Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 330

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 325←Archive 328Archive 329Archive 330Archive 331Archive 332→Archive 335

Military Today

I first came across this website at Blowpipe (missile), where it is used as one of the principal sources. This uses this article written by the anonymous writer "blacktail". This seems to be raising a lot of red flags; anonymous author, unverifiable expertise. On the face of it, precisely the type of source we shouldn't be using.

Bringing it here for further discussion. WCMemail 01:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Not Reliable Military-today.com is self-published by enthusiast Andrius Genys, who also self-publishes books.[1] The rest of the editorial team are: two anonymous contributors, one journalist, and Miguel Miranda, who runs 21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com, another military hobbyist website.[2] The authors are the five editors plus whoever wants to send in an article. Articles don't disclose their sources. Editorial oversight? "Articles that are poorly written, too short, with gramatical mistakes, biased ..., with inaccurate information or inaccurate specifications with [sic] be rejected."[3] If the articles are based on reputable sources that the site's editors can check for accuracy, then Wikipedia should find and cite those sources, not this website.
High-quality reliable sources rarely cite the website. I find only 4 citations from such sources in its 14 years of operations. Low use by others indicates that Genys is not generally considered a subject matter expert with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Worldbruce (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - self published fansite. There are plenty of actual reliable sources (like various iterations of Jane's books) that can be used to source articles like Blowpipe (missile). There is no real justification for using self published internet sites as sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Microskiff

Hello, I would like input on whether these sources would help to warrant an article on the topic. Microskiffs are a relatively new class of small boats designed for extreme shallow water fishing, primarily in saltwater. This is a boat class that is accepted within the flats_fishing and saltwater fishing community for areas where microskiffs make sense due to extreme shallow water flats that anglers need to pass through (eg: Florida, Texas, South Carolina). I'd like to create an article on it, but there is no mainstream media attention to this topic - it exists in the fishing world which does not have a WP:RS huge presence online. Sources:[1][2][3][4] DrGvago (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Five Super-Light Microskiff Fishing Machines". Sport Fishing Magazine. Retrieved 2021-02-18.
  2. ^ Magazine, Editorial Staff Fishing; Angler, Coastal; fishing, The Angler Magazine is your leading source for freshwater; Videos, Saltwater Fishing; Photos, Fishing; Fishing, Saltwater (2015-04-02). "Consider A Microskiff For SW Florida Shallows". Coastal Angler & The Angler Magazine. Retrieved 2021-02-18.
  3. ^ Roberts, Brenton (2018-07-10). "Upsize Your Skiff". Florida Sportsman. Retrieved 2021-02-18.
  4. ^ "Six Great Boats Under $20,000". Boating Magazine. Retrieved 2021-02-18.

Comment The topic certainly appears to be notable to me. A Google search shows it coming up in large numbers, and if people are becoming interested in a topic like this, then it makes sense for us to begin developing an article on it. I see no problem with using magazines as reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability, as they seem to demonstrate that the subject is indeed notable. I'd say, go for it! A loose necktie (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I second that. Go for it! François Robere (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Palestinian enclaves and sourcing for an alternate name

There is a dispute at Talk:Palestinian enclaves as to whether or not these sources are a. reliable and b. support that the term "bantustan" is a widely used name to describe the "enclaves". The sources are as follows:

An editor has said that these sources do not pass the smell test and that the authors are partisans and the sources do not support that the term bantustan is widely used by anybody besides critics of Israel. In support of that argument, the editor has brought this NYT article which says But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” to support the contention that this is a term only used by critics of Israel. Are the three sources above reliable, and do they support the statement that the term bantustan is widely used without the qualification by critics of Israel? nableezy - 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • State Crime Journal seems obscure, and from a self-describe progressive or socialist publisher (Pluto Press), perhaps not academic. I don't think anyone is questioning the reliability of university presses or Routledge. Part (B) of the OP is a content dispute about NPOV not a dispute about RS. Levivich harass/hound 00:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Levivich harass/hound 00:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It's peer reviewed journal. And yes, an editor has said these sources do not support the notion that "bantustan" is a widely used phrasing to describe the "enclaves", that the authors' supposed bias leads them incapable of supporting what they report, so I'm asking here if they are reliable and if they support that. nableezy - 01:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me like WP:POV issue. The proper place is WP:NPOVN --Shrike (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Well a user said these sources dont pass the smell test and that nothing has been brought that backs the statement the term is widely used by anybody besides critics of Israel. Do you agree they are reliable and that they support the challenged statement? nableezy - 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Re the question here "Are the three sources above reliable, and do they support the statement that the term bantustan is widely used without the qualification by critics of Israel?". Yes and yes. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Are we really going to question the reliability of multiple scholarship? These are not opinion pieces or something of that kind. The first says "widely called", the second "often referred to" the third "often referred to" and the 'progressive socialist'(?) says "popularly described as". I could see how we might say that a particular source has a bias so severe that it ought to be discounted but trying to paint every source as biased because of disagreement with what the sources say is taking things too far.Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment on the narrow question of if the sources are reliable and if the sources confirm the term "bantustan" is in common use, true on both counts. On the wider question, it seems like a variant of the "no true Scotsman" argument is being used; the objection seems to be that any source that uses the term "bantustan" must be invalid because the term is critical of Israel itself, so by that circular logic, it could never be sourced to any source because any source using the term invalidates itself as a source that the term is used. My brain can't wrap itself around such a catch-22. These sources are sufficient to state that the term is in common use. Whether or not the use is justified or not, and whether or not the use of the term represents a criticism of Israel merely by its use is a discussion to be had on another day, but on the narrow question of whether or not the term is used, yes, the sources are sufficient for that purpose. --Jayron32 15:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This was taken to RSN on a strawman premise, i.e. one that was never asserted. These sources are not by default unreliable. However, they are inadequate to support the statement that "Palestinian bantustans" is a "widely used" term beyond critics. Why are these sources inadequate to do so? Because these sources represent the view of participants in that debate, specifically, they are critics of the proposed enclaves who support usage the term bantustans.
  • Jerome Slater is a notable critic of Israel and this is manifested in the positions he takes in his writings, including on the Bantustan issue. See his writings here. He criticizes the U.S.-Israeli relationship and solely blames Israel for the series of wars that have broken out in the region as well as the failure of the peace process.
  • Christopher Harker is a frequent critic of what he calls "Israeli settler colonialism." See here.
  • Penny Green has attracted controversy for her statements on Israel, including comparing Israel to ISIS. See here.
None of this is to comment on the validity of these criticisms, but to point out that these are participants in a debate who have staked out partisan positions on complex issues, and this must be accounted for before claiming that their views or statements are widespread or representative. The same can be said of partisan advocates on the other side of the debate. But while Nableezy and others in that discussion have raised these issues with say, usage of a source like Alan Dershowitz, a noted advocate for Israel, they wave off these exact same considerations when it comes to sources on the other side. This isn't acceptable. Showing "widespread usage" means showing that it is a term consistently and repeatedly used, and that any common person would recognize, in mainstream and objective sources. The NYT is notable because it is such a source -- mainstream and widespread -- and it explicitly avoids claiming that this term is widespread, and attributes it to critics. The counter to this at the Talk:Palestinian enclaves has been to claim that it is The New York Times that is partisan, not the sources they present, even as their views have attracted controversy and reflect sharply ideological positions. This is not a coherent argument. If Nableezy believes that there is "widespread usage" of this term beyond just critics, they need to present mainstream objective sources consistently using that terminology. So the question is not the narrow "do these sources support this wording?" that this RSN thread presents; the question is, "does the body of sources confirm widespread and consistent usage in mainstream objective sources?" The only mainstream and objective (as much as one can hope for) source that is presented here in the NYT, and its answer is clearly no. You cannot present a limited view of partisan commentators as widespread and remain consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:PARTISAN, and WP:WEASEL. These are usable sources and reliable in some respects, but not for what users are attempting to use them for in this instance. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920 Just because the authors are themselves critical of Israel doesn't make them automatically unreliable (see WP:BIASED).VR talk 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To respond to Jayron32's point that any source using the term "Palestinian bantustans" must be critical of Israel and therefore is only of limited value. This is not necessarily true. The applicable policy here is WP:POVNAME. Yes, the term "bantustans" implies a criticism because it suggests a model of racial/ethnic segregation. However, POV names are accepted where objective sources consistently use the phrasing. It is true that there is a slightly higher bar on Wikipedia for loaded phrases, per the policy I just cited. But that is for a good reason. It is so that Wikipedia articles avoid wading into debates and instead default to describing them. The sources presented are not mainstream or objective, and academic not a synonym for either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

These sources are usable, but the body of available sources is not enough to satisfy WP:POVNAME for "Palestinian bantustans," and there is already a consensus at Talk:Palestinian enclaves to that effect. No one has objected to citing these sources in the article, there is a disagreement over how to properly use them. Trying to phrase this RSN as whether these sources support the specific wording Nableezy has proposed comes off as WP:FORUMSHOPPING and what the article talk page, not RSN, is for. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason that these sources have been brought here for scrutiny is precisely because of a dispute at the article talk page over their validity as rs so an allegation of forumshopping seems inappropriate. I am pleased to see that you have retreated from the assertion that "These sources don't even pass the smell test." If subsequent to a determination that they are in fact rs, there arise non-NPOV issues by virtue of their use as rs, that can be dealt with then.Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This board is for evaluating whether particular sources are reliable for particular statements. You not liking the comments that predictably came as a result of a challenge to scholarship is what this board is not to be used for. This board is precisely the place to evaluate whether a particular source supports a particular wording. Can you at least pretend to try to read the page notice when you hit edit here? Note point 3: Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: text. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". nableezy - 17:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfinished draft of the author's dictionary by Źmicier Saŭka

Dear colleagues, I'd like to ask you about reliability of the following source: www.slounik.org/rbSauka. That's an unfinished draft of the author's dictionary by Źmicier Saŭka (be-tarask:Зьміцер Саўка) placed on the online platform of Belarusian dictionaries Slounik.org. Unfortunately this Belarusian linguist passed away in 2016, so the dictionary was never finished (and properly published) by its creator including any kind of reviewing with checking obvious errors. There is also no information about creation time and author's original intentions to finish and to publish this draft as a dictionary. Anyway, a local administrator User:Ymblanter seriously believes [4] that this dictionary is a reliable source in the question whether the Belarusian word "Maskal" (related to Moskal) is a slur or not in Belarusian language. The dictionary draft says [5] that the word Russian can be translated to Belarusian as маскаль if it is Wiktionary:en:ругательство. There are no more Belarusian dictionaries with such statements. Therefore, I ask you to express your opinion about this source. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the article Moskal this word is a slur both in Ukrainian and Belarusian, and there is a source for it there. Alaexis¿question? 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

this edit introduced a reference to Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism at Long COVID (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I think I should revert because the name sounds too much like Frontiers in … not to ring alarm bells. This isn't MEDRS right? GPinkerton (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a complete nonsense argument. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Headbomb, that's why I'm asking and have not taken any action. GPinkerton (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The paper in question is Sex and COVID-19: A Protective Role for Reproductive Steroids. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism is a Cell Press publication, so it's probably reliable. As for whether its relevant or due is a different question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comingsoon.net

Hello. Do people believe that Comingsoon.net is an RS? I see it for example being used to quote a non-RS ... odd, and I'm not sure how we handle that if it is an RS - second question I guess. Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Currently the wiki page for it is just a redirect to Mandatory (company), which is confirmed as running the site. I've used it before on a limited basis, but I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. I did a search for it, and it has been cited by ComicBook but I can't find it anywhere else, yet. Historyday01 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Possibly reliable, but of very limited use. Most of its articles features on news relating to films and television. These can probably be sourced to other sources as well. Dimadick (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. What to do where it is being used to refer to a source that itself is a self-published source? 2603:7000:2143:8500:1956:8532:BE28:4ED3 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Tyndale House

Is Tyndale House a reliable source? When searching past discussion regarding Tyndale when searching Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, all I found was: "Tyndale House (publisher) is an unrelated conservative US religious publisher, one of good reputation, but not remotely in the same academic league [as Tyndale House (Cambridge)]". Is a good reputation enough? Wanted to check with y'all. Their website is: https://www.tyndale.com

Thanks for the help everyone 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please let us know what publication you are talking about? They may be reliable for conservative US religious topics, but probably not for other topics. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes here is a link to the book they published that I was hoping to refer to for the cusper wikipedia page: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sticking_Points/PDTUDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sticking+points:+how+to+get+5+generations&printsec=frontcover I checked out their website and wikipedia page, and while it looks like they started out with Bibles & Christian literature, their website shows that they publish a variety of material: fiction & non-fiction. Under non-fiction, it looks like they have published books with a variety of topics: parenting, dating, business, career, finance, counseling, education, fitness, politics, etc. 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Based on their website, they also publish children's books and romance novels. Their self-description informs us that: "Today, we’re one of the largest independently owned Christian publishers in the world. But our mission is the same: to open God’s Word to as many as possible in language they can relate to and understand." They are not exactly a reputable academic publisher, but I don't see reasons to summary dismiss their publications. Dimadick (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Depends on the topic I would not cite this source on the Armenian Genocide article, for example. Academic sources are usually available for theology and are preferable to this source, but it's probably a reliable source on conservative Christianity and the cusper article isn't anything that would require a higher standard of sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Template for "no reliable sources"?

