source/unreliable source outside of the context of its use. Every source is reliable as a source for it's own views. The problem with citing the individual sources that they cite, instead of their consolidation of those courses into ranges of estimates, is that it would be direct synthesis on our part. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
That's an argument against using their data, rather than using it. The likelihood is that any source quoted by VCMF will be more reliable than them, and that source should be judged on its own merits. The VCMF are just no good for statistical data or factual information, they might be useful for pure opinion, where relevant, their own entry for example.--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is no good for factual information? How so? But yes, they are only being cited for their own view with in-text attribution. I added the sources they are citing in the article reference excerpt. The reader can judge that for themselves. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
But do we think the Memorial's own opinion deserves mentioning in this article? I found only one historian (a conservative historian) on its web site. Why did you decided the opinion of those people deserves reader's attention?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Biased sources are allowed, per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources. AmateurEditor (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, a source's bias is not a legitimate cause of unreliability, especially for the statement in question. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree this is self-published, given that it is the organization's own website, but this topic is squarely within the scope of the organization's focus. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Our policies say, Acknowledged experts, not focused on the topic. They can be wholly focused and still not be reliable (as most fan sites would be).Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is not like a random member of the general public creating a subject matter fan site. It is an organization established by an act of the US Congress and a member of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience, which is acknowledgement of expertise. And here is an example of the organization being cited in a book published by Cornell University Press. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Stop bludgeoning the discussion. Slatersteven, FYI the Cornell University Press book only cites the foundation as the source of the cover art. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not Reliable VOCM is a histerically biased anti-communism advocacy group, totally undue for any discussion on the number of victims of communist regimes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per others. Self-published amateur hour. Zaathras (talk)
  • Unreliable As the editor posting this discussion, I found it lacked any dedication to, or mechanism for, ensuring accuracy. TFD (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. This particular link (I am not talking about the Foundation in general) is not an RS. However, it provides references about numbers in specific countries to other sources, most of which are RS. So one can take numbers from these other sources, verify these numbers, and arrive to the same total number after summation. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
However, as the link is not RS, to do this would be OR based on primary sources. I agree that the higher numbers could arguably be included based on the original sources, assuming they met RS and WP:WEIGHT and were not WP:FRINGE. Including the range quoted by VCMF based on checking their sources would violate WP:OR.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
No, simple arithmetic like A+B=C would not violate WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable as others have pointed out. They are notoriously awful anti-communist group, seemingly branching off from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and have no basis in fact, as others have pointed out. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • On general principles, going to an advocacy group for a summary of other people's estimates seems a little misguided. If a historical question is important enough for us to be writing about it, there will be peer-reviewed academic literature collecting and meta-analyzing. A statement by an advocacy group about a question like this would probably be WP:UNDUE unless we had good indications to the contrary. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable such a big statement really needs a high quality source, preferably academic, not a blog hosted by a think tank. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable better to consult individuals sources for any particular event. Also, the slant of the organization needs to be taken into account. Dhawk790 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Not just biased, but biased in a manner that leads it to contradict reality, as described by Jon Wiener in his 2012 How we forgot the Cold War:

"During the decade when the fundraising was languishing, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation produced a number of 'papers and studies.' A notable one was published in 2002, nine months after 9/11, titled 'International Terrorism: The Communist Connection Revisited: Archives show Islamist terrorism linkages to Soviet Cold War intelligence.' The author, J. Michael Waller, reported that Reagan’s CIA director, William J. Casey, had found that 'there is virtually no terrorist operation or guerrilla movement anywhere in the world today . . . with which communists of one sort or another have not been involved.' It’s hard to imagine a more hare-brained understanding of Osama Bin Laden, whose anticommunist credentials were, to say the least, impeccable. And yet the foundation still carries that paper on its website."

Note: this book is non-academic, but probably still useful for this description. Jlevi (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  • A tertiary source of unknown quality and questionable stability. I checked the source, and it is available only from a web archive, whereas the source page does not exist anymore. That is not serious. The source provides no inline citations, which does not allow checking its accuracy. What is worse, the sources shown in the literature list are either op-ed newspapers materials, which are marginally reliable in that context per our guidelines, or they are the books (Rummel, Courtois etc) that have already been cited in the article. That double referencing created a biased content. Finally, by our criteria it is a tertiary source, whereas our policy recommends us to use mostly secondary sources. It should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not unreliable Adrian Zenz is a fellow of theirs, and is often cited as an authority in RS coverage of the Xinjiang re-education camps (for instance:
  • NY Times: [43]: "The data in it shows how China has tried to establish dominance over Uighurs and other minority groups in the name of increasing security, said Adrian Zenz, a researcher who has analyzed the spreadsheet."
  • Washington Post: [44]: "“Imagine parts of a global blockbuster being filmed in the vicinity of minority villages, when [government] work teams are going door to door, asking questions, followed by mass internment by police,” Adrian Zenz, a leading researcher on Xinjiang policy, wrote on Twitter."
  • BBC: [45] "One of the world's leading experts on China's policies in Xinjiang, Dr Adrian Zenz, a senior fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, believes the latest leak is genuine."
  • DW: [46]: ""It is impossible to define where coercion ends and where local consent may begin," wrote Adrian Zenz, the researcher who found the documents.")
Also, much of the Chinese propaganda effort around the camps is devoted to smearing Zenz and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (for instance:
  • Global Times (depricated): [47]: Zenz has never been a so-called "Xinjiang expert" but can be more appropriately described as an academic swindler and an attack dog of anti-China forces....The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation was established by the US government in 1983. It was described by journalist Joe Conason as "the organizational haven for neo-Nazis, fascists, and anti-Semitic extremists from two dozen countries," according to US media outlet The Grayzone." - Note, both the Global Times and The Grayzone are deprecated sources.
So, while I'm not willing to go so far as to say it's reliable (mainly because I'm only familiar with it due to its use by RS in this one area), it may be a source that can be used with care. Though it's probably better to use the RS that cite it. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting, all sources that you cite seem to be op-eds, which, as giudelines advise us are reliable only for their author's opinia...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
How did you come to that conclusion that these were op-eds? All the RS I cited were clearly news stories: NY Times: [48]: url has "/world/" which is their World News section. It's also written by Austin Ramzy who is described as a "a Hong Kong reporter, focusing on coverage of the city and also of regional and breaking news [emphasis mine]." Washington Post: [49]: also has a url under /world/, which is their World News section. The author is Eva Dou who is described as a "Foreign Correspondent." BBC: [50]: url under "/news/". When you open the story it says "News" in big letters at the top and the highlighted section (World) is also their World News section. DW: [51]: top of page says "Top Stories", above headline it says "News", and at the bottom it says "DW's Biresh Banerjee and Michelle Stockman contributed reporting. [emphasis mine]" - GretLomborg (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
For good measure, here are a few more RS mentions:
  • Guardian: [52]: ("News" is highlighted with a red bar over in section list): "Records compiled by officials in southern Xinjiang and analysed by the researcher Adrian Zenz indicate that in 2018 more than 9,500 mostly Uighur children in Yarkand county were classified either as experiencing “single hardship” or “double hardship” depending on if one or both parents were detained."
  • France 24: [53]: (Asia/Pacific news section) "More than 570,000 Uighurs have been pressed into forced labour in Chinese cotton fields, according to a report published on Monday. These revelations are a “game-changer” and any person or business involved in these supply chains has to “divest”, Adrian Zenz, the researcher behind the report, told FRANCE 24."
  • NPR: [54]: ("News" in top left corner, under logo): "NPR's Scott Simon speaks with China expert Adrian Zenz about his research uncovering evidence of birth prevention and mass female sterilization of Uighur Muslims in China."
  • AP: [55]: (Related Topics includes "International News," "AP Top News," "General News") "“It underscores the witch-hunt mindset of the government, and how the government criminalizes everything,” said Adrian Zenz, an expert on the detention centers and senior fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, D.C."
- GretLomborg (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
And what kind of a piece of news about the Memorial these publication contain? Remember, the question was if the Memorial is a reliable source for the information about the number of "victims of Communism". Are news reporters the experts in that matter? How do they add any weight to the figures provided by the Memorial's web site (which have already been removed from it, and now they are available only from web archives ... and Wikipedia). In addition, how the information that some researcher is a fellow of this foundation adds a credibility to the figures that were presented on its web site? If I give money for genetic engineering research, that does not make me an expert in genetic engineering.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
What these are, as I was clear to state, are instances where someone from this organization was cited as an expert in quite a broad set of RS. I am under the impression that the reliability of a source/organization can be reflected in how it's used by other RS (i.e. explicit commentary on it is not the only thing to look for). I just recognized the organization and am sharing what I know, which gives me the impression that this source probably needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis rather than with a broad brush. I'm offering no opinion on any particular cite or fact. GretLomborg (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
If some person is cited as an expert, that adds a credibility to his own opinion, not to the opinion of their institution. The fact that Nobel prize winners are working in my university doesn't make my own opinion more trustworthy. And it is necessary to discriminate between people working for some organization from that organization's fellows. Actually, we have no clue on who posted these numbers on the Memorial's web site.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Which is why this source probably needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis rather than by using a broad brush. This expert, who is treated as such by a wide variety of high-quality RS, has many reports published on their website (see [56], he has five of the ten mentioned on the first page). Those RS also frequently identify him by his affiliation with this org (see the BBC and AP examples, for instance). That doesn't mean this is the best source for everything, but if the org publishes stuff by one reputable researcher, then it might publish stuff by others. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
And what is your conclusion? That that information may be reliable under some (unspecified) conditions? Do you realize the question was different? The question was ARE the figures presented in this source reliable?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press

