Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313

Archive 310

Archive 311

Archive 312

Archive 313

Archive 314

Archive 315

→

Archive 320

Dogsbite.org, other dog attack-related advocacy websites

We have an AfD going on for list of fatal dog attacks in the United States and one of the questions people have about the page is about reliable source coverage of the subject as a group.

Among the websites offered for evidence of this coverage are dogsbite.org, dogbitelaw.com, daxtonsfriends.com, animals24-7.org, nationalpitbullvictimawareness.org, and fatalpitbullattacks.com

Not looking for opinions on notability here, of course, nor for people to weigh in at that AfD. Just for opinions as to whether advocacy websites, law firm websites, etc. like these should be considered reliable sources in this context.

It's very much not my topic area -- it just seems like I keep coming across thinly veiled anti-pitbull advocacy on Wikipedia lately, and I want to make sure I'm not missing something about these kinds of sources. I know that in some areas there are advocacy organizations routinely do high quality work, and perhaps these are among them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

All unreliable - self published sources by non-experts whose statistics and inference from said statistics are at odds with the expert veterinary literature. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite some examples? ImTheIP (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure - Animals 24-7 states that "Of the 210 fatal dog attacks occurring since January 1, 2010, 138––66%––have been inflicted by pit bulls.", and dogsbite.org makes similar claims that "From 2005 to 2019, pit bulls killed 346 Americans, a rate over 6.5 times higher than the next closest breed, rottweilers, with 51 deaths.". Dog bite statistics are not collected by the CDC by breed and dogsbite.org's statistics are disputed by some groups as misleading - this article cites the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior as an example. Dog bite statistics by breed are fraught with error, as noted in a 2006 Journal of Veterinary Behavior paper which states Attack data are often seriously flawed with respect to collection, reporting, and analysis. In the United States, the term “pit bull” does not mean APBT: it is a generic term that includes all the bull and terrier breeds, and sometimes the other bull breeds such as boxers, bull mastiffs, American bulldogs (Rowan, 1987). Breed identification is seldom ver-ified or consistent (Beck et al., 1975), and even experts cannot always tell whether a dog is a pit bull (Rowan, 1987). More seriously, breed identification often is based upon newspaper accounts. A 2013 paper in the JAVMA analysizes all US fatal dog attacks from 2000–2009 and notes that breed was only reliably identified for 17.6% of cases. Likewise, in a 2017 Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science paper, the authors found that large portions of hospital intake statistics are incomplete or unknown with regard to the breed, an example is For example, Dwyer, Douglas, and van As (2007) claim that “pit bull terriers” and German Shepherd dogs—presumed to be correctly identified—were the most common breeds in their study to “attack” children, but they note that only 1% of their sample reported the presumed breed of the dog, a percentage far too low to permit generalizations about the other 99% of the sample.

Breed-specific legislation is opposed by the AVMA and the AVSAB, two of the major veterinary bodies in the United States on the grounds that it is not effective at reducing overall dog bite incidences, the AVSAB position statement in particular references several studies that shows overall dog bite incidences do not change when pit bull populations approach near zero. Dogsbite.org doesn't seem to dispute this, and their claims that BSL is effective specifically states laws reduce only the amount of pit bull attacks - not overall dog attacks or hospital intake.

Dogsbite.org was also critized for their use of the term "science whore" to describe members of the scientific community. This mentioned by author Bronwen Dickey in both her book Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon and in an interview with Psychology Today. Radio Canada also criticized dogsbite.org for the use of the term - the site responded to this criticism saying that this term has only been used three times since the creation of the site in 2007, which is not a particularlly compelling defense. Perhaps more worrysome is that after a great deal of discussion in Feb 2019 on the Talk:Dogsbite.org page about the term "science whore", dogsbite.org scrubbed all the logos and branding off the maultalk "Science whore" entry as of the April 23 2019 snapsnot, indicating some kind of off site coordination to influence Wikpedia discussion. PearlSt82 (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

But the specific claims you are objecting to are not contradicted by the literature. I did a literature search and found that it is not implausible that, currently, most fatal dog bites in the US are inflicted by pit bull type breeds: "Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. " Essig Jr. et. al 2019 "During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths." Sacks et. al 2000 Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities 1998 It is of course possible, as you suggest, that this research is based on faulty statistics, but that wouldn't make the conclusions false, only unproven.