We have templates for "no sources", and for "some unreliable sources", but we don't seem to have a template for articles where all the sources are unreliable ones (which happens quite regularly on new page patrol). For example, Longest Words in Hebrew is only sourced to Quora and Preply (which is similar to Quora, although the responders have at least some education). Would it be useful to have a new template specifically for this kind of article? Fram (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You could try searching Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles for a more apt template. --Jayron32 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. For this specific case, Template:user-generated may be appropriate, but a general template like the one I describe doesn't seem to exist (only one for "some unreliable sites", not for "all"). Fram (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Fram, I think might have been more appropriate for the talkpage. The template Template:Unreliable sources has a parameter "some", if you change that to false then the wording of the template changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The wording then becomes "some or all", which is somewhat better, thanks. Fram (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

...Or we could develop a template called "{{Template:No reliable sources}}", no? A loose necktie (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, did I just do that?? A loose necktie (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Fram (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

MercoPress

What do you think about the reliability of MercoPress? [6] Firestar464 (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Voice of America (VOA)

Hello, Voice of America is not a reliable source?, according to user:CommanderWaterford. Thanks 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taung Tan (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Taung Tan, first of all I would ask you to discuss Article Content Disputes at the Article Talk Page as you did several times before.It is by far not the first time I see you questioning my edits, you need to understand that Article you have created are not your OWN articles and that they of course will be checked and edited - by me and by several others. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, it wants itself to be an encyclopaedia with a CLEAR neutral point of view, for very good reasons. None of your recently created articles were free of at least dubious sources and every first version was with a clear political intention. Secondly VOA is related to Myanmar Protests or the current Myanmar Government not really a reliable, neutral source since VOA is financed by the United States and I am sure that no one really can deny that the U.S. government has own particular interests in this issue. The other source you gave was - once again - from a clear political intentions driven medium. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Suggesting that VOA a dubious source and is just as bad as other state propaganda organisations like RT or CGTN is disingenuous. VOA maintains a firewall between government and itself and is widely respected for its accuracy. Despite recent turmoil, I don't think that saying that it is "unreliable" is a fair assessment. What specific claims are being contested? Are they in any way exceptional or not made by other sources? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Hemiauchenia; the US Gov't's relationship with VOA is nothing like RT's with the Kremlin. GPinkerton (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@CommanderWaterford: I believe you are mistaken. Government funding does not in and of itself have an impact on a sources's neutrality or reliability as wikipedia understands it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, Honestly I cannot believe this - point me to the policy/essay proving this please. If you have a look at the article about VOA you will see a separate section with controversies regarding their independency. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
You can’t believe that a source can both accept government money and be independent? Thats hard to fathom given that almost all of our perennial reliable sources receive government funding in some way whether it be grants, subsidies, or tax preferences. A lack of editorial independence would be a problem, but thats not the argument you have made. I would suggest reviewing WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
(Eg, the BBC has long proven that you can have a state-backed media enterprise that retains high independence from influence of the state. The state sees a well-funded information service like the BBC as necessary to support an educated society but keeps its hands out of influencing how it handles topics to avoid the COI). --Masem (t) 17:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
In this instance the state doesn't give any funding to the BBC; it's all offloaded onto TV-owners as the licence fee. GPinkerton (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, license fees which the state legislated and legally obligates TV-owners to pay backed by the full invested violence of state institutions... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Car-owners also need driver's licences for which they are legally obligated to pay backed by the full invested violence of state institutions. The government of the day is forever threatening to reduce or abolish the fee whenever it feels itself unpopular. There used to be dog licences too. As I understand it, VOA's backing comes out of general taxation, so it is rather more the party organ than the BBC could ever be. For both institutions, the international news (i.e. the World Service, etc.) is directed at a non-domestic audience and is unlikely to be influenced by state policies of any government and most unlikely to take a contrarian angle. GPinkerton (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
You’re splitting hairs which don’t exist to make absurdly contrarian points like "In this instance the state doesn't give any funding to the BBC” when the statement you’re disagreeing with from Masem uses "state-backed” rather than “state funded” so your pedantry is not only unwarranted but based on a misreading of another editor’s argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe this will help you - WP:HELPAFD.--Renat (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
RenatUK I don’t mean AfD. It appears to be negative tag-bombing to me, for the article to be tagged with {{UnreliableSources}}) when there is no information questioned at all. [9], [10] and [11]. Taung Tan (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I think there probably has been a misunderstanding here. It would be wrong to just say "this is a propaganda machine" and "this is not". The burden of proof for policy violations lies on the accuser, not the accused. I think everyone kind of just needs to calm down here, even me ahaha. We cannot have civilized discussion when there are constant assuming bad faith and negative attacks and whatnot. Aasim (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
So VOA is clearly reliable ? Well, Hi... CommanderWaterford do you note ? Taung Tan (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
VOA is reliable its similar to BBC though Government funded there are editorial independence contrary to government funded press in various dictatorships --Shrike (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Both VOA and BBC are more reliable in the present than they were in their well-documented early histories. I've yet to see anyone reaching into the archives and for current news articles they are on par. Spudlace (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA is not like the BBC. Among US media, NPR and PBS are most similar to the BBC, as public broadcasters that are considered relatively independent from their governments. However, media such as Voice of America, and the various "Radio Free X" outlets are in a different category. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc. were established explicitly as propaganda outlets, and were openly run as such for decades. Voice of America's official goal was to present a positive image of the United States to the world, while Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (which were covertly controlled by the CIA until the early 1970s) were much more bluntly tasked with broadcasting negative stories about the Soviet Bloc over shortwave radio (so that people in the Soviet Bloc would be able to listen in). The history is detailed here. Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia have gone through various reorganizations over time, but they still are much more tied to the US government than NPR or PBS. Voice of America's editorial section explicitly states that it reflects the views of the US government. There is a supposed "firewall" between the news section and the US government. However, as a former long-time (35 years) Voice of America correspondent / foreign bureau chief Dan Robinson has explained in the Columbia Journalism Review,

The impression often given in media reports is that programming by VOA and other government-funded media is not influenced, directed, or shaped by foreign policy objectives of any administration. This is just absurd. Among other things, the revered firewall certainly didn't stop officials from standing up the Extremism Watch Desk.

During the Trump administration, there was a scandal over the extent to which Trump tried to overtly influence VOA, but as Dan Robinson explains, government influence in VOA reporting precedes the Trump administration (though he was somewhat blunter about it). The influence of the US government on Voice of America is fairly apparent in the types of topics it focuses on. For example, VOA prominently advertises its section, "VOA News on Iran" (the only other regional news section it advertises on its banner is "US News"). Whether or not VOA should be used as a source depends on the subject. In general, I would say that editors should be aware of its biases and connection to the US government. At times, in-line attribution may be appropriate. For contentious claims about subjects the US government has a strong interest in (particularly with regards to countries like Iran and Cuba), VOA should probably only be used with in-line attribution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to add that the statement above, that it reflects the views of the US government, is taken out of context. The full page says
"The Voice Of America will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.
(from the VOA Charter, Public Law 94-350)
As called for in its charter, the Voice of America presents differing points of view on a wide variety of issues. This includes the broadcast of editorials expressing the policies of the United States government, as well as essays on American ideals and institutions," specifying editorials, not news reporting. Zoozaz1 talk 04:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't take anything out of context. I explained that the editorials explicitly represent the views of the US government, while there's a supposed "firewall" between the government and the news section. However, as Dan Robinson (a long-time VOA correspondent and foreign bureau chief) has explained in the Columbia Journalism Review, that "firewall" is not effective, and there is significant government influence on the VOA news section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I would certainly think as in general for any state-owned media that if I see an article from state-owned media that appears overly pandering and presenting a case not corroborated and in disagreement with other RSes reporting on the same, there's an issue, and we can safely ignore it under IAR/UNDUE/FRINGE reasoning and use the other RSes. If it is the only article making a pandering claim and we have nothing that is "counter" to it, then inclusion should be discussed on the talk page (usually a claim by only one source usually isn't enough for inclusion). There are ways to deal with a situation described as a potential issue here as we'd have for any source and moreso as state-backed media in terms of its lack of independence to the state, but we don't have any clear evidence of a massive bias problem to mark VOA wholesale as a problem. --Masem (t) 15:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
State-owned media is the only free media in many countries. Privately-owned media is intrinsically biased and corrupt. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
VOA is like the BBC, specifically the BBC World Service. The US doesn't really have a government-owned domestic broadcaster like the BBC (PBS and NPR are very different). Furthermore, while Trump tried to ruin VOA like he tried to ruin most of the rest of the government, his attempt failed and his people have been removed [12]. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
VOA was created explicitly as a Cold War propaganda outlet, in order to project a positive image of the US. Trump tried much more explicitly than other recent presidents to direct government broadcasters, but as the long-time senior VOA reporter / foreign bureau chief Dan Robinson has explained, every administration exerts influence over VOA's reporting. This is how he sums up the situation at VOA and Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty:

Government-paid journalists can no longer pretend they are just like their friends at CBS, NBC, AP, NPR, Reuters, and others, or expect to be seen as such by those working for non-government media. That’s simply living in delusion.