Are Gazeta Wyborcza (this) and OKO.press (this) reliable sources for the statements of Wojciech Muszyński in regards to modern left-wing politicians in Poland? User:Volunteer Marek is stating they are not sufficiently reliable. In my opinion, the left of centre Gazeta Wyborcza is comparable to the The Washington Post, and has maintained its independence from the Polish government. While Oko.press is younger, its investigative journalism has been met with critical acclaim and they have won the 2020 Freedom of Expression Awards from Index on Censorship. Both of these cover national news, and rank among the most reliable journalism sources in Poland.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

Lol. Gazeta Wyborcza is NOT comparable to the Washington Post. You want to back that up? At one point they were reliable but over time, faced with increased competition they've become more and more sensationalistic. Most of their articles these days are football scores and "true crime stories" with a good bit of very polarized political commentary. This is NOT good enough for BLP (in this case it's a report about some facebook comments a historian might have made). Likewise oko.press is a very partisan source which regularly attacks political opponents. Seriously neither of these outlets even tries to hide it's bias. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

:: According to the editorial board of The Washington Post (which "represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution") from 23.10.2020: Gazeta Wyborcza is "Poland’s most popular and respected newspaper".--Bob not snob (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Definitely reliable: firstly Gazeta Wyborcza is not left-wing, certainly not when compared to e.g. The Guardian. It's the biggest Polish newspaper and has been since 1990. Oko.press is an internationally awarded investigative portal. The reason they (along with onet.pl) are attacked by the far-right is because they refuse to be bought by and influenced by the ruling United Right and continue to highlight their cronyism and corruption. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

GW is most certainly left wing. "Biggest" doesn't mean much. Doesn't Daily Mail have the largest circulation in UK? I think your comment actually highlights the issue nicely. They're both hyper partisan outlets. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, The Sun usually outsells the Mail ... GPinkerton (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
GW is a liberal newspaper. SarahSV (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok? Volunteer Marek 01:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Please note that this is a BLP issue and the editor in question is trying to include these sources to attack a living person simply because somewhere else they were being used as a source. Even if the person in question cannot be considered a reliable source, this kind of gratuitous attacks and attempts to turn BLP pages into attack pages on Wikipedia have resulted in ArbCom topic bans in the past. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

*:Coverage of Muszyński's own statements in national media is not an attack.--Bob not snob (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