My point is that if you object to "Of the 210 fatal dog attacks occurring since January 1, 2010, 138––66%––have been inflicted by pit bulls" you should challenge the statement directly. Phillips publishes the data he supports his claims with so whether he is doctoring the data or not can be shown. For example, you could go through his list of dog bite fatalities for 2018 and show that he has incorrectly listed the breed as pit bull on one or more entries. To me, that would be conclusive evidence that the guy is a crackpot. ImTheIP (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The Radio Canada source does exactly this. Through Google Translate: Here are a few cases that Animals 24-7 considers to be pit bull deaths: In 2009, in Wisconsin, a 55-year-old woman, Louanne Okapal, died after being punched in the face by her horse. The horse had been frightened by a pit bull. In 2009, a 48-year-old Connecticut woman, Teresa Foss, died of a head injury after being hit by a pit bull. The dog hadn't bitten her. In 2010, 64-year-old Texas man Richard Martratt stabbed a pit bull and shot a catahoula after the two dogs attacked a border collie on his property. The man was not attacked by the dogs, but when authorities arrived he collapsed and died of a heart attack. In 2010 in Georgia, 14-year-old Miracle Parham fled after being frightened by a dog that witnesses described as a pit bull. She was fatally hit by a car. In 2013, 63-year-old James Harding was hit by a car after trying to pull away from two pitbulls. A 6-year-old girl was strangled by a chain to which a pit bull was attached. The year and location are not specified. and Another case cited on DogsBite.org concerns a 57-year-old man from Tennessee, James Chapple, who suffered serious hand injuries from pit bulls in 2007. Four months later he died of atherosclerosis and alcoholism problems. Even so, DogsBite.org counts it as a death caused by pit bulls.PearlSt82 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Another case, Julia Mazziotto is reported by dogsbite.org as a pit bull fatality, but page 204 of Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon states The Lee Institute’s forensic experts determined that Julia Mazziotto’s wounds had been inflicted postmortem and that the elderly woman had actually died of a cardiac arrhythmia. The dogs had not been involved in her death, but after the fact they had pawed, scratched, and bitten her body. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

PearlSt82, your blind hatred for Clifton and Lynn comes out yet again. ImTheIP was referring to attorney Kenneth Phillips "doctoring the data or not" and you go on and on about Clifton and Lynn. By the way, according to the website DogsBite.org, Lynn doesn't "count" Chapple as a dog bite related fatality. See here where it says it isn't counted in the statistics and here where it discusses (in 2013) the dispute over the official cause of death. Julia Mazziotto was killed in 2002 and that pre-dates DogsBite.org's collection (which started in 2005, I believe), so that is not counted. From the New York Times article: "An 80-year-old woman was fatally mauled in her home here on Monday by two pet pit bulls, the authorities said today. The woman, Julia Mazziotto, was bitten or clawed over 80 percent of her body, and the Bergen County medical examiner found that she had died of severe mutilating wounds inflicted by the dogs, said the county prosecutor ... the older of the two dogs ... was covered with blood..." Allegedly, according to Dickey pages 176-178, the daughter of the victim wanted her dogs back and so hired a third party (Lee Institute) to reevaluate the findings. Despite Lee's opinion that the dogs didn't kill the victim, a judge in the matter was unconvinced. So why are we second-guessing a judicial opinion on Wikipedia? This isn't helping Dickey's reliability (the evidence keeps piling up). By the way, here is a video of Mr. Phillips testifying before the Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007 on changing their dog bite law after Mr. Chapple's death. Chapple's testimony was video'd from his hospital bed to present to the committee. The committee changed the Tenneessee law. Normal Op (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Kenneth Phillips heavily bases his statistics off of dogsbite.org and Animals 24-7, so they're all connected together. From the link you shared: The results are reported below. More details about these attacks can be found on the authoritative and comprehensive web site of DogsBite.org, in the section on bite statistics.. Dogsbite.org does indeed count Julia Mazziotto as a pit bull fatality - see the New Jersey Section here. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And Chapelle is indeed listed as a fatality by dogsbite.org here. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument ("heavily bases"). I could say the same thing about ACF/NCRF/NCRC/Delise/AFF and every single one of their "commissioned" studies which you trot out with regularity. Good grief! The first link you point to is talking about legislation in each state, compared to fatal attacks in that state. Doesn't mean that DogsBite.org "counts" these in a statistics report, which is what you are inferring. And the second link was created in 2009, long before the stink in 2013 over Chapple's 2007 cause of death. I can't even begin to imagine maintaining old information on a several-hundreds-pages and over ten-year-old website to cater to nitpickers. And if you actually READ the page about the Chapple conflict, you would understand why the average person WOULD count him as a dog bite related fatality. Need I quote from it? Or will you actually read it? Normal Op (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Dogsbite.org is counting the Chapple in its statistics though - in the page you linked here, it has an explanatory note about the controversy over cause of death, but does not say at all it is withdrawing it from the list of fatalities. On that page it says 35 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2007., and there are 35 incidents on the list, of which Chapple is one. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

[I wrote this commen before Normal Op and PearlSt82's latest exchanges so excuse me if some things are not relevant.] It's unfortunate that Rhododendrites listed many different sites under a common heading. They are not published by the same groups and it's very possible that some of them are reliable while the others are not. For example, your Radio Canada report (reproduced on the AntiBSL Reddit sub) mentions multiple inaccuracies in Merritt Clifton's data but only one in Colleen Lynn's. These series appear to be different; Clifton lists pit-bull-related deaths while Lynn lists dog-bite-related deaths.