This is a pretty harsh judgment coming from someone who was at VOA for 35 years and who held senior roles in the organization. Note how he separates VOA / Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty outlets from the more independent NPR. NPR and PBS - not VOA - are the US' closest equivalents to the BBC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
VOA's primary purpose was not to provide reliable reporting. It's purpose was to project a positive image of the US into the Soviet Bloc. Accuracy was secondary (if at all important). It still serves a similar purpose with respect to countries like Iran, as is obvious if you go to voanews.com and look at the masthead (where "VOA News on Iran" is one of the four main topics). Of all the places in the world that have poor press freedom, why do you think Iran is the country that VOA focuses on? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Not really, if "[its] purpose was to project a positive image of the US" then you'd think it wouldn't carry stories that project a negative image of the US, but it does: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], [19], etc. As for Iran, Reporters without Borders says: "Iran has been one of the world’s most repressive countries for journalists for the past 40 years." [20]. - GretLomborg (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
VOA sometimes carries stories that could be seen as reflecting negatively on the US, but the fact that it was established in order to project a positive image of the US is well documented (see the article on its history I linked to earlier).
As for Iran, the fact that the Iran does not have a very free press does not mean that VOA will report reliably on Iran. The US government has a clear interest in demonizing Iran, and there is strong support within the US establishment for a policy of regime change in the country. The VOA's particular focus on Iran is in line with that policy. RSF ranks Saudi Arabia even worse than Iran for press freedom (at place 172 of 190, with Iran at place 170), but Saudi Arabia is an American ally, so it doesn't get its own prominent section on VOA's website.
I'm not saying that VOA is completely unusable, but it's no BBC, and particularly when it reports on countries with which the US has hostile relations, in-line attribution is probably required. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

JP Sears and McGill University's Office for Science and Society

Hi, this section JP_Sears#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories is entirely from this source [1]. Is this even an RS for this BLP, or is it a blog post by a university employee? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This reminds me of a rather heated discussion on the reliability of The Georgetown University Bridge Initiative to support a contentious claim to a BLP. I'm gonna say it's the same deal here where a few academics decided to create a group blog/research project. This is not one of McGill's academic journals and there does not appear to be any editorial oversight so it does seem that it qualifies as a WP:SPS. Considering the author is an expert, this source would probably be fine in other articles--but certainly not in a BLP. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The Office provides its staff and approach here. These appear to all be experts in their field. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jarry, Jonathan (2020-11-19). "The Clown Prince of Wellness". Office for Science and Society. Retrieved 2021-01-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views. — Newslinger talk 08:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • RationalWiki is often useful in these cases, not as a source but (like Wikipedia) a good place to look for sources. They make a good case[21] for him being a Covid-19 conspiracy theorist but if you look closely they do it using primary sources. Here on Wikipedia just pointing to him acting like a conspiracy theorist as opposed to a comedian doing a parody doesn't cut it. We would need reliable secondary sources that call him that and I am not seeing them. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Pakpassion

Hi. I've seen this website used as references for BLPs on Pakistani cricketers, but wanted to find out more about its reliability. For example, this edit to Mohammad Hasnain's article adds a cite for his height. Now the article looks like an interview for the site, but at the foot of the page it has a "Discuss" link taking it to the website's forum, which copies the interview. So who is the article's author? A professional writer, or some anon. user on a web forum? Thoughts welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it would fall under WP:UGC and it should generally be avoided. However, given that it was an interview with the BLP, using the site as a citation for the subject's height may be acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF. Do you have a reason to believe the interview was completely fabricated, and anon users supplied those answers? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
No, it's more of a hunch than anything. I don't think the interview was fabricated, just wondering if the source came from the site's forum and posted on the main site, or vice-versa. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
People may lie about their heights (to make themselves seem taller), so I'm not sure we should be accepting his height based on an article that's either got the height from Hasnain himself or UGC. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
And one of the conditions of WP:ABOUTSELF is that "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". I would say there is doubt- the height is separate from interview, so not clear if it's self-generated or UGC. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Briefly coming out of retirement here, from my understanding the author of some of the interviews is Saj Sadiq who seems to have written for Sky Sports a few times. See here and here. He has also wrote for wisden see here so I would assume he is relatively reliable. Not sure about this Amir Hussain though who seems to be another editor on the website but his interviews seem to be reprinted quite a few times. Overall though I would count any interviews done by Saj Sadiq fine but I'll leave Amir Hussain up to you. Thanks and bye. CreativeNorth (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - and hope you're well. So looks like most of it looks legit. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The bias of Blender magazine does not reflect legitimate criticism

The magazine's "50 Worst Songs Ever" list commonly cited here does not explain why the songs are bad, it just complains about them. The part of it about "We Built This City" is just the writer bashing "evil corporate rock", and the rule for the list that only allowed songs that were popular hits practically reflects the magazine's bias towards indie music and hatred of pop music. And judging by interviews, the writer of the list, Craig Marks, does not know the meaning of the song (he doesn't know who Guglielmo Marconi is) and takes misheard lyrics too seriously, something the average music critic wouldn't do.

Bringing here for discussion and potential removal of Blender from the reliable source list. I'd like users to check Blender archives for potential complaining, and sort out which reviews contain complaining and which reviews contain legitimate criticism. --2601:199:4181:E00:79CF:C6:51DE:1DB3 (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Being that what is being cited is an opinion, then Blender would indeed be a reliable source for their own opinion (or for reporting the opinion of the writer.) Reliability is not in question there. (And becomes even less of a factor when their opinion is correct, as in this case, as "We Built This City" is a weak and annoying piece from a once worthwhile band.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, just about every source is reliable for pieces of opinion. The question is whether the authors have a reputation for expertise such that we would care, and is an issue of whether or not the source is sufficiently well regarded and mainstream for its opinion to be worth citing. Blender really did publish that opinion, so it is perfectly reliable to cite the actual original source where that opinion was published. Whether or not we care is a WP:UNDUE issue, and discussion of such is probably not what the narrow focus of this board is. --Jayron32 18:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Investopedia

[25] Could we revisit the reliability of Investopedia? They appear to have editorial oversight. Reading the previous discussions, I don't see much reason for doubt. Benjamin (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What do other reliable sources think about the reliability of Investopedia? Do other reliable sources cite the information there? --Jayron32 18:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Their articles are sometimes cited by good scholarly articles.[26][27][28][29][30][31] In the mainstream press, they are sometimes cited in blogs/opinions/commentaries (themselves unreliable) : [32][33][34][35][36][37]. No idea what to make of that.--JBchrch (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Reason and WaPo on NYT on Slate Star Codex

Sources. I'm asking about two sources:

  1. This Reason piece which elaborates the idea that the NYT piece is a lazy hit piece that actively misleads readers, giving them the false impression that Siskind is at the center of a stealth plot to infiltrate Silicon Valley and pollute it with noxious far-right ideas
  2. This WaPo piece which reports that There are multiple issues with that story. See the response by that blog’s author, Scott Alexander, as well as commentary from Yglesias and Fredrik deBoer.

Article. I'm wondering about using these sources in the article on Scott Alexander's now-defunct blog, Slate Star Codex.

Content. The article currently states:

The New York Times published an article about the blog in February 2021, two weeks after Alexander had publicly revealed his name.

This content cites this NYT piece. I'm suggesting that we add an additional sentence by appeal to the above two sources:

This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They're both opinion pieces (Reason largely publishes opinion and the WaPo source is from PostEverything, which publishes opinion pieces from outside contributors.) Reason is obviously a WP:BIASED source about rationalists in particular, so it would have to be attributed, and the WaPo mention is just in passing. Furthermore, the WaPo source says nothing about political positions specifically; it just vaguely mentions "multiple issues." I definitely don't think they're enough to make a sweeping unattributed claim that This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions. In theory the Reason piece could be used for attributed opinion, but I feel that it's WP:UNDUE in context (it's a severe digression given that currently the article doesn't even attempt to summarize the NYT piece - ie. why would we cite an opinion piece responding to a NYT article when our article does no more than acknowledge that the NYT article exists?) I mean, what is the point of the sentence at all - "a NYT article on Slate Star Codex exists, which Reason magazine took issue with?" That seems tangential at the moment. If we were going massively in-depth on the NYT article it might make sense to cover back-and-forth related to it, but we're not. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the WaPo article is labeled as an opinion piece and should thus not be used. Aapjes (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
For context please check out discussion here: [38]. Aquillion is making a good point. On the other hand, note the surprisingly large number of prominent journalists and academics who reacted strongly to the NYT article, calling it a hit piece. Also, The Hill's morning show (which, apparently, has an audience of over a million) devoted a big chunk of their program to the article [39] (I'm not sure if this should be considered notable by Wikipedia standards). Another comment about Reason: I'm not sure in what sense it is an opinion piece, it's in their Media Criticism section and the author is a senior editor. Eliokim (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem with defining an article as an opinion piece when it expresses opinions, is that articles that are not flagged as opinion pieces, frequently do contain opinions. For example, the NYT story on SSC has an opinion in each of the first three paragraphs (I stopped at three):
  • The website had a homely, almost slapdash design
  • It was nominally a blog
  • In a style that was erudite, funny, strange and astoundingly verbose
None of these are objective facts, but opinions by the author. Ultimately, the Reason piece was posted as a normal article, just like the NYT article and I thus believe that they should be given the same treatment, with regard to treating them as opinion pieces or not. Aapjes (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The difference between news articles and opinions is not the level of subjective judgement by the author, it's the amount of editorial oversight.--JBchrch (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
How do you know that there is no editorial oversight for the factual claims in the piece? Newspapers/-sites typically make a clear distinction between pieces that are excluded from editorial oversight by labeling them as opinion pieces or such. I see no such label here. I worry that Reason articles are subjectively deemed to lack or have oversight based on the editor's biases. Aapjes (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I agree with Aquillion that the Reason piece is an opinion piece, just based on the content and common sense, even though it doesn't say "OPINION" or whatever on the page. I also agree that WaPo only mentions this briefly. However, the mention from WaPo links various critiques that all agree with each other that the NYT piece is inaccurate and misleading about Alexander's political positions. The fact that WaPo sees this perspective as worthy of mention, and recommends reading pieces that express this perspective, lends credence to the idea that this perspective is DUE. In other words, per WP:DUE, it is easy to name prominent adherents such as Vox co-founder Matt Yglesias, Scott Aaronson, Kenneth R. Pike, Steven Pinker, Fredrik deBoer, and Scott Alexander himself. All of this, I think, should settle that the perspective itself has DUE weight. And so, given that the perspective has been most elaborated by Reason, and Reason is generally regarded as RS but with a warning to make sure it's DUE, I feel like there's no good reason not to include this perspective sourced to WaPo and Reason. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is long, but so is the detail of the discussion.

These two were the survivors of a farrago of blogs, tweets and unreliable sources that were posted in an attempt to impeach the NYT article - see the list at Talk:Slate_Star_Codex#The_New_York_Times_article. The editors in question appear to be of the opinion that a large pile of bad sources make a good source.

The WaPo article is a passing mention; SSC fans are attempting to use it to leverage in the opinions of the three linked blogs. Here is the complete text of the passing mention:

The New York Times also ran a long feature by Cade Metz about a blog called Slate Star Codex that was popular with some Silicon Valley types and has since moved to Substack. There are multiple issues with that story. See the response by that blog’s author, Scott Alexander, as well as commentary from Yglesias and Fredrik deBoer.

There is no meaningful RS opinion to abstract from this. As Grayfell pointed out, "that it "has issues and has been critiqued" is comically, absurdly loaded. Every article of interest has issues, and this one has been critiqued... on blogs and twitter. Gossip isn't encyclopedically significant on its own."

The Reason article is a media opinion piece. Reason is listed at WP:RSP as "generally reliable for news and facts." But even if this is treated as a "news and facts" article, rather than an opinion article, this particular article is sufficiently bad that it's difficult to argue that it's WP:DUE, as the RSP entry cautions for Reason's opinions - as its facts are trivially false.

Reason asserts that Nick Land is primarily known for writing about artificial intelligence. Here's the quote:

he best he can do is point out that SSC linked to the blog of Nick Land, a British philosopher "whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists." But before his neo-reactionary turn, Land was primarily known for writing about A.I., so this is rather thin evidence. If this was the only weird slip up in the article, it might have been forgiven.