  • NOT reliable for questionable WP:NPOV material regarding BLP's. We should be very firm about using high-quality sources when entering any information regarding BLP's. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively regarding the subject's privacy, not cherry-picked statements to press small news. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Gazeta Wyborcza is an RS. It was in Gazeta Wyborcza that the Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski complained about the Polish editors on Wikipedia, including Volunteer Marek, who he said were distorting Holocaust history.[57] Another story from that newspaper describes efforts in Poland to discredit Holocaust historians. [58] SarahSV (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
And Breitbart has called me a left wing extremist and The Gateway Pundit said I was part of some vast "far-left" conspiracy etc. etc. etc. The fact that other people write goofy stuff about me in sensationalist media does not mean I have a "COI". Here is the WP:COI guideline [59]. Nowhere in there is there anything that applies. If anything the fact that Gazeta Wyborcza publishes the same kind of wrong headed articles about Wikipedians as Breitbart and Gatewaypundit just shows what type of sources they are. Volunteer Marek 22:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Grabowski didn't write goofy stuff and GW isn't sensationalist media. SarahSV (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Both are reliable as shown above, both sources have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And for this particular info, if Muczynski doesn't want this stuff in his Wikipedia bio he shouldn't have posted it publicly on social media. (t · c) buidhe 19:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • They're both reliable per evidence discussed above, and lack of comparative evidence to the contrary. Also, I echo Bob's statement that quoting a BLP's words that received national coverage does not, and cannot constitute an attack of a BLP. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a WP:BLP. These are two partisan sources reporting on something this guy supposedly privately said on facebook which has NOT received "national coverage" otherwise. EVEN IF these were reliable sources (and that is questionable), this info would be simply WP:UNDUE. This is nothing but an attempt to turn a Wikipedia article into an attack page. Volunteer Marek 22:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • No-one in their right-mind would call the biggest newspaper in Poland "partisan", nor an award-wiining investigative journalist. The only reason other news outlets in Poland fail to cite such mishaps is because a lot of them are either directly or indirectly state-owned or funded and do not tolerate any criticism of those politically aligned to them. Once again, GW is NOT left-wing by any stretch of imagination, and co-operation with other newspapers does not change that, aside from the fact neither is Le Monde for example. If anything, they are more in line with the Civic Platform, a centre-right party. The founder Adam Michnik was an anti-communist and frequently expressed his support for anti-communist candidates post '89. There is nothing in GW that would make them left-wing. Perhaps anti-PiS, after resisting them and surviving the national onslaught against them sure, but that itself does not make them automatically left-wing, and neither does highlighting someone's faux-pas'. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"No-one in their right-mind would call the biggest newspaper in Poland "partisan"" - lol, since when does "biggest newspaper" = non-partisan? I'm sorry but I don't get the logic here. The Daily Mail has a circulation of ... ... ... 1,134,184. The Times? 417,298. The Guardian? 111,155. Fox News, up until recently, was the most widely watched tv news in America. So... if we go by "biggest newspaper" for reliability or partisanship that would make the Daily Mail the MOST reliable and apparently the LEAST partisan, while the Guardian would be the opposite. See how ridiculous this is?
(In fact the opposite argument is way more plausible. It's hard to become "the biggest" without appealing to lowest common denominator and running sensationalist click bait while pretending it's news. That explains Daily Mail. And perhaps Gazeta Wyborcza too (honestly, they're still running on fumes left over from back when they were indeed respectable, which was like the 1990s)).
Oh, and asserting that GW is "not left wing" is like claiming that Fox News isn't "right wing". Look. I *am* left wing. I sympathize or agree with lots of their opinions. But I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that they're not left wing. Or not sensationalist. Volunteer Marek 01:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Gazeta Wyborcza is quite reliable though not as much as say 10-15 years ago. To counter the steady drop in sales some years ago, GazWyb publisher Agora steered the newspaper in a more tabloidish direction. Wyborcza is still good but their articles on political or historical topics should be always verified by another source. A note to end my statement - there are no fully non-partisan nationwide newspapers in Poland. That's a sad reality of contemporary Poland.--Darwinek (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Agree with the characterization if not the "quite reliable" part (maybe... "sometimes reliable"?). And if this wasn't a WP:BLP issue I'd probably be ok with using it. But they're also notorious for doing hit pieces on politicians they don't like (and to be fair, have been subject to the same from the other side too). Volunteer Marek 01:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I would agree with User:Darwinek's assessment. So yes, GW does do hit pieces on politicians they do not like, but as far I am aware they have done so things that actually have happened, and they have a pretty good record in the courts on that. Compare that with let's say TVN, who have been badly caught out before and I would say they are far less reliable. GW still have a relatively big-tent range of contributors, certainly more so than other outlets, although slowly falling into us v them trap. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reputable, these are among the best media in Poland. Independent of the government. Similar to The Guardian or The New York Times. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)<--- — User:Mellow Boris (talk • Special:Contributions/Mellow Boris) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Reliable. OKO.press' awards for journalism are impressive. Gazeta Wyborcza is described as quality press by sources ("Quality newspapers such as Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita...", "Gazeta Wyborcza and Rzeczpospolita comprise the quality press". If Wikipeida were to toss Gazeta Wyborcza, then this means disqualifying all or nearly all Polish journalism as most other sources are lower quality.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Gazeta WyborczaReliable with reservations.In general reliable but should be counterbalanced in case of politics or controversial history.It is a highly liberal newspaper with its own biases.Nothing wrong with that, but needs a different source to show full spectrum of views.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oko.pressGenerally unreliable. Highly politically engaged online service, with name which is a play on Koalicja Obywatelska(name of largest opposition party in Poland), it seems it has lost in court for presenting false information before[62]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
That one incident does not make them unreliable. They foolishly reprinted a doctored photo, no media outlet is free from those kind of traps. Also they are investigative journalists, so it would be difficult to avoid politics. Do you have any proof of their link to the Civic Coalition? Because I can't see the link in the name. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The Motley Fool

The Motley Fool is cited over and over in finance articles, and I am wondering it it's actually a reliable source. From what I can gather, it's not really a WP:NEWSORG, but a firm that provides various services and, among other, publishes its own research. Their "about us" page is pretty vague. The NYT has described it as a "financial services" firm [63] and the WSJ as an "advisory firm" [64]. So based on that I guess it would qualify as WP:SELFPUB?--JBchrch (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

We currently have 827 citations per fool.com HTTPS links HTTP links. I don't think that Motley Fool is a terrible source but they are ultimately a stock picking company. I think its probably fine for uncontroversial statements of fact, but any analysis should probably be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Gooood question! It's a bit NEWSBLOG-like. They are a source of information a lot of people use. Not quite a NEWSORG, as you note. I'm not quite sure how to class them - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I’d say generally unreliable, they’re less reliable than a major brokerage or something like that and we wouldn’t treat traditional financial analysis outside of the press or academia from anyone else as reliable. They also seem to fit the lens of opinion/analysis more than anything else. At best these are opinion pieces in a marginally reliable source, I’m not seeing any benefit to using them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Given their clear conflict of interest, they likely should always be attributed. Even for apparent statements of fact, except for the most incontrovertible claims. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Is i (newspaper) reliable?

Since 2019, the British i (newspaper) has been owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust. Most other publications owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust are now depreciated as poor quality sources (Daily Mail, MailOnline, Metro (British newspaper)). Although the i was reputable historically, I am concerned based on the fact that it's owned by a group with poor quality sources. Do people think the i is still a reliable source or not? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's still reliable. It still seems reasonably left-wing in its editorial line, so I presume editorial independence has been maintained for the time being. One to watch for the future perhaps. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Still reliable except for issues regarding the Daily Mail and General Trust. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I would probably agree with that qualification. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing with Frontiers Journal in Public Health

Is it ok to source the following sentence with Frontiers Journal in Public Health:

In spring of 2012, three miners cleaning bat feces in an abandoned copper mine near the town of Tongguan in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County developed fatal pneumonia.[65][66]

This source expands on a brief Nature Journal source also used for the sentence. Two editors (PaleoNeonate and Alexbrn) have stated Frontiers is no good. Frontiers Journal in Public Health has an impact factor of 2.483[67] and Frontiers the publisher is the 5th most cited science publisher in the world[68]. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I encourage the people who create the scientific content on Wikipedia to look at the statistic links that I've provided. Many of the people who voice their opinion on this reliable source noticeboard have not created any scientific content here on Wikipedia. And there are also those, unfortunately, who are unable to read scientific literature. It actually does take time to learn how to understand the literature of different fields of specialization.

I'll provide this table, since I know many people do not actually click on links.