Regarding James Chapple. In my opinion, counting it as a dog bite fatality is correct. From the reporting: "Chapple's left arm was amputated to the elbow after the dogs tore his hand off in an attack ... Chapple's right arm was severely injured. He is recovering at the Regional Medical Center of Memphis."The photo of him in his hospital bed is gruesome. The dog attack clearly contributed to his death even if he was an alcoholic.

Regarding Louanne Okapal. She is listed here under the heading Notes on unusual cases: "Louanne Okapal, 55, of Sauk County, Wisconsin, suffered severe facial injuries on February 14, 2009 when a pit bull attacked a horse she was saddling and the horse kicked her in the face." She didn't die, and contrary to Radio Canada's allegation, Clifton doesn't claim she did.

Regarding Julia Mazziotto. Bronwen Dickey in Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon doesn't cite any sources and she most definitely underplays Mazziotto's wounds: "Alaimo contacted the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science in West Haven, Connecticut, and asked it to reevaluate the medical examiner's findings. The Lee Institute's forensic experts determined that Julia Mazziotto's wounds had been inflicted postmortem ... The dogs had not been involved in her death, but after the fact they had pawed, scratched, and bitten her body." It's clear from context that Alaimo was the owner of the dogs and that s/he contacted the Institute in order to avoid having to put them down.

If these examples are the best the "pro-pitbull" side can come up with (and they clearly have a vested interest in finding errors in Lynn's and Clifton's data), then that tells me that the data actually is fairly trustworthy. Good enough to source statements like "According to dogbites.org, blah" or "According to Colleen Lynn, bleh" imho. ImTheIP (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Another difference between Clifton/Animals24-7 and Lynn/DogsBite.org is that Clifton covers "serious attacks", not just deaths. DogsBite.org covers fatalities. Their styles are completely different even if their coverage overlaps. Despite PearlSt82, Dickey and Radio Canada trying to paint them with the same paint brush in the same stroke, they are two separate individuals working different angles. PearlSt82, you're right about the 35 count; I was mistaken. You made me count the fatalities on that page (horrible deaths!) and I would count Chapple, too, as a dog bite related fatality. However, you still don't seem to have read the link I sent, so I will quote from it: "Ms. Delise discusses the death of James Chapple Jr. She states that “Mr. Chapple received severe injuries but fully recovered and was discharged from the hospital.” Mr. Chapple’s left arm was amputated, his right arm was badly mauled. A full recovery is impossible in this circumstance. Mr. Chapple’s injuries were so severe that a bill changing Tennessee law regarding vicious dogs was introduced. Video equipment was set up in Mr. Chapple’s hospital room so he could testify to legislators. Mr. Chapple lived long enough to see the bill signed into law. As a hospital nurse, I recognize that there are several reasons for discharge from the hospital, one is recovery, and another is that there is no further treatment that can be offered to the patient, they are discharged home with family care and Home Health nursing care. The listing of cardiovascular complications on the death certificate would not be unexpected. As a Cardiac Rehab nurse, I would expect cardiovascular deterioration in a newly disabled person with underlying coronary artery disease." — Carol Miller, RN. ImTheIP is on the right track on the subject of discrediting others' work. Normal Op (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kenneth Phillips (dogbitelaw.com) is a well respected attorney and a subject-matter expert. Here is one write-up about him in the Washington Post. (free account signup required). Normal Op (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Even if he is excluded, the rest are sensationalist, and sometimes hypocritical too. Dogsbite.org, for example, crows about their opponents "killing dogs", and then turns around and says that certain breeds should be banned, which they admit kills dogs. And should someone with such a heavy financial stake in the matter, like Phillips, be considered reliable? - Sumanuil (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• DBRF lists are reliable; breed data is unreliable The issue with these "sources" is less about their lists of DBRFs (dog bite-related fatalities) which are fairly accurate; but instead, more about their claims and "statistics" related to the breeds attributed to the attacks. There are numerous studies that have concluded that breed information (without DNA) is subject to high rates of inaccuracy -- on average between 40%-60%. This study [7] determined that breed information in media reports differed from breed determination by animal control agencies