The problem is that this is false. Per the article on him, Nick Land was a noted postmodern philosopher in the 1990s, but in this century is best known for naming and lending academic heft to the Dark Enlightenment, an outgrowth of neoreaction, has repeatedly advocated white nationalism, and literally invented something he called "hyper-racism" because the ordinary sort wasn't sufficient for him. Land's words on AI are mostly making fun of Eliezer Yudkowsky over Roko's basilisk. The NYT article is a reasonably accurate quick summary.

Reason's source on Land is a passing comment in a blog post by Scott Aaronson, a physicist, on the NYT article in question. Aaronson is not any sort of expert with regard to Land, and appears not to know much about him himself - the Reason writer seems to have picked this blog post because he broadly agreed with its opinions, but is now using it as a source for facts. This shows both sloppiness at facts and an inadequacy at sourcing facts on the Reason writer's part.

The Reason article claims that the NYT article is wrong about Land, but the Reason article is the one that is obviously, trivially, wrong about Land, and the NYT summary is both factually correct and a reasonable summary.

The NYT article suggests Scott Alexander is a fan of Charles Murray, and agrees with Murray on the (pseudoscientific) link between race and IQ. This is true, but Reason disagrees with the Alexander article that the NYT links:

This juxtaposition leaves readers with the impression that Siskind agrees with Murray on this point, but in fact, Siskind was merely agreeing with Murray that there ought to be some sort of universal basic income guarantee. It's extremely misleading to suggest that Siskind is aligned with Murray on the subject of race and IQ.

But, in the blog post the NYT article links, Siskind himself says:

The only public figure I can think of in the southeast quadrant with me is Charles Murray. Neither he nor I would dare reduce all class differences to heredity, and he in particular has some very sophisticated theories about class and culture

So Siskind only reduces some of them? He is certainly not broadly disagreeing with Murray in any manner whatsoever. And Siskind is himself a supporter of "human biodiversity", the current term for scientific racism.

The rest of the Reason article makes no strong factual claims - its weight rests on these two factual claims. Reason gets the factual claims completely and trivially wrong, and don't justify the author's opinion based on them. The only substance remaining of the Reason article is that the author doesn't like the NYT article.

This article is a good worked example of why Reason opinion pieces aren't considered RSes, and are unlikely to be of due weight. I appreciate that the SSC fans like it because they agree with it, but its facts are trivially wrong, and it's basing its opinion on the facts it got trivially wrong. Even if most Reason opinion articles were RSes of due weight, this example clearly is not. I submit that the factual sloppiness is pretty good reason not to consider this a significant opinion of due weight for an encyclopedia article - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, RSP says that Reason opinions should simply be attributed, not that they can't be included. So where is this claim that Reason opinion pieces aren't RS coming from? The above comments from David Gerard are largely copied and pasted from the SSC talk page, where I responded to them. So I will repeat here what I've already explained in detail on the talk page for SSC: the Reason and NYT pieces do not contradict each other at all, and David Gerard's personal opinion that the Reason piece is inaccurate is entirely irrelevant to the question we're dealing with here. See talk for further details. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
You appear to be reasoning here in terms of "do I have an excuse" rather than "should I" - the second is what I'm addressing above. Saying you have an excuse is probably insufficient at RSN. If you can't address the clear issues with the Reason article, that's fine, you can say that, but it would be better to address them - David Gerard (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what this comment means. I have responded to your claim that RS factually conflict with the Reason piece. If you have further RS (you know, not just your opinion) that conflict with the Reason piece, then please provide those sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what this comment means It means that there isn't a robotic yes/no answer dispenser on sources - you have to actually consider them. Grayfell explained this to you at the article talk page as well: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, for a start. If there's good reason to doubt a particular source, that's a matter to go through. So yes, you have to answer the question if you're going to claim to understand how a Wikipedia source dispute works, and you've been on Wikipedia long enough that this is a reasonable expectation - David Gerard (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
When did I say anything was robotic? Please stop misrepresenting what I've said. If you think something in the Reason piece is false, the way to show that is to provide a reliable source which conflicts with what it says. There is nothing robotic about doing such a thing, but you have certainly not done so. Please let us know if you have a relevant source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I can back you up on the Land misreading. The only non-reactionary things Land is known are his unique brand of right-wing free-market accelerationism and his drug-fuelled essays on technology and futurism, among which there may be something about AI. Adding Nick Land on my to-do list, it needs to be improved. Shinealittlelight, Aapjes this source definitely has some WP:REDFLAGs.--JBchrch (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
He's still known for his '90s stuff - I know people who knew him then, and lament his horrible far-right turn - David Gerard (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, can you provide a source for your view that Reason has erred on Land? WP editors' opinions on this don't really matter, right? We need reliable sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I would love to, but unfortunately the body of academic research analysing recent Reason articles from a critical perspective is pretty thin. Banter aside, please note that it is acceptable to discredit a specific source on the basis of editors' consensus, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:REDFLAG.--JBchrch (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
There is certainly no consensus on this among the editors. If we go that route we'll also have to consider inaccuracies and disputed claims in the NYT article. I worry that debates between editors on a contentious topic like this will not get us closer to consensus. Eliokim (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:REDFLAG, also called WP:EXCEPTIONAL is a policy concerning exceptional claims. The proposed content is that the NYT piece has been criticized for inaccuracy. This is not an exceptional claim, so WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not apply. As for WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, this is not a blank check to rely on your political opinions to claim that some commentary is inappropriate. Rather, it's a policy that backs up arguments like "this falls outside their area of expertise" or "in this case they have a conflict of interest" or whatever. But that sort of thing isn't happening here. Rather, they are providing commentary that is DUE per WaPo and the prominent people who have expressed similar commentary, and they are moreover commenting on political issues that are squarely within their wheelhouse. You guys just disagree with them. But that's not a reason to exclude their opinion. Unless of course you can provide some RS--not just your opinion--against some factual claim they've made. But nobody has done that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I have not read any of Nick Land's work, but the Cybernetic_Culture_Research_Unit page suggests that Nick Land was involved in studying cybernetics from a cultural theory perspective. Cybernetics seems to be more or less a superset of AI, but the term cybernetics is not very well known (and the term AI is often abused for software that doesn't involve any real intelligence). It seems pretty common for journalists to replace lesser known terms with related, more known terms, even if those aren't entirely accurate. I'm not sure that this is a significant WP:REDFLAG, at least in the context of what 'respectable' journalists or their employers tend to consider acceptable reporting. Aapjes (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Cybernetics seems to be more or less a superset of AI. Disagree.--JBchrch (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the NYTimes seems to not see them as distinct, see this NYT article which uses the term cybernetic poet for what clearly would be called AI today, having a computer create poems that are similar to human poems. The entire story is published under 'Artificial intelligence' (see the top bar.) Aapjes (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
David Gerard, this is not a forum. You are merely giving us your subjective analysis and interpretation of Siskind's words, when you write that: So Siskind only reduces some of them? He is certainly not broadly disagreeing with Murray in any manner whatsoever. The guidelines for WP:PRIMARY instructs editors as follows: do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
You have already made your allegation that Siskind is a supporter of "human biodiversity" and thereby a believer in "scientific racism" on Talk:Slate Star Codex, where the evidence you offered was an archive of a retracted tweet by the husband of Siskind's ex. This is in no way a WP:RS.
Keep in mind that Siskind is not here to respond to interpretations of his words, or to allegations that he is racist. I believe that such allegations should not be made here unless you have reliable primary or secondary sources, which you didn't provide. Aapjes (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
100% of your edits, across all namespaces, since about August 2020, have been advocacy for Scott Alexander and SSC. You're now throwing around jargon in ways that literally don't make sense in the context of WP:RSN. More broadly, this is a pattern: you've seemed to treat Wikipedia rules as a programmable machine that you just have to figure out the hack for. I strongly urge you to reconsider, as this attitude is not the way to a long and productive Wikipedia career - David Gerard (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the third time that you have implicitly threatened me with a ban. Your accusations are rather silly. An editor is not obligated to be very active across a broad range of topics at the same time and your subjective claim that I'm engaging in advocacy is false. My aim was merely to fix the Controversy section of the page to create a narrative that is not deceptive or missing important events. Aapjes (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Aquillion raises a very good point. The article barely even mentions the NYT story, so any response to it would be undue. Citing responses like this would be both disproportionate, and needlessly confusing to readers. We would need to find reliable, independent sources to explain why the story was more than just a blogstorm. It IS just a blogstorm, but it might be a significant one. Once context is evaluated, we can consider borderline sources like Reason (although I'm still very dubious). Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
WaPo gives a passing mention, so we should too. That's exactly my point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Why bother? How will that benefit readers? Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't need to include a passing mention just because it exists, nor is it obvious how we would do this. Grayfell (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Trying to get Reason labeled as not reliable is never going to fly. The overwhelming consensus is that it is reliable on factual claims, pretty much 100% opinion (opinions that sometimes contain factual claims, which are usually accurate), highly biased, and should always be attributed. Reason freely admits to being biased: "Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law."[40] Reason also has an excellent reputation for getting the facts straight and for printing retractions when they get them wrong.
That being said, just because something is reliable doesn't mean that it should be included. I am 100% with Aquillion on that. I am also a bit concerned about certain comments above being about other editors and not about article content, and about certain other comments relying on WP:OR and not on accurately reporting what is in reliable sources without undue weight. More light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This is why I'm approaching this particular piece as a bad source for facts (its factual claims are bad and sloppy) and so a particular piece that I think is not up to standard to use - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Since when do editors get to argue that factual claims in sources that are deemed to be WP:RS are incorrect? Aapjes (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
David's behaviour on this matter is already the subject of a discussion at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#David Gerard and Scott Siskind. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe that we can use these sources as long as we make proper attribution, and making it clear that the WP wrote about unspecified issues. Btw I found another article criticising the NYT piece and Scott Alexander at the same time: [41] by UnHerd. Alaexis¿question? 10:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Unherd is a group opinion blog, I thought, not a WP:NEWSORG - though the general question of Unherd as an RS hasn't come up on RSN - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Unherd claims to have a staff, but they do seem to traffic in opinions more than anything else; I have seen them suggested as links very occasionally, but never for points of fact or non-opinion reporting. I'm doubtful that anything published there would be due the weight unless discussed by high-profile, high-quality secondary sources first. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The Reason source is acceptable for attributed criticism of this NYT article. As noted above, this isn't an OpEd with limited/no editorial oversight. It is analysis. I'm not sure why we would consider analysis from Reason to be "opinion" but analysis from say NYT to be factual. That this NYT article was criticized by a source like Reason is notable and if we are to use the NYT article for aspects that Reason said were wrong then we should note that. Basically when RS A says another RS B made a mistake that means we should treat that particular article as questioned. It doesn't mean we say it's wrong but we don't treat it as rock solid either. Remember that RSP rankings are generalized and do not apply to every article. Each article can be questioned individually. Some editors are quick to dismiss Reason as "biased" or "just opinions" but that isn't true. Reason is analysis with editorial oversight, not a collection of personal opinion articles. As for bias, they are right leaning overall but Adfonts shows they are on the same level as sources we rarely question like the Washington Post. If "bias" is a problem then the WashPo needs to be treated the same way. Of course, that isn't how policy says we handle bias. Springee (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Re: "As for bias, they are right leaning overall", that isn't true. They are libertarian leaning. People who lean left see Reason advocating free markets, capitalism, gun rights, and reduced power of government agencies and falsely conclude that they are right leaning. People who lean right see Reason advocating open borders, legalization of prostitution and drugs, gay marriage, no mandated prayers in schools, and reduced power of police and falsely conclude that they are left leaning. They are neither. They are strongly libertarian. See Nolan Chart and The Political Compass. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Late to the show, lot of material here, but my take is that Reason and National Review should never be used to ref statements of fact, period. It's not a left-right thing, the same applies to The Nation and People's World. They're not there to report facts. That's not their business model! That's the business model of Reuters and France 24 and the Time. Different thing altogether. It is true that many facts in Reason or The Nation are correct. Some aren't, but most are. Just making everything up doesn't fit their business model either. However, the well is entirely poisoned by who and what they are. Are they going to cherry-pick facts? Are they going to spin facts? Are they going to elide exculpatory data that doesn't fit their narrative? Is their fact-checking going to -- either by conscious decision, or unconscious bias -- going to err on the side of favor of material that support their ideology? Of course. That is what they are there to do. It's just not possible for us to dip into these poisoned wells without transferring some of the poison into our work.
D'ya think that the editors and writers of Reason or National Review (or the People's Daily) sit down and say "Well, I'm going to report on the news here, without fear or favor. Whatever personal ideologies I may or may not have are not involved here. If my investigation and reporting of this story places happens to show up my personal ideology as toxic or laughable, well, it is what it it; that won't influence my reporting at all."
If you do think that, well... if you're going to use the People's Daily or Reason to support assertions of fact, then... we can't even agree to disagree since we don't agree on basic facts. But if you don't think that, well why are using them. Don't. If you have a statement of fact that is only supported by (say) The Nation, you have to ask yourself "If this fact is so trivial that no non-polemical source has bothered to report it, why I am even including it?" You shouldn't be. Ever, basically. I don't think I've ever used The Nation or the People's Daily or Reason or National Review to source a single statement of fact in any article ever, and I don't expect to. Ever. Be like me. Herostratus (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Herostratus, I think I basically agree with everything you've said here. However, the content I proposed is not reporting the criticism themselves as facts, but just noting that they exist: This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions. Are you saying you think the WaPo and Reason pieces together are not RS for this very minimal content I'm proposing? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I think thats what everyone is saying... Note that you leaving “opinion” out of “opinion pieces” makes your statement rather misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't have enough background to have an opinion on that. Certainly National Review and probably Reason have standing -- that is, circulation, intellectual heft, and popularity with important people -- to have their opinions on issues of the day reported, if it's appropriate. I don't know if it is here. If it is, I'd prefer "This piece has been criticized by Reason..."; give the source so the reader can, according each to their own, roll their eyes or clap enthusiastically. Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Those are both opinion pieces/personal analysis. Some of what Reason publishes is usable but don’t touch the "MEDIA CRITICISM” section without gloves, eye protection, and a ten foot pole. That right there is toxic waste. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmmm
  • On what grounds are people suggesting Reason is not a usable source? If the argument is the bulk of their work is analysis rather than pure factual reporting that's fine. However, if that is the standard then why would we accept the analysis of facts from say the Wash Po or HuffPo but not Reason? For example, if a HuffPo article comes out and says "Here is how the GOP uses dog whistle politics" and then cites external research, that is basically pure factual reporting (ie Group X really did say the these are examples of GOP dog whistles). However, if the HuffPo instead finds their own list of examples and uses their own assessment to say "Senator X was using a dog whistle here", that is analysis. So why would we accept HuffPo (or WashPo or NYT) analysis as factual or DUE while not accepting the same from a well established source like Reason? Springee (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Two reasons: First, Reason doesn't draw a clear line between fact and opinion, and second, it openly exists for the purpose of advocacy. Neither of those make it unusable (people aren't saying it can't be used at all - it clearly passes WP:RSOPINION), but, like any other stridently WP:BIASED source, it always requires attribution when talking about stuff that falls inside its bias, which is almost all it talks about and generally the only thing people want to cite it for. And even when used in that way, it has to be considered in terms of weight - "cheerleaders for Team Green disagree with Team Orange" is obviously not going to be automatically notable; if we listed every time Reason disagreed with mainstream coverage we'd have to cover their response to almost every controversial topic, which would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. None of this is true for HuffPo or WashPo or the NYT - no source is completely neutral, but they don't primarily exist to support a particular position the way Reason exists to fire endless culture-war fusillades in the service of right-libertarianism and free markets. And, more importantly, those sources generally maintain a more clear divide between opinion and news, whereas everything published by Reason is essentially part of a direct, continuous ideological argument and makes no attempt to be anything else. If the article requires the right-libertarian / American-libertarian perspective, then Reason is an excellent source for it, but "Reason wrote a piece on this" is never sufficient reason for inclusion in and of itself. --Aquillion (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Aquillion: I opened this discussion not taking it for granted that everyone would agree that Reason is WP:RSOPINION. Even though RSP basically says that, and even though it's basically obvious in my view, I think that some parties to this dispute have denied it. So that was one thing I wanted to establish in this context; I'm glad you and I agree that it's clearly WP:RSOPINION. It seems to me that your view is that the Reason piece in this case isn't DUE, right? This is why I thought the WaPo mention of criticism, and their highlighting of several notable people who have criticized NYT's piece for inaccuracy (etc), would help to establish that the point I wanted to make was DUE. So if Reason is RSOPINION, and you think it still isn't DUE even though it expresses a perspective that WaPo found worthy of (admittedly passing) mention, I guess at that point I wonder if you think the whole section of the article about this fued between Alexander and NYT is itself UNDUE. I could be convinced of that. But what seems implausible to me is to claim "sure, this topic deserves a section-long discussion, and we should mention the NYT article attacking Alexander, but not mention that the NYT article has been criticized." That seems like a implausible combination of views to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I've already explained my position in detail above; first, we would obviously have to use in-line attribution if we cited an opinion from Reason, and second, it makes no sense to bring up Reason's opinion on what the NYT piece says when we don't say anything about what the NYT piece says aside from noting its existence and the fact that it used Alexander's name. If we had a paragraph going into depth on each point the NYT piece makes, then it might make sense to include notable responses to those points, but it makes no sense to include the responses and not the claims being responded to - while Reason is WP:RSOPINION, the NYT is obviously due more weight than Reason here, both in terms of being a higher-profile source and in terms of this particular piece having far more coverage than a single reply to it. And I don't think we should go into the level of depth on the NYT piece that would render that reply WP:DUE, since the article is on Slate Star Codex, not on the NYT piece, while the section (and the vast majority of its sources) are focused on the use of Alexander's name. --Aquillion (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • So ... if I understand what’s going on here, the basic reason people want to cite the WaPo and Reason articles is that they critique the NYT article. But perhaps we need to take a step back... and ask how much WEIGHT we should be giving the NYT article? If we don’t give NYT much weight in the first place, we may not NEED the WaPo and Reason critiques. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a good point — tempest, teapot, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Blueboar: There is currently a whole sub-section in the article on the dispute between Alexander and NYT. I think the position you're considering here would quickly lead to the conclusion that the whole topic is UNDUE. Not sure if that's plausible, given that it has received a decent amount of attention, and in my opinion anyone who is interested in the (now defunct) blog will be interested to know how it came to an end: it was ended by the NYT and their attempt to dox Alexander. That means we have to mention their eventual article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • But that subsection does not include any of the purportedly inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions. If you want to include criticism of what the NYT article says about Alexander's political positions, we cannot do so without saying what the NYT article says about Alexander's political positions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Whew! Made it to the bottom of the thread! And I think Aquillion's comment up at the top is generally right. Saying that the New York Times piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions is making a claim of fact, with only the tiniest of qualifications separating the assertion that the Times was inaccurate and misleading from being made in straight-up Wiki Voice. Both the Reason and WaPo sources are opinion pieces, and the WaPo item gives this topic barely a passing mention, fobbing off the work of criticism. There have been days when I, too, found the Times doing a frustratingly shallow job, but the cure for shallowness isn't piling on more of it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OK FWIW right here is article (Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media; How a controversial rationalist blogger became a mascot and martyr in a struggle against the New York Times.) July 2020 in the New Yorker about the who thing. (It is paywalled tho.) Three things about the New Yorker:
  • It certainly has standing to be used. It's mass-circulation, has intellectual heft, and is influential. FWIW it pins Reason to mat on that level.
  • It is, probably, the most rigorously fact-checked publican in America (outside some peer-reviewed journals.) I'll spare the details, but I have them. If the New Yorker makes a statement of fact, you can take it to the bank as much as you can take anything to the bank. (Unless things have changed in the last decade or two, which I doubt.)
  • On the other hand, they're certainly biased. Their bias is a little bit different that you're going to find for Reason, it's more bubble-world thing than a direct polemic agenda. ("I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon" said the New Yorker film critic once, and that holds true still.) But they do try to be thorough and proper; but still, bias, whether unconscious or not.
  • But it's a bourgeois liberal bias, so that kind of balances Reason I guess.
A statement of fact that is supported by the New Yorker is going to be true to the highest level of credibility. That's facts. It doesn't mean they don't cherry-pick and spin, I'm sure they do. So you want to drink from that well vey very judiciously.
Ideally, if you can find a statement of fact that is supported by both the New Yorker and Reason, you've hit the sweet spot because you greatly reduce any charges of bias. I'd much prefer that only facts that meet that criteria be used here. Thus the reader can be more trusting. (But if they actively disagree on a statement of fact, my money's like 30-1 on the New Yorker.)
So allow me an example: Early on, the New Yorker says
It is true that his real name could be ascertained with minimal investigation. Believe me, that was thoroughly checked by an independent person who is well-paid and has a journalism career path, not an intern or drone. If she got it wrong, she'll be dressed down, warned, and probably fired if she messes up like that again, I guess. (If it comes to attention of an editor.)
But that doesn't mean they don't cherry-pick which facts they present. They could just have easily dispensed with what could reasonably be characterized as snark and just said