2019 Journal Impact Factors
Journal 2019 Journal Impact Factor
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 4.362
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 2.512
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 3.644
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 3.915
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 5.201
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 4.123
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 3.921
Frontiers in Chemistry 3.693
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 2.535
Frontiers in Earth Science 2.689
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2.416
Frontiers in Endocrinology 3.644
Frontiers in Energy Research 2.746
Frontiers in Environmental Science 2.749
Frontiers in Genetics 3.258
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2.673
Frontiers in Immunology 5.085
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 2.152
Frontiers in Marine Science 3.661
Frontiers in Materials 2.705
Frontiers in Medicine 3.9
Frontiers in Microbiology 4.235
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 4.188
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 4.057
Frontiers in Neural Circuits 3.156
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy 3.292
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 2.649
Frontiers in Neurology 2.889
Frontiers in Neurorobotics 2.574
Frontiers in Neuroscience 3.707
Frontiers in Nutrition 3.365
Frontiers in Oncology 4.848
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2.634
Frontiers in Pharmacology 4.225
Frontiers in Physics 2.638
Frontiers in Physiology 3.367
Frontiers in Plant Science 4.402
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2.849
Frontiers in Psychology 2.067
Frontiers in Public Health 2.483
Frontiers in Surgery 1.826
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 3.293
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2.245

Click on the following links to learn about the statistics of the publisher which is the 5th most cited scientific publisher in the world.

Frontier's publisher: Impact overview

Frontier's publisher: Journal Impact Factors

Frontier's publisher: Journal CiteScores

Frontier's publisher: Journal Citations

I look forward to having a rigorous discussion here on the reliable noticeboard as to what makes a science journal reliable or not. I also strongly encourage everyone who creates the scientific content on Wikipedia to contribute. This is an important topic that does not have room for gut feelings, politics, or passions. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

From WP:CITEWATCH: Will accept almost anything (80-90% of submissions), and has sacked editors for being too selective. Perhaps WT:CITEWATCH is the place to discuss the matter if you want a Frontiers journal regarded as a respectable source and removed from CITEWATCH - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Frontiers Media is near bottom of the barrel among non outright-predatory open access publishers. Editors have a high pressure to be non-selective about what is published in their journals. The acknowledgements section sets off many alarm bells. Citing "DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19)" for "invaluable discussions". As far as I can tell DRASTIC is a bunch of anonymous and otherwise unnotable twitter users who are dedicated to pushing the lab leak conspiracy theory. The authors also cite "Dr. Jonathan Latham of bioscienceresource.org" for translating the manuscript of one of the masters thesis. Dr. Jonathan Latham is the operator of "independentsciencenews.org" see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#independentsciencenews.org an agriculture focused fringe site, which last year also began pushing lab leak conspiracy theories. This demonstrates that like other previous pro-lab leak papers like The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin in BioEssays that they are strongly drawing from "lab leak twitter". Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes. If you're trying to source a crank conspiracy theory, then Frontiers is certainly the sort of publisher who will have the sort of papers you're looking for; however, that's why they're not usable in Wikipedia. You may wish to consider sticking to firmer RSes - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem with the Mojiang Mine story is that no samples were ever taken from the infected miners, meaning that anything about the identity of the agent that caused the illness is entirely speculation, and will never be definitively proved for sure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The lead author on twitter has indicated that she is associated with DRASTIC. Even if it was judged to not be unreliable its still very much undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Mona's main speciality is methane oxidizing bacteria, while Rahul's is plant biology, meaning that neither have relevant expertise in virology. Further to this, she has attempted to canvass editors to wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of reliability, there is the much bigger WP:DUE concerns. That three miners caught pneumonia is trivia at best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Frontier's Journal in Public Health a reliable source?

Note this section is to unpackage the question above and does not relate to the sentence that is being sourced above with the journal article. What metrics does Wikipedia wish to use to judge the reliability of scientific journals. I propose we utilize whether a journal is indexed in PUBMED and what its impact factor is.

"The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited"
-- Measuring Your Impact: Impact Factor, Citation Analysis, and other Metrics: Journal Impact Factor (IF)

These are the statistics for Frontier's Journal of Public Health in terms of real time impact factor:

IF: 2.6 Rank (279/516) / Source: https:// academic-accelerator.com/Real-Time-Impact-Factor/Frontiers-in-Public-Health

The statistics indicate that the journal is in the middle of the pack in the topic area of "Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health". The statistics indicate that it is an indexed reliable source that has been cited by other reliable indexed scientific journals. I will also note that the journal always clearly notes in the left margin who the peer reviewers are and who edited the article. The source is a reliable source. If you dispute that this journal is a reliable source, please provide statistics to back up your argument. (Also, to foreshadow and see if this board is serious about reliability and science publishing: what is plan s?) --Guest2625 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Impact factor, particularly Impact_factor#Criticism, is an excellent argument for why we shouldn't do that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The citation index and impact factor are irrelevant. A scientific paper may never be cited, but be 100% reliable. For example, some articles on X-ray crystallography of proteins are never cited. The concern here is different: the predatory publishing, which indeed undermines reliability of publications because it means the papers did not receive a strong peer review. My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Provide numbers and statistics

There have been no numbers or statistics provided to back up the argument that this source is not reliable. There appears to be this belief if you call a whole publishing company something that will make it true. It will not. You have to prove your case with numbers and statistics. Gut-feelings do not cut it. Only people who are not aware of the scientific method do such things.

Here is more proof that Frontiers Media is a trusted partner with institutions and nations in the scientific field.

Frontiers pioneered fully transparent, national Open Access publishing agreements for research organizations and their researchers at a national level. National agreements simplify the process for authors wishing to publish in Frontiers journals, and help contribute to the growing number of research articles that are openly available to all.
Extended content
National Members

Austria

Norway

Qatar...

Sweden...

United Kingdom...

Frontiers Institutional Members

AUSTRALIA

Queensland University of Technology...

AUSTRIA

Austrian Science Fund (FWF)...

Graz University of Technology (TU Graz)...

Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST Austria)...

Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences

St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences...

TU Wien (Technische Universität Wien)...

University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria...

University of Klagenfurt

University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna...

University of Vienna...

CANADA

Brock University

Simon Fraser University

University of Ottawa...

FINLAND

University of Helsinki...

GERMANY

Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI)...

Bielefeld University...

Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin...

C.v.O University Oldenburg...

Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum...

Deutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen e.V. (DZNE)...

Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen...

Forschungszentrum Jülich...

Freie Universität Berlin...

Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (FSU)...

GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel...

German Aerospace Center (DLR)...

GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences...

Goethe University Frankfurt...

Göttingen University...

Hannover Medical School

Heidelberg University...

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)...

Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf...

Helmholtz-Zentrum für Infektionsforschung...

Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Zentrum für Material- und Küstenforschung...

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin...

Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz...

Justus Liebig University Giessen

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)...

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München...

Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg

Max Planck Society...

Max-Delbrück-Centrum für Molekulare Medizin (MDC)...

University of Rostock

Rostock University Medical Center

Ruhr-University Bochum...

Technical University of Munich (TUM)...

Technische Universität Berlin...

Technische Universität Darmstadt...

TU Chemnitz...

University of Bremen...

University of Duisburg-Essen

Universität Kassel...

University of Konstanz...

Universität Leipzig...

University of Mannheim...

Universität Osnabrück...

University Potsdam...

University of Regensburg...

University of Stuttgart...

University of Ulm...

University of Würzburg

University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)

Helmholtz Zentrum München

HUNGARY

Semmelweis University...

University of Szeged...

ITALY

Italian Biomedical Research Institutions (Bibliosan)

NETHERLANDS

Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences...

Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW)...

TU Delft...

NORWAY

BI Norwegian Business School

Fafo Research Foundation

Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences

Institute For Social Research

Institute of Marine Research

Institute Of Transport Economics...

NILU Norwegian Institute for Air Research...

Nord University

Norwegian Institute for Nature Research

Norwegian Institute for Water Research...

Norwegian Research Centre...

Norwegian School of Sport Sciences

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Ostfold University College

SINTEF

Soerlandet Hospital

Sykehuset Østfold...

University of Agder...

University Of Bergen...

University Of South-Eastern Norway

University Of Stavanger...

UiT The Arctic University of Norway...

Western Norway University Of Applied Sciences

Nofima the food research institute

Norwegian Veterinary Institute

Norwegian Institute Of Public Health

Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research

Norwegian Institute for International Affairs

QATAR

Qatar National Library...

RUSSIA

Kazan Federal University...

SAUDI ARABIA

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)...

SPAIN

Spanish National Research Council (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, CSIC)...

SWEDEN

Chalmers University of Technology...

Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College...

Halmstad University

Karlstad University...

KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Lund University...

Malmö University

Mälardalen University...

Mid Sweden University

Örebro University...

Stockholm University...

Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences...

Umeå University...

University of Gävle...

University of Borås

University of Gothenburg...

Uppsala University...

University West

SWITZERLAND

European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)...

ETH Zurich...

University of Zurich...

Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW)...

UK

Brunel University...

Cardiff University...

Cranfield University

Francis Crick Institute...

King's College London...

Lancaster University

Manchester Metropolitan University...

University of Oxford

Queen Mary University of London...

Newcastle University...

Queen's University Belfast...

Sheffield Hallam University

University College London (UCL)...

University of Aberdeen

University of Birmingham...

University of Bristol...

University of Cambridge...

University of Edinburgh...

University of Exeter

University of Hull

University of LiverpoolUniversity of Manchester

University of Nottingham...

University of Salford...

University of St Andrews...

University of Sheffield...

University of Southampton...

University of Stirling...

USA

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation...

California Institute of Technology (Caltech)...

Duke University

George Mason University...

Iowa State University of Science and Technology

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)...

University of Arizona

University of California, Davis (UC Davis)

University of Indiana

Yale University

All these nations and institutions have agreed to work with this publisher. They obviously do not see them as a disreputable publisher, or otherwise they would not work with them. Now please provide statistics or numbers to back up the empty gut feelings. We are talking about science not newspapers.

How many reviewers does a New York Times article have?
How many journalist's articles (who works at the paper) are accepted by the the New York Times for publication?
How much time is spent on writing a New York Times article?
How many authors on average write a New York Times article?

Think about this. How many total research-hours are spent by all the authors on that one little science article. Look at the original sentence above. Something is seriously wrong with this board if a local newspaper can source it, but not a normal old indexed science journal with a fairly decent impact factor. A publisher that has agreements to work with endless numbers of universities and nations. So what is plan s? --Guest2625 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if the journal was reputable (which is in doubt because of the criticism it received over the years), it would still not meet WP:MEDRS as a primary source, —PaleoNeonate – 12:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The article Impact factor, particularly the section Impact factor#Criticism, contains numbers and statistics indicating why one should not take IF as indicating reliability for our purposes. The text copy-and-pasted above is essentially advertising material for the publisher and conveys no information; that an organization has a nominal relationship of some kind with a publisher means very little. Thanks to product bundling, academic libraries often have to buy journal subscriptions in package deals, getting everything that a publisher offers even when only a sliver of those journals are actually valued by scientists. Consequently, inferring anything about a particular journal knowing only the publisher is apt to be misguided. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Frontiers in Public Health is ranked as Q2 in the field "Public health, Environmental and Ocuppational Health" by Scimago. All journals included by Scimago are reputable, and the only ones to be borderline are the ones classified as Q4 with low values of the citation indexes (Scimago's own index, SJR, has a value of 0.672 for this journal, which is not low). Forich (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
No, not all journals indexed by Scimago are reputable. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

98bowery.com

I've removed bloggy references, as well as a big chunk of in-prose contents at Colab based off of vintage scans of postcards which at one time served as an advertisement listing for the said postcards the site. Upon search, I see the source used in close to 30 articles. The website is ran by an art curator/historian. Should this website be used in the way it was used? Graywalls (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alison Weir

A new editor Thequeenofaragon expanded the article about Aimery of Cyprus with information about the first marriage of Aimery's eldest daughter, Burgundia/Bourgogne with Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse ([69]). The edit was verified with a reference to a book written by Alison Weir (Weir, Alison (2020). Queens of the crusades : Eleanor of Aquitaine and her successors. London. ISBN 978-1-910702-09-3. OCLC 1197774310.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)). I am not sure that the book meets the criteria of reliable sources, because she is not a historian and I doubt that her book was peer reviewed. I emphasize the information about the marriage may be correct, but I think it should be verified by a reliable source. Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable: Weir is not an academic. She is a popular historian who specialises in the area of English medieval/early modern nobility, largely using secondary sources. She does this with sufficient accuracy to be accepted by Wikipedia as WP:RS as supporting dates, births, deaths and, important for this question marrages. It wouldn't make sense to use her analysis but she is certainly good enough for those details. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Is she regularly cited in peer reviewed sources? Could you refer to a review of her works in academic journals? Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Borsoka, I think you are being a bit too harsh. While we certainly prefer academic authors who are cited and published in peer reviewed journals, we do not reject amateur historians with good reputations. My understanding is that Weir has a reasonably good reputation. I think we can cite her. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
OK. I understand. She is not a historian, her books are not peer reviewed and they are not mentioned in academic reviews, but we can cite them, because our research shows that she is accurate when writing about dates, births, deaths and marriages. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I noticed they've also added the same source to Raymond_VI,_Count_of_Toulouse. Although it hasn't gotten to the point of concern, if a pattern of the same author getting added into numerous article develops, WP:REFSPAM is something to be on the look out for. See Talk:Rarotonga for example. Graywalls (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