That would also be true. So if the New Yorker has poisoned the well here, and if we pick up their cherry-picked fact, are we not drinking the poison. (And IMO, sure his real name could be ascertained with minimal investigation, but so what? If say 100 people knew it before the New York Times printed it, 100,000 would know it after, and some of them would be patients and colleagues etc. and that would matter. So... true fact yes, but be very careful.
(To be fair to the New Yorker, it does immediately point this out right below. They are thorough and try to be kinda-sorta disinterested. Their business model is selling magazines to high-minded toffs who like to believe they see and think above mere partisan polemics, after all. They're a whole lot better than Reason. What I'm saying is I can see a tendency for editors to, on purpose, or due to unconscious bias, or by simple mistake, to pick up on the one fact only. I just... can we use Time magazine, or the Los Angeles Times or the BBC or Associated Press?) Herostratus (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If we're going to explore criticism of the NYT piece, we obviously can't avoid exploring what the NYT piece actually says. Simply declaring that This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions is begging the question - what are those purportedly-inaccurate statements? But it appears that there's consensus that it would be UNDUE to explore statements about Alexander's political positions in an article about his blog. If that's the case, then it's also UNDUE to explore criticisms of those statements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable The arguments against including the Reason piece come down to "I don't like what it says, so we can not include it, even though Reason is generally reliable." The Reason article is generally correct in the fact that The New York Times did do some sloppy journalism and quoting of Scott Alexander out of context to make him look as bad as possible; just because it has some minor errors doesn't derive from the Reason's article main thrust. SkylabField (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reason is reputed for biased opinionated posts, but can be used with author attribution if considered DUE, which can be decided per consensus on a per-article basis. —PaleoNeonate – 00:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Is bamsmackpow.com / FanSided reliable?

I recently found an article whose best source comes from an article in this website (which seems to be part of the FanSided group). The website claims (see their about page) to be a 'major' newsource, but this is doubtful. Is this outlet even reliable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Nrhz.de

  • Past discussion Links to past discussion of the source on this board: None found
  • Source For an online source, please include links. Site home page [42]. Exact link proposed for the article [43] Note: the source is an interview with Gilad Atzmon and uses his words from the interview verbatim.
  • Article The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. Gilad Atzmon.
  • Content The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes.

    Atzmon has said that some family members were Holocaust survivors, and that, although "My great-great-grandfather on my father's side was buried on the Mount of Olives”, his wife’s parents suffered badly.

    .
  • Characterisation Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y". This source is only sought to support a single statement by the subject of a BLP made in the course of an interview.
  • Discussion on article talk page Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Jontel's_changes#

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontel (talk • contribs)

  • Thanks for raising this Jontel. For further info, part of the reason I suggested on the talk page of the article in question that it might not be reliable, is the German WP article for the site: NRhZ-Online [de], [44], which describes it as a blog, and includes reliable sources characterising it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory site. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
On my version of the German WP article, it says that "In the Jewish online magazine HaGalil, (Nrhz.de) is characterized as a "mixture of veritable anti-Semitism, dusty anti-capitalism and conspiracy theories". I suppose that is what you mean. It is an anti-Zionist publication. Jontel (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unsuitable for BLP and besides that, even if Atzmon did say it, why does it qualify for inclusion if not covered by reliable secondary sources? (t · c) buidhe 04:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of History (channel) pre-2010

According to WP:RSP, History is listed as an unreliable source due to its promotion of conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific beliefs (most notably Ancient Aliens). However, the most recent discussion about the channel does not discuss its reliability during its earlier years (including its "Hitler Channel" era), although a discussion from 2009 seems to give mixed opinions. So this discussion is to clarify: was History more reliable in the past? For the purposes of this discussion, the cut-off year I'm giving for "past" is 2010 (the year of Ancient Aliens's premiere), although a year of 2009 (when Pawn Stars started) could also be considered. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The link you posted leads to a disambiguation page. Are you talking about History (American TV network) or one of its counterparts in other countries? Dimadick (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: As far as I am aware, all of them show Ancient Aliens and have similarly grown to be less and less history-oriented over time. It's possible some regional affiliates never existed prior to 2010, but that would mean this discussion wouldn't apply to them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd say pre-AA History Channel documentaries were generally no more or less reliable than National Geographic, Discovery, BBC, etc. documentaries -- never "ideal" and generally falling into areas of academia where better sources are readily available (read: popular entertainment topics generally are not covered in scholarly journals and books, and so the best sources are generally less than ideal, but with political history this is almost never the case), but not necessarily "unreliable". They always, AFAICR, prioritized "entertainment" and overly dramatic depictions/descriptions, so if something cited to a History Channel documentary is contradicted by a better source, it should be removed, and it shouldn't be cited when better sources for the same information are available, but I wouldn't go so far as to systematically replace History Channel citations with [citation needed] tags. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with Hijiri88... the programming in those days did not cross the line into unreliable... but it was hardly the best. Since it is never wrong to replace poor sources with better sources, I would go that route. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of academic source

Academic source 1: Kashkay, in Ethnologue - SIL International. 2013 (Web-Archiv).

Academic source 2: Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History, and Threats to Survival. ABC-Clio. 2020

Both sources are specialized in social sciences, languages and peoples, but were rejected by user Qahramani44. Is this rejection justified? I don't think so. I need a third authoritative and independent opinion. --Zulkhadeer (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Qahramani44 (talk · contribs) (who was carefully not pinged by the above tendentious remark...) did not "reject" the above sources or say that they were generally unreliable: they said that more recent scholarly sources specifically addressing population changes are inherently more reliable for current information than decades-old Ethnologue pages and multi-volume works likely composed over several years/decades by a single author who would not have been physically capable of keeping all their information as up-to-date as possible until the time of publication. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I see, but Qahramani44 believes that both sources are lying, considering he's taking everything Victoria Arakelyan says as gospel. I think I may be wrong here then, were can I talk about this dispute issue? Because, it's a serious dispute problem, when native Persian-originated users deny the population increasing of their own Turkic minorities. We are talking about a difference of about 2.2 million people who are not represented in that article. They are practially denied by Qahramani44. He uses a 2015 source with a pre-1980 reference and I have 2 highly actual sources. In any case, Victoria Arakelyan should be regarded as unreliable. Unreliable because there were already 400,000 Qashqai in 1980, as cited in the Encyclopaedia Universalis. Vol.20, Paris 1980 (Thesaurus). —Zulkhadeer (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but are you claiming to be a mind-reader? The diff linked above doesn't say "I believe both of those sources are lying", but rather specifically states the obvious fact that a source from the 1990s is less reliable for current population statistics than a source 2019. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri: Here is the original source of 2016 of James B. Minahan with the latest estimate as of 2015: [45]

What can we do with these kind of racist comments btw? [46] So, if you tell me I am tendentious, understand why I have to be. Because this mindset we are dealing with is deeply racist. —Zulkhadeer (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So are you saying that you are User:HistoriaTurce? I ask as new users don't find their way to the RS/N on their 3rd edit. And users don't generally go through deletion comments on others talk pages to locate such edits. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Shit, I missed the red-linked talk page. Yeah, this is super-fishy. See also the above account's having linked Qahramani44's contribs rather than the user page linked in their signature, then used the ping template to notify Hijiri rather than me: the former is a sneaky trick that indicates a close familiarity with how Wikipedia pings work, and the latter is ... well, it might have been a typo or it might have been a sneaky trick, but either way it doesn't like a new editor. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: This was so predictable. No, it makes no sense with you guys. I'm quitting. I thought, this place was for serious talk. --Zulkhadeer (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC) @Hijiri88: I could also have linked other edits, just look at his first contributions. But it's ok. I am not wished here, I understand. --Zulkhadeer (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, all I heard there was "quack". How could it be predictable when you have no history to predict it on? Canterbury Tail talk 16:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Is WGSN a reliable source?

In a discussion on the Cusper generation page, WGSN is thought to be a "self-published" source. WGSN is a trend forecasting company and its parent company, Ascential, is a business-to-business media business specialising in exhibitions & festivals and information services. If not reliable as a primary source would it be reliable as a supplementary source for cusp generations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cusper#Recent_additions https://www.wgsn.com/insight/p/article/88103?lang=en Examining (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that this source has yet to be deliberated. I’m working with Examining on the cusper page. We already have a reliable published source up that uses a cusper range of 1992-1998, and WGSN appears to use the same range for the Millennial/Gen Z cusp group. We were hoping that it could be used as a supplemental source to the main source.

Maybe to help clarify, it looks like they did a case study to research their 1992-1998 cusp group. Are marketing case studies reliable enough to use? Examining linked the case study above. From what I could find, case studies appear to be a valuable tool for marketing, but wasn’t sure how reliable Wikipedia considers them. https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/case-studies-marketing Centennial357 (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the Orlando Magazine a reliable source for Paula White?

Especially for "She was listed number three on the "50 Most Powerful 2017: Philanthropy & Community Voices" list in the Orlando Magazine July 2017 issue."[47] which is in the lead and might make the reader think that the list is a national one, not just an Orlando one which is what it is. The magazine is basically a lifestyle magazine for "an educated, urban-oriented audience which poses both the income and the inclination to indulge in a diverse range of pursuits." I doubt that it's a reliable source for anything. It's used 4 times.

I doubt that Precious Christian Devotionals[48] is an RS either.

The lead is a clear NPOV violation but that's another issue. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Printed Matter, Inc.

Are books through Printed Matter, Inc. generally usable for the purpose of establishing notability of subject discussed within their book? They're a publisher that accepts books by artists for submission and distribute the books that they like. https://www.printedmatter.org/services/submit-your-book Do their books pass criteria for "reliably published", especially for notability purposes? It doesn't seem like they're involved in content editing. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I may be wrong, but this looks like an interesting model of self-publishing to me. Looks like they have some form of a gatekeeping process, but more is needed for reliability than just a gatekeeping process. IMO this is a WP:SPS situation. Hog Farm Talk 02:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You can submit a book to them, and they will decide whether to publish it. That's not self-publishing; it's an open submission policy like lots of publishers have. The whole idea is to produce accessible (as in affordable) art books, and they seem to accomplish this by publishing many copies and using inexpensive production methods. That's not possible if you publish everything you're sent -- they have to be able to sell the books, like any other publisher. I don't see why something published by them wouldn't help notability, assuming it's independent of the subject and checks the other boxes. All of this said, it is about art. It's not a journalistic or academic publisher, which is worth keeping in mind for contentious claims. This is the impression I get, anyway. @Theredproject: do you have some insight about this? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    Rhododendrites, This is an interesting question, and an angle on things I hadn’t thought about. I would describe Printed Matter as a distributor, not a publisher. They do publish a small number of books, for which they select artists, help edit, and fabricate, with a budget allotted for them. But this is a very small percentage of what they do. They do have an editorial process, but they are fairly inclusive. I agree that it might help, but that one art book at printed matter alone is insufficient. But then again, I probably have higher standards, as do others in the art context. Especially in regards to other areas, for example... with the AllMusic discussion happening directly below this on 🧐 Theredproject (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    If they don't really have editors that get involved in contents at all and they're basically acting in a gatekeeper like moderated web forum and acting in the interest to get 'the words out' about artists, it's debatable if it contributes to notability. Someone could easily setup a 501 c 3 to help "emerging artists" get their start specifically for helping with "becoming published" and such ought to not count. The only thing reliably published would be the fact that it occurred. Graywalls (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, is there some context to this? I don't see a single article that cites a book that was published by Printed Matter Inc. if I look for the string "publisher=Printed Matter Inc" Vexations (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vexations:, I do not want to confine the interpretation to just this article, but it is Colab that made me wonder. It is used eight times to justify contents for that page. Graywalls (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, I think it is unlikely that there are many artists' books published by Printed Matter Inc. that could be used as a source in the way that Schuman's "A Book About Colab (and Related Activities)" is. Most artists' books are unusable as sources. Consider the most iconic artist's book, Twentysix Gasoline Stations or Michalis Pichler's take on it, published by Printed Matter. [49] There may be some publications that are usable in their Social Activism series, which include manifestos etc. that ought to be treated as primary sources, with due care and supported by analysis in secondary sources. I am not worried that we'll see a flood of non-notable emerging artists who source their biographies to quasi self-published artists's book published by Printed Matter. They're by invitation only and do not accept unsolicited proposals. The issue at Colab can easily be addressed by using independent sources instead of Schuman's book. I added two sources to the section on the book that discuss the book itself. Vexations (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Would the roster that was spun-off from Colab into Colab_Members appropriated to be imported back into the main article based on Printed Matter's Schuman source though? Many of those members within that list also are based on the Schuman source. The only thing that might possibly show reliably is that these names appeared in the membership roster, but does it reliably show notability? Graywalls (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, "membership" of Colab is not as clear-cut as as, say, membership of the National Academy of Design. The Academy itself is the best source for who its members are, even though it is a primary source. For Colab, the rule appears to have been that to become a member, an artist had to attend three consecutive meetings. We can reasonably assume that there were no independent non-members thatobserved those proceedings and reported it in independent RSes, so the only viable source that exists for such claims is Colab itself, and even if a later secondary source repeated those claims, it would still be based on Colab's own information. I don't have a problem with that. Vexations (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if the executive director of publishing organization whose purpose is "Welcome to Printed Matter, Inc., the world’s leading non-profit organization dedicated to the dissemination and appreciation of artists’ books." does his own book about something and publish it through his own organization rather than through a different publisher independent of him, that would be WP:SPS, right? Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Biographie de Jean de Montagu, grand maître de France (1350-1409)

Is Lucien Merlet's, Biographie de Jean de Montagu, grand maître de France (1350-1409) a reliable source for Jean de Montagu and his mother Biette de Cassinel?