MDPI journals

David Gerard (actually Tgeorgescu) has created an entry on the Perennial Sources list for MDPI, an open access publishing company, as "generally unreliable" (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#MDPI, stating that "There is consensus that journals published by MDPI are generally unreliable, since MDPI has a very shallow peer-review process". I disagree with this assessment and think that journals published by MDPI should be evaluated on a case by case basis. MDPI was placed on the infamous Beall's list of predatory access publishers in 2014, but was subsequently removed from the list in 2015 following an appeal. This post on Scholarly Kitchen from August 2020 gives a positive assessment of MDPI's operations, describing it as "simply a company that has focused on growth and speed while optimizing business practices around the author-pays APC (article processing charge) business model" rather than a predatory publisher. MDPI is now the world's 5th largest publishing company and largest open access publisher, and it has improved significantly in citation rankings and reputation since the mid 2010's when most of the cited discussions on the reliability of MDPI took place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't create it, I just tidied up an entry someone else had added. I think it's superfluous on RSP, it's already on WP:CITEWATCH, where it most certainly belongs - the "appeal" was legal threats - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Source on legal threats? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
There's suggestions of it here. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Tgeorgescu: The actual creator of the entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I've marked the entry for MDPI (RSP entry) as disputed, pending the result of this discussion, as it is a new entry. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Generally unreliable is too harsh. It should be yellow with "additional considerations" and the like. Same for Frontiers Media journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Outside of Wikipedia, in my life as a physicist, I tend to treat articles in MDPI journals as a notch more vetted than preprints on the arXiv. I've seen some jank in their journals, but I've also found very reputable people publishing there; John C. Baez comes to mind [70]. I suspect that they may be "journals of last resort", places where people send work that is legitimate but without the oomph needed to get into journals that are more established. (Maybe a paper ends up there because it was bounced from Physical Review A, or maybe the authors figured they didn't have much of a shot at PRA in the first place.) For example, Gill (2020) is a paper that pushes back on nonsense, upholding a mainstream view rather than promoting a fringe one. But the nonsense being debunked is not very high-profile, so plenty of journals wouldn't find a debunking interesting enough to publish. So, yes, "generally unreliable" is too harsh; generally unremarkable may be closer to the truth. But I wouldn't put them in the green either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I reckon that this is strongly field dependent. In Palaeontology, where the difference between the highest and lowest ranking journals is relatively low, MDPI journals don't stick out as any worse than say, PeerJ or Scientific Reports. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, they probably have to be judged field-by-field, if not journal-by-journal. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It definitely should be on a case by case basis. There are definitely journals MDPI publishes that are on the predatory end and should not be trusted. At the same time, there are a number of journals they publish that appear to have proper peer review and other systems in place for promoting proper research. Trying to deprecate everything MDPI is involved in would be...a lot of the scientific publishing world. And would negatively impact thousands of articles. SilverserenC 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I added the entry. Of course consensus may change, however past RSN discussion did not give me much confidence about MDPI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This thread was archived but @Alexbrn: is edit warring with me when I try to correct the entry, including when I try to add the archiving tag. I don't see how the previous discussions and this one justify the claim that MDPI is generally unreliable for everything it publishes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing the entry (twice) only to say "There is consensus that journals published by MDPI should be considered on a case by case basis", especially after such a brief discussion, is not a true reflection of views on this matter. I shall ping WT:MED to widen consensus, as not everybody watches this NB. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't revert the exact same entry twice, I added the Beall's list mention from the first entry the second time. I agree that my entry on both times was short and not ideal. The first entry is problematic, however, as it makes claims such as that MDPI journals "have a shallow peer review process" and were removed from Beall's list as a result of legal action that as far as I am aware are not backed up by discussions, so I don't think the first entry is a true reflection of MDPI either, it's much more negative that the corresponding WP:CITEWATCH entry. As I have previously stated, I don't have a high opinion of MDPI journals. Like Frontiers, they are generally bottom of the barrell and many of their journals publish fringey stuff. This is probably more important in medical topic areas, and I can understand your opinion on MDPI from that perspective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it should be case by case, but it should be made clear that "most MDPI journals are considered generally unreliable due to lacking quality of peer review processes. Furthermore, some MDPI journals are considered predatory and these should not be used. Other (generally larger) MDPI journals should be discussed on a case by case basis." - It should not be listed as yellow nor should it be listed as "case by case basis" without further information such as that many are predatory and lack peer review. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with @Headbomb, and I don't think that a low-quality peer-review process is actually sufficient to meet the WP:GUNREL standards. This is the list of GUNREL criteria:
  • lack an editorial team – They have one, with their names and affiliations published in each journal.
  • have a poor reputation for fact-checking – Outside the category of "glossy magazines", almost nobody does actual fact checking, but they obviously do have a peer-review process (which Wikipedia counts as a form of fact-checking), because people are complaining that their peer-review process isn't slow enough. (I guess that long delays, during which the reviewers refuse to look at the paper, are a marker of a high-quality review in some people's eyes?)
  • fail to correct errors – They retract papers,[71] which is the most stringent form of error correction.
  • be self-published – Since people are complaining about the publisher, then this obviously doesn't apply.
  • present user-generated content – Obviously not.
So none of the GUNREL criteria indisputably apply to this publisher. Nor would we, if we sat down and considered it, say that absolutely none of the articles in any of the publisher's journals should ever be cited for anything unless the editor was willing to invoke WP:IAR as the reason. (That, too, is the standard for a GUNREL finding.)
I think that the facts indicate that "MREL" is the correct classification. Maybe what we need is "There is consensus that journals published by MDPI should be considered on a case by case basis" with a recommendation to look at CITEWATCH. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking at CiteWatch is a no-go. The Citewatch is based on community consensus, not vice-versa. Also "have a poor reputation for fact-checking" is exactly what's at stake with MDPI. Their peer review process is, at best, incredibly lax. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There are probably several other publishers in the same class. JMIR Publications comes to mind.[1] My main interest is on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. In this case, we have a strong interest in not promoting bad health advice. So for purposes of WP:MED, we should generally avoid citing pay-to-publish articles whenever possible. An exception is where we cite in the same paragraph/context a very highly reliable (ideally secondary) source. This may allow us to put the new citation into context. For example, the article on Dengue fever discusses the use of papaya extract as a treatment. This is based on some relatively unreliable sources. No reliable sources mention papaya extract, other than by exclusion from lists of known treatment. So this is an example where unreliable references are not paired with reliable references and should be treated with extreme caution. However, a counterpoint is that increasingly very reliable journals are embracing a pay-to-publish model. So we definitely cannot classify all pay-to-publish articles as unreliable. At least for WP:MED I would classify MDPI Journals as Wikipedia:GUNREL, which includes the following description, "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable." WP:GUNREL still allows one to use the citation on a case-by-case basis. Jaredroach (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Why not have the medical project come up with a list of journals that the project likes and doesn't like, and then use those in your project. Other science projects most probably prefer having their own criteria. I know MDPI's journal Viruses and those articles are just fine. MDPI is one of the three big open access publishers. Using the category open access/pay-for-publishing as a de-qualifier is a fool's errand. Pay-for-publishing is now mandatory in Europe, and this will be the business model throughout the scientific world in 5 years. That is why I have been mentioning Plan S. I would recommend using Impact Factor/(your preferred journal metric) and whether it is indexed in pubmed to determine whether to use it. ---Guest2625 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
What is wrong with JMIR publications, Jaredroach? I publish regularly in JMIR journals. They have robust peer review and are highly respected in their relevant fields. These are open access journals. Open access journals use article processing fees. They are not "pay-to-publish": papers have to be accepted in the same way as for other journals. Open access is very much the future of academic publishing, not something to be suspicious of. There are predatory journals that we need to avoid and I don't have any specific view on MDPI, but don't tar all open access journals like this. Bondegezou (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Predatory does not necessarily means that a journal is an unreliable reference. For example, JMIR is definitely predatory, but may have articles that are reliable. JMIR aggressively spam emails all authors of MedRxiv with bait-and-switch efforts to increase revenue. Definitely predatory. YMMV with respect to reliability. JMIR Preprints in particular is full of unreliable material. Jaredroach (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, but Wikipedia sources need to be well-reputed. The WP:DAILYMAIL runs an occasional good story, but because of its deficiencies in other areas it is not a suitable source generally. Same for predatory publishers.
Re:"Predatory does not necessarily means that a journal is an unreliable reference." Predatory means exactly that. It doesn't mean all articles in predatory journals are inaccurate/wrong (broken clocks are right twice a day after all) but all such articles cannot be relied upon, unless vetted explicitly by reliable external sources deeming them reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
See also WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I see no evidence that JMIR journals are unreliable. Publications in JMIR journals are routinely cited by articles in other high quality journals and have good impact factors. As I said, I publish regularly in JMIR journals: I was recently promoted to professor on the back of a publication track record including papers in JMIR journals. The promotion committee were all happy with that.
JMIR Preprints is for preprints: they haven't been through peer review. That's what a preprint is. No, a preprint is not a reliable source. I have preprints at present with JMIR and with medRxiv. It's COVID research, so some of them have already been cited or received media coverage, but fellow scholars know to only cite a preprint with caution and Wikipedia should definitely be avoiding them. Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "JMIR Publications". jmirpublications.com. Retrieved 2021-02-18.

defseca.com

Are any of the following four defseca.com articles reliable sources for the corresponding statements:

  1. [72] in AeroVironment Wasp III for "Bangladesh Army: RQ-12B on order"?
  2. [73] in Accuracy International AX50 for the statement that the sniper rifle, "started to be used by Bangladesh Army"?
  3. [74] in STREIT Group Spartan for the statement that among operators of the armoured personnel carrier is "Border Guards Bangladesh - Ukrainian built KrAZ Spartan variant"?
  4. [75] in List of equipment in the Myanmar Navy for the statement that their submarine is armed with "24 x DM-1 naval mines"?

Defseca.com hasn't been discussed here before, but bdmilitary.com now redirects to defseca's forum. Bdmilitary.com was discussed here once before. There were few participants, and discussion sidetracked into a debate about whether the source was correct, which is different from whether it is reliable.

My sense is that defseca.com is a self-published enthusiast portal and has zero reputation for accuracy and fact checking (for example, neither it nor bdmilitary.com is widely cited by books or news organizations). I see no evidence of subject matter expertise, journalistic credentials, or editorial oversight.

Pinging participants in previous bdmilitary.com discussion and frequent contributors to Bangladeshi military equipment topics, where defseca.com keeps cropping up: @Thomas.W, Maxx786, Justlettersandnumbers, AzfarShams, FOX 52, Nafis Fuad Ayon, and SRS 00: --Worldbruce (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Nope. "Defseca" is just "bdmilitary" in new clothes: a self-published Wordpress-blog with no information about who they are, how to contact them or who their writers are (none of the articles I checked was signed), and apparently no editorial oversight/control whatsoever. So, no, "defseca" is no more reliable as a source than "bdmilitary" was, and cannot be used as a reference here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Nope. Defseca.com is nothing but a new website of bdmilitary.com run by the same person Syed Amar Khan. I personally called the website rumors making machine. In my opinion 7 out of 10 information related to procurement of military equipment are totally wrong and based on nothing but on their imagination. They also mixed true information with false information. They have no respecting in the copyright law. They copied images from other websites and used their own watermark. They are actually selling false information. Some amature YouTube channels also spreading rumors by following the defseca. The website should blocked from wikipedia to used as a reference.
I'll add the reasons. Which of the following best describes the reliability of Defseca:
  • Reason 1: Generally unreliable for procurement reporting. Because they publishes false or fabricated information most of the times.
  • Reason 2: Some examples of previously provided false information of both bdmilitary (B) and defseca (D): "Bangladesh ordered LY-80 SAM" (B), "Russia offered TOT of Mig-35 to Bangladesh" (B), "Bangladesh army ordered APCs worth 1 billion dollars" (B), "Bangladesh navy going to buy destroyers" (D), "Bangladesh Navy will buy Helicopter carrier" (D), "Bangladesh navy going to install 8 C-802A missiles on BNS Madhumati" (D) and lots more.
  • Reason 3: Generally mixed true information with wrong information. Example: Bangladesh Border Guard (BGB) bought STREIT Group Spartan without the Remote controlled weapon station mounted ATGM. But they reported BGB Spartan APCs have Corsair ATGM installed. Actually these APCs have non rotating turret with heavy machine gun.
  • Reason 4: Their editors are not trustworthy. I know Syed Amar Khan and had a long discussion with him in social media. They have a facebook page. After I continuously asking them about reliability of their false information they simply blocked me from the facebook page.
  • Reason 5: They make news from imaginary self research. If Bangladesh military issued a tender for weaponry they simply publishes a news immediately before the winner announced. They simply labelled one of the possible candidates as winner. Example: Bangladesh army issued a tender for medium range SAM but winner not announced yet. Defseca published a news that Hisar SAM already selected.
  • Reason 6: Most of their true news are copied from other websites like Janes. Example: Procurement of RQ-12B.
  • Your answer: Truth of those four references User:Worldbruce: (1) Maybe true, because army is the suitable for operating it. (2) True because the information is based on a image. (3) BGB is the operator, but without the ATGM. (4) Kilo class submarine could carries DM-1 naval mines. So they simply mentioned Myanmar navy submarine armed with "24 x DM-1 naval mines without any proof. But it could be. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No. No opinion on the specific cases as such, but I can't imagine any content for which this could be a reliable source. It's somebody's blog, the registrant of the domain is hidden (registrant is displayed as Domains By Proxy, LLC, Scottsdale, Arizona), it has no editorial oversight, no institutional or personal authority – it's just yet another random website of the kind that Wikipedia should never cite. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Nope: Just as User:Nafis Fuad Ayon said, defseca.com or The Bangladesh Defense Analyst is rebranded bdmilitary.com which already proved how reliable it is to be cited as sourced to be used as citation. With very few exceptions, most of the news is mixed true or not true at all. The page mainly feels like a Amature Press/Fan site of the Bangladeshi Military, which usually publishes articles like "What type of equipment should the Bangladeshi Military should procure", "Speculation/Conspiracy theories about the geopolitics of Bangladesh" and "Procurement news of the Military forces of Bangladesh and its neighbors". Their writings show signs of immaturity and unprofessionalism. Personally speaking, I contacted some of the editors of that site and I really have doubts about their qualifications. Very few of the procurement news proved to be true even sometimes they exaggerate the information. Their articles sometimes encourage readers to jump to the conclusion by using misleading sentences/words or headline. I want to address the four questions User:Worldbruce bought at this issue.