The article

can be found in the peer-reviewed journal, "Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes".--This particular journal has over 60 citations on Wikipedia.

This article has been cited in numerous academic articles and numerous academic books. Aside from age, are there any real concerns for this source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, is

  • Adams, Tracy; Adams, Christine (2020). The Creation of the French Royal Mistress: From Agnès Sorel to Madame Du Barry. The Pennsylvania State University Press.

a reliable source for Biette Cassinel, possible mistress of Charles V, and her son Jean de Montagu? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, https://www.ifcj.org

Are things that are published by the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews-website; https://www.ifcj.org WP:RS for historical facts?

I came across this source on the Eli Cohen-article, as a source for "In January 1947, Eli enlisted in the Egyptian Army as an alternative to paying the prescribed sum that all young Jews were obliged to pay, but he was declared ineligible on grounds of questionable loyalty. Later that year, he left university and began studying at home after facing harassment by the Muslim Brotherhood".

https://www.ifcj.org-links are used on these pages; I'm fine with using it as a source on the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews-article, but what about the others? Huldra (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • On the Eli Cohen source: unreliable, as a blog with no evidence of being written by a subject-matter expert. As to the other uses on WP outside of the IFCJ article, they seem unreliable for their own reporting. This on Harpo Marx, for example, has no evidence of editorial oversight or factchecking—and their other reports, that aren't just quotes of other papers, have the same problem. All of the other instances I checked of the IFCJ being used on WP, outside of on their own article, were just quotes of other reputable publishers, so that much seems acceptable. Urve (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It is not a historical resource, it is a religious organization. Also its Pro-Israel stance would likely disqualify it as a source on political matters, due to its bias. Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Letters to the editors

Are letters to the editor published in otherwise reliable sources, reliable. Are they considered subject to normal editorial controls just because the editor has allowed their publication?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, I'd have thought they'd be allowable primary sources as a statement of the views of the person writing the letter, nothing else. GirthSummit (blether) 09:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Would letters from authors of articles previously published in the source offering corrections further information to their original article be usable as a source?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
To give a little background, for the past several months I've been adding sources to the relevant articles as I go through various magazine issues that I have on hand, including some, but not all, letters to the editors. The magazines themselves are RS, that's not in dispute, but it's important to understand that I'm only adding the references, not anything to the article bodies themselves. So it seems to to me that they're impossible to classify as RS or not without the context of what they refer to. My point is that editors should be aware of these sources so they can assess reliability for themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
To the questions, Are letters to the editor published in otherwise reliable sources, reliable & Would letters from authors of articles previously published in the source offering corrections further information to their original article be usable as a source?, I would say "no". I would, however, say that they would cast significant doubt, to the extent of being dispositive, on the reliability of the source for the aspects of that source that they are correcting or clarifying. Too often we treat publisher, publication or article as the granularity of reliability - it ought be the statement. - Ryk72 talk 10:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
An example of the use of these sources would be useful. - Ryk72 talk 10:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
In the partcular situation that has brought this to light, the letters aren't necessarily being used - just added - an example is [50] - which adds a letter to the editor responding to a magazine article (which isn't cited) about aircraft that were interned in the Netherlands during the First World War and later taken into service by the Dutch - the letter queries the identity of two of the aircraft mentioned in the magazine article claiming that one of them was a Felixstowe F2 rather than a [[Curtiss H12], with the letter writer referring to information extracted from a book (another RS) as justification.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
No, that's not a good use of any source; far less "letters to the editor". Don't add any general references to rebut non-existent content, especially non-reliable ones. - Ryk72 talk 12:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you talking about letters with responses or just letters that were published? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Letters to the editor should be treated exactly the same as a contributed op-ed, i.e. WP:RSOPINION. Even if it contains factual statements or factual claims, it's not reliable for that, because letters, like contributed op-eds, are not subject to the same editorial process (e.g. fact checking) as non-opinion pieces (e.g. news or features). A letter shouldn't be added to a citation for a statement in wikivoice; rather, if the letter is going to be cited, e.g. to say "It's a Curtiss not a Felixstowe", then it needs to be attributed, e.g. "According to John Letterwriter, it's a Curtiss not a Felixstowe". If our article already says it's a Curtiss, then we really don't need to add the letter as a source at all; it adds nothing to add John Letterwriter's opinion (and it might even be WP:UNDUE). Similarly, if the letter cites an RS, then we should just use the RS that is cited, and skip the letter. I could see the value in citing a letter if it's written by an WP:SME and says something significant that is not in any other RS, but I imagine such circumstances would be rare. Levivich harass/hound 19:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It would be undue to even make the editorial decision on your own to include a letter to the editor. It's true that someone wrote and said that, but even if an attribution is made that "a commentator wrote to say that", it is the Wikipedia editor's justification to feature it. If a letter to the editor, a particular Twitter post or such becomes the subject of coverage in a reliable, mainstream media source, it would clear the WP:DUE weight aspect of it, and it would be appropriate to include it alongside. The contents within the Letter to the editor is never reliable unless it was by a subject matter expert, because editorial process is not applied to it beyond the choice to publish or not publish. Graywalls (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I have sometimes seen a notable individual, and what would be an expert on a topic, provide a letter to the editor on a topic. This would still be RSOPINION, absolutely, but inclusion would be something more appropriate based on the person's expertise that would not necessarily require that amount of talk page discussion. (Most of time, though, these tend to be actual op-ed pieces and not letters to the editor) --Masem (t) 20:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Most letters to editors submission have gatekeeping process to ensure authenticity of the person's identity, so if someone identifies themselves as someone known in the field, the identity can likely be assumed to be authentic. WP:SPS expert opinion is still better avoided if non SPS is available. The choice to include it is still a due weight matter unless it is absolutely non-controversial. Graywalls (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
That's why I generally only added them to the sources, and not to the text. These aren't op-ed pieces like some of the commenters above seem to believe, but sometimes one published author pointing out that the published author of an article made some sort of mistake. I don't know who might be right in those cases, so I let editors who are more familiar with the topic make those decisions. My intent is to merely clue them that there might be a dispute that needs further investigation. And there have been a couple of cases where one letter writer is correcting his own published article based on further research; don't try and tell me that that isn't RS! Nigel Ish seems to want a blanket declaration that all of the stuff that I've been adding to the bibliographies isn't RS, but that's inappropriate because I haven't been adding anything to the text citing the letters (aside from the Felixstowe article) and the editors of those articles need to decide if they are RS on a case-by-case basis.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
"That's why I generally only added them to the sources, and not to the text." Sturmvogel 66, why are you adding sources to the reference list or bibliography if they're not being used to support any article content? A reference list is not the place to collect such material. Fences&Windows 14:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Because they're relevant to the content; I'm letting the editors decide if the additional sources are useful. And if not there then where, further reading?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Probably the article talk page - because they are being added principally to aid editors rather than readers - the sort of information that is going to be present in letters to the editor probably won't normally meet the requirements of {{WP:FURTHER READING]] (which is admittedly only a essay)Nigel Ish (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't normally read the talk pages of the articles that I'm working on, so I'm not certain that that'd be very useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that there might be a bit of confusion over definitions here. Letters to the editor of a newspaper or similar are clearly nothing but the opinion of the author, and can't be assumed to have been fact-checked by the publisher (though usually they won't publish anything libellous or crazy). However, I think that what Sturmvogel 66 is referring to is letters from people with expertise which are published in specialist publications. Warship International for instance has a regular section where readers can pose and answer what are often obscure questions about naval history, with the responses often being from experts in the field who submit fairly lengthy responses. I'd suggest taking a case by case approach with such publications - if other experts cite these sections or there's other evidence that the responses are either a) verified by the publisher or b) always from experts then I think that we can use them. Obviously if the letter in such a case is from a recognised expert it can be assumed to be reliable, though a citation from a work by the same author which has clearly been fact checked would likely be preferable. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
What Nick said. I hadn't quite realized that we were talking past each other because Nigel and I know exactly what we were talking about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Relevant and "possibly useful" doesn't justify including everything. While this isn't a letter to the editor, having been covered in several reliable mainstream media such as [this The Guardian justifies possibly include the letter in the appropriate articles or even as a citation, however it would be better to cite the secondary sources that discuss that letter whenever possible. However, if that letter did not get any coverage, then it would be inappropriate to even make a mention of it in prose or in WP:EL in just about any article. On what Nick said, the gist of explanation at WP:FORBESCON is relevant. Graywalls (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
If they are by noted experts (and it's clear they are that person) yes (as Op-eds), otherwise no. They are no more reliable than anyone else's opinion, verifiable and reliable are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing. I mean, if a U.S. Senator or Rep wrote a letter, then I suppose that could be acceptable, but most of the Letters I've read, in my local paper, are by ordinary blokes, and I would say that they wouldn't have Wikipedia pages anyway, so they wouldn't be cited on here. I think that is similar in other publications too. Historyday01 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Including a letter like that could be POV pushing. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

How's LifeHacker nowadays?

How's LifeHacker nowadays? In 2020, there was a small RSN discussion with a 2-1 consensus that it was unreliable. Sounds like they were concerned about it being a blog, and a lack of editorial oversight. Today I tried to take a LifeHacker source out of an article and got reverted. Is it more reliable nowadays? Here's an example article: [51] Here's a link to their About page. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Did the person who reverted the removal give a reason?--70.27.244.104 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Reason was What makes you think LifeHacker is not a WP:RS? Checking up on it, it has editorial oversight and uses professional writers: see https://lifehacker.com/about –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
It was a small chat, not really a "2-1 consensus" in my view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've used it at least once or twice for tech-related reporting, I think. I probably wouldn't prefer it as a source if I could find something better. Something to keep in mind about Lifehacker is that it was originally owned by Gawker Media. Gawker was considered unreliable, but it looks like it changed hands to G/O Media. I wonder how things have changed since that happened, if at all? --Chillabit (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Bellingcat

Bellingcat became an RS in September 2019 and I believe this is an inconsistent application of Wikipedia source standards as compared to similar sources. Either Bellingcat should be downgraded or similar sites such as Buzzfeed should be upgraded to match for the following reasons:

  • Outlet is not "well-established" and this is a specific term is used as criteria for determining the reliability of News Organizations. Bellingcat has been in operation for less than 10 years and during that time, has gone through quite an arc of changes in their reporting methodology (more below). Not dissimilar to BuzzFeed, although BuzzFeed has been around for longer (since 2006) and is currently rated "no consensus." In fact, there are quite a few similarities between Bellingcat and BuzzFeed in that they both have roots purely online and they both followed an arc from "less reliable" to "more reliable." Which makes it strange that those arcs have ended in different source-status.
  • Bellingcat in it's original state (the Brown Moses Blog) did not met RS criteria for obvious reasons. The next form it took (around 2014 and transitioning to the name Bellingcat) was a sort of platform for user-generated content. In fact, the kickstarter campaign behind the 2014 transition has this promise: "We don’t need to exclusively rely on traditional news media to do the digging and reporting for us. We - you - can do it on our own." So this explicitly separates Bellingcat from the "traditional news media." That, plus the self-publishing concerns, made it still run afoul of sourcing criteria. This was the consensus at the time as reflected on the Noticeboard. In September 2019, this status was changed, despite the lack of any specific impetus to do it. Bellingcat did not dramatically restructure it's operations prior to this change in status to RS, in fact quite the opposite. Bellingcat is supremely passionate about it's "citizen journalist" roots, even conducting trainings for non-journalists on how to perform online investigations. The change in status to RS seems to be mainly a function of it being perceived as "right" or "first with the scoop" on major stories and this is reflected in the petition at the time. This puts the chicken before the egg. Compromised or unethical reporting methodology which results in a scoop or accurate story should not be encouraged. I can't help but wonder if the favorable dramatization of the organization in the 2018 film Bellingcat - Truth in a Post-Truth World impacted some who voted. Fawning media coverage and heartwarming documentary films should not cover up structural problems of a source.
  • An outlet's self-published Editorial Standards is one way to gauge their dedication to good reporting. A visit to Bellingcat's website reveals a link labeled "Editorial Standards" but clicking on it takes the user to an unrelated PDF. Go ahead, try it. Thus they currently do not publish their Editorial Standards which, if not rectified promptly, should cause them to lose reliability standing on it's own.
  • Bellingcat is biased in the investigations it prioritizes. Their 2019 annual report includes an "about" page where they state that "environmental degredation" and "the rise of far-right movements" are top investigative concerns. There is no balancing mention of "the rise of far-left movements" or extremism in general. The site also has an anti-Russia, pro-NATO bias, which has been a topic of discussion on this noticeboard before.
  • Finally, recently published documents shows covert coordination between Bellingcat and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Specifically including an intervention in North Macedonia’s 2019 elections. I am not passing judgment on the authenticity of these documents but they deserve consideration in the mosaic of facts presented against Bellingcat's reliability.
Their editorial standards can be found here. I think you may want to clarify which Buzzfeed you mean, Buzzfeed.com or Buzzfeed News? Woodroar (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both reliable I think both Bellingcat and Buzzfeed News (Buzzfeed's journalism department in specific) should be considered reliable sources. Both have world-renowned investigative journalists involved in their news productions. Also, The Gray Zone is a conspiracy website akin to Infowars. SilverserenC 23:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This has been reported in an outlet besides Grayzone and Bellingcat has not denied it yet. Nweil (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
What are the other outlets and are they considered reliable? Responding to claims from deprecated sources often gives the claims undue legitimacy so I'm not sure why you assume Bellingcat is obliged to respond. Have the BBC and Reuters responded either? CowHouse (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The Grayzone article is not just about Bellingcat, but also the BBC and Reuters. One outlet that has covered the story is The Canary (which is subject to an ongoing RfC determining its reliability). According to The Canary, the BBC said: The allegations contained in The Greyzone [sic] report are false and a complete misrepresentation of our work. CowHouse (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Use with caution, don't assume WEIGHT Bellingcat is not a widely cited or reviewed source. It doesn't have a long or solid reputation and thus we should be very careful when using it for statements of controversial facts (BLP in particular). It's also not clear that claims by Bellingcat can be considered DUE. Again, not a big deal if the claim isn't controversial but in cases where BC is the source for a controversial claim about a BLP subject we really need to ask, if this is DUE, why is BC the only source for the claim? Springee (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A few points:
BuzzFeed News is considered generally reliable (RSP entry).
Here is the link to their Editorial Standards & Practices.
One of your sources, The Grayzone, has been deprecated. If we assessed the reliability of sources based on that Grayzone article, then the BBC and Reuters would also no longer be reliable.
Part of the reason Bellingcat is considered generally reliable is WP:USEBYOTHERS.
Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased (see WP:BIASED).
CowHouse (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The Grayzone is deprecated because it is a anti-"US imperialsm" propaganda website that publishes disinformation. The false appeal to "far-left" movements is the same false balance that leads to conspiracy theories about antifa, the idea that far left and far right movements are equally bad, when in reality far right movements are far more dangerous and kill significantly more people. Most people who I've seen dismiss Bellingcat were doing so in the context of supporting the idea that Assad didn't use chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, which is mostly supported by Russian disinformation. That said, I don't think Bellingcat is unreliable, but it should be treated with caution for claims which it is the sole source, and these should be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both reliable Not going to spend too long on this, but check out this Reuters article discussing Bellingcat. It is very charitable, though it includes some gentle warnings about some of Bellingcat's more unusual aspects such as crowd-sourcing and payment to informants. From our perspective, these don't matter, I think--they relate to the journalism behind Bellingcat, not Bellingcat's editorial process, which appears quite robust. Going back to Reuters, they fairly regularly cite from Bellingcat [54][55]. Jlevi (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The crowd sourcing and payment to informant stuff should be especially concerning for Wikipedia since this is is itself crowd sourced. There is no protocol in place to prevent a contributor (or paid informant) to Bellingcat to also contribute to Wikipedia on related pages. This situation would create conflict of interest issues. Should there be a protocol in place? Nweil (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? CowHouse (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both reliable - Bellingcat in particular has been widely praised by academics, journalists, a gold standard when other reliable sources consider it reliable. -- GreenC 04:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable for news. My stance on Bellingcat from the 2019 RfC is unchanged. Using The Grayzone (RSP entry), a deprecated source, to criticize Bellingcat is an unconvincing argument. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The New York Times has published at least two highly positive articles about Bellingcat: [56] [57]. Re: Buzzfeed News, given the large numbers of reporters they've sacked over recent years as part of greatly scaling back their news operation, I thought there had been a re-evaluation of this source's reliability? Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable: nothing to add to previous comments except that "fawning media coverage" is an argument for reliability not against, as it is an example of WP:USEBYOTHERS. If anything, Bellingcat's reliability is more clearly shown since the 2019 RfC as trust in it by other reliable sources has continued to increase. Its investigative reporting has continued to influence news agendas (pointing towards reporting by Bellingcat being generally DUE). BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable: they've done some remarkable investigative journalism, particularly with the Skripal and Navalny poisonings Noteduck (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
You do not address the point that the outlet has changed over time. At what point did it become reliable? And should items published by Bellingcat before a certain date be disregarded? Things published before the 2019 RfC? Nweil (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
It is unclear whether your argument is that Bellingcat has or has not changed over time: Bellingcat has been in operation for less than 10 years and during that time, has gone through quite an arc of changes in their reporting methodology ... Bellingcat did not dramatically restructure it's operations prior to this change in status to RS, in fact quite the opposite. CowHouse (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The fact that The Canary describes these hacked documents as "leaked" shows why few editors consider them reliable, but I don't see what is revealed in this story that would make us see Bellingcat as unreliable? There is no allegation here that Bellingcat have misreported anything, simply that they were partners with Reuters and the BBC in some anti-disinformation work. If anyone sees this as a reason to consider Bellingcat unreliable, they'd need to also argue that Reuters and the BBC are unreliable. The specific Bellingcat role in the consortium was training journalists in digital research skills. The fact its staff are seen as experts in such skills in facts confirms its reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say it meant it is unreliable, I think we need to see what other reliable sources make of these leaks. Alaexis¿question? 13:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable. Bellingcat has a stupid name, but they've been responsible for some very serious and oft-cited reporting. The alleged "propaganda" program doesn't seem like anything than what it states itself to be - a program to fight disinformation without compromising outlets' editorial integrity. François Robere (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both reliable Bellingcat and Buzzfeed are both, at this point, well-established, I think. Both are generally accurate, though of course no one is above mistakes. Neither may be the absolute top-tier of reliable sources, but they're both RSes to me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both reliable The criticisms of Bellingcat seem to be insinuation more than anything else, and while Buzzfeed News might suffer a dropoff in quality due to shrinking staff, we can't say that's happened until it's happened. XOR'easter (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both reliable per above. This post was OP's ninth-ever edit, and betrays some misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy. For example, regarding There is no balancing mention of "the rise of far-left movements", see WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both reliable. I also find it amusing that the op thinks that being worried about "environmental degradation" is a bias, although they stop short of suggesting that a balanced outlet should presumably be concerned about too much of "environmental improvement"... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable. It shouldn't matter if they use professionals (for what that's worth) or amateurs, as long as they have sufficiently high editorial standards. Conflating the use of an amateur workforce with self-publication seems to be a misuse of the word. Bellingcat is not Facebook or WordPress where anyone can publish (nearly) anything. The broken link to the editorial standards has been fixed already, as I've personally verified. Having that be broken for a day or so is not evidence that they are not a reliable source. Claiming that they should not be WP:RS due to a bias in what stories they report on, would result in the removal of most WP:RS if we are being consistent. The thegrayzone story merely seems to allege that Bellingcat trained foreign media. Hardly a sign of a lack of reliability. So I don't see any serious reason being offered why they shouldn't be WP:RS Aapjes (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable. First, the whole premise here is wrong (you say it "became a RS", but that's not how RSN works - we evaluated it during that discussion because it was brought up, but it was already a RS.) Second, none of what you say changes that. A source does not have to be "traditional news media" to be an WP:RS, provided they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Buzzfeed News is in fact a reliable source (so I don't understand what you mean by different source-status.) Even if they were biased as you claim, they could be used, but you haven't even illustrated that - in fact, the argument that "environmental degredation" and "the rise of far-right movements" are top investigative concerns. There is no balancing mention of "the rise of far-left movements" or extremism in general is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Sources are expected to cover things accurately; a source that artificially weighed everything along a left-right axis in order to create the appearance of balance would in fact be a more biased source than one that simply covers the most important stories, since they'd be overtly using their own editorial position to bias coverage. If we allowed this sort of argument to cast a source as biased, editors could frame any source they please as biased simply by disagreeing with its conclusions. Thegreyzone is not a WP:RS and nothing they say has any weight. And, finally, the link to their editorial standards seems to work just fine. None of this changes the fundimentals identified in the previous RFC - they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and no reputable source seriously questions that. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Kirkus Indie

Hi! I'm posting here in response to a discussion taking place at the AfD for the book series Blood of Ra. (Article itself is here.) There has been some question as to whether Kirkus Indie would be usable as a reliable source that can establish notability.

Info dump about Kirkus Indie: Kirkus magazine traditionally only reviews books that have been picked up by a publisher. They may also accept submissions via an agent, I'm not certain of that. They would not accept submissions directly from the author, whether self-published or unpublished, which is why Kirkus Indie was launched. KI is a fee service and a review costs between $320 - 575, depending on the option. The site does not claim that every review will be favorable.

Now here is the main issue: does the fee make Kirkus Indie automatically unreliable? My concern is that it poses a conflict of interest since it's not strictly independent. Arguments for the usability of the site from the AfD typically center upon the disclaimer that not all reviews will be positive and that Kirkus is a notable review institution.

This doesn't seem to have had a recent-ish discussion, as the prior discussions were in December/January 2014/5 and May 2015. I personally am uncomfortable seeing a fee review service as reliable, but I think it's worth discussing Kirkus Indie in specific. They're not as bad as say, Reader's Favorite, for example. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I used to write reviews for Kirkus Indie, so I can describe their process a bit. They aim to have each book review be about 2/3 summary and 1/3 opinion. While they promise that reviewers will have read the whole book, the pay is so low that it is ... uneconomical to always do that, although they do have a factchecker go over descriptions/citations. I remember them asking for specific citations from the book to support opinions, especially if you were critiquing it. Also, the author has the option to not publish the review if they don't want it up, so most of the KI reviews are positive. So, I think they'd be a fair source to use for plot summaries and the like, but I agree that it's questionable, at best, as a measurement of critical reception or commentary. Definitely not as a source for notability, since it's paid coverage. —Wingedserif (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
This has already been discussed previously and consensus, which should be a surprise to absolutely no one, is that Kirkus Indie is not an independent reliable source that can be used to establish notability. CUPIDICAE💕 15:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info Wingedserif! That info does definitely solidify my opinion that it's not usable as a notability-giving source. I didn't see where the past discussions on here had been specifically about Indie (that I can find) and the general consensuses that I was aware of were at AfD were against using it, so I thought it'd be fair to bring it up here. Now there can be a discussion to point towards as far as this discussion board goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree based on this that Kirkus indie doesn't indicate notability, the fact that the author has to pay for it and can decline the submission means that it's not independent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_330&oldid=1073158517"