1. [76] in AeroVironment Wasp III for "Bangladesh Army: RQ-12B on order"?

  • Answer: There were 2 citations for that claim. One form defseca and the other one was from Jane's Information Group, in the Jane's report there was no information about which branch of Bangladeshi military were procuring AeroVironment RQ-12B. It only said "Bangladesh".[1] In defseca, they claimed that the Bangladesh army ordered RQ-12B.[2]

2. [77] in Accuracy International AX50 for the statement that the sniper rifle, "started to be used by Bangladesh Army"?

  • Answer: Based on photographs, and visual identification. Most photographs were taken during 2017 South Surma Upazila bombings. The source claimed that the Bangladesh army using both AX50 and AX308 which uses .50BMG and 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges respectively. Fundamentally both are different types of firearms as the first one fits the definition of an Anti-materiel rifle and the second one is a Sniper rifle.In November 2018, DGDP issued a tender about buying cartridges specifically for AX308, RPA Rangemaster and Thunderbolt.[3] So it is safe to assume that Bangladesh Army actually operates AX308 but no information about AX50 cannot be found. It is possible that, editors of Defseca.com jumped to a conclusion identifying one variant.

3. [78] in STREIT Group Spartan for the statement that among operators of the armoured personnel carrier is "Border Guards Bangladesh - Ukrainian built KrAZ Spartan variant"?

  • Answer: Based on photographs, and visual identification. Most photographs were taken by automotive enthusiasts in Dhaka taken outside of BGB Headquarter. Although there were reports in national news portals of BGB procured riot control vehicles and APCs but didn't mention the name of the vehicle.[4][5] Instead more images of the vehicle were found. All images showed similarity with STREIT Group Spartan, but nothing more than that. Visual . About RK-3 Corsar, defseca.com's clever use of words can make readers think that those ATGMs were attached to those APCs but no such information can be found. Instead, there was only one report in January 2020, by the Irrawaddy that ATGMs being used by BGB stationed at St. Martin's Island identified as "Corsar Anti-Tank Missile System". [6]. I think the question, "Does BGB actually uses such weapons?" deserves a separate discussion.

4. [79] in List of equipment in the Myanmar Navy for the statement that their submarine is armed with "24 x DM-1 naval mines"?

  • Answer: Just like User:Nafis Fuad Ayon stated, the Kilo-class submarine has capabilities to be armed with 24 naval mines. Mostly DM-1 as it is mostly used by most countries navy which operates this submarine. The editors of Defseca.com jumped to a conclusion based on that fact.

Now, I want to share some of my opinions. If any new editor cites Defseca.com as a reference, do not remove the entire information just remove the citation and replace with {{Citation needed}} template and told him/her to find a better source. Always remember to, assume good faith and not to bite them. Give him/her the idea of what type of sources Wikipedia accepts and what doesn't. It is understandable why most editors use such types of sources for information especially in military equipment topics. Remove the information if the editor fails to add a reliable citation. If that editor seems to be troublesome, you know the rules. Keep in mind that, new editors sometimes don't understand why what they see are not accepted as true just because he/she saw that. For example, SLC-2 Radar a Counter-battery radar used by Bangladesh Army, which was displayed during the 2017 victory day parade but no reliable source cannot be found to back that claim. It happens in the list of military equipment articles in most third-world countries. Thank You. --AzfarShams (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gareth Jennings (9 October 2020). "Bangladesh to receive Wasp UASs". Jane's Information Group. Retrieved 9 October 2020.
  2. ^ "Bangladesh Army obtaining RQ-12B Wasp AE UAS". Desfeca. Retrieved 4 November 2020.
  3. ^ "Technical Specification and Other Requirements for Cartridge Small Arms 7,62x51 mm Ball Brass Cartridge Case Rimless Ball for 7.62 mm Sniper Rifle" (PDF). dgdp. 1 November 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 July 2020. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  4. ^ "BGB bolstered by inclusion of riot control vehicles and APCs". The Daily Star. Dhaka, Baangladesh. 10 November 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2021.
  5. ^ "BGB included APC and riot control vehicles". Daily Sun. Dhaka, Baangladesh. 10 November 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2021.
  6. ^ "Bangladesh Fortifies Island Near Myanmar With Heavy Weapons, Gunboats". Myanmar: The Irrawaddy. 2019-01-02. Retrieved 2020-08-04.

SciTechDaily

Source: SciTechDaily
Article: Chicxulub impactor

Content: [80]. Text was:

In 2021 a research team at Harvard University showed that a significant fraction of a comet originating in the solar system's Oort cloud was pushed off course by the gravitational pull of Jupiter and sent on a new orbit that brought it much closer to the Sun. As it approached, it began to break apart because of the Sun's tidal force and fractured into smaller pieces which then began to regularly cross Earths orbit and now impact the Earth every 250,000 to 730,000 years. This frequency is consistent with other impact events in the past, and the carbonaceous chondrite composition of the impactor is more consistent with that of a comet from the Oort cloud rather than a rogue asteroid from the much-closer asteroid belt.

While the website's own "About" page states that prior to 2011, "...the New York Times and others referred to us as essentially a Drudge Report for science and technology...", they claim to have made some major changes in their methods since then which, a decade later, make them look like a reliable source to me. I wanted to use them as a secondary source on an article published by a Harvard research team headed by a Professor of Science there, Avi Loeb, that was itself published in the journal Scientific Reports. Not reliable? Please comment. Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A link to evidence that "they claim to have made some major changes in their methods since then" would be nice. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to use this source over the NYT article that covers the same paper that is also cited in the article. The SciTechDaily article simply uncritically repeats the research akin to churnalism. While the NYTimes article actually asks other experts, who universally disagree with the conclusions presented in the study. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Further to this, there's no obilgation to include every single study that gets a widely publicised press release, per WP:NOTNEWS, and after I undid the edit the article was rewritten to include reference to the study and the fact that experts interviewed about it disagreed with its conclusions, based on the NYTimes article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329&oldid=1055242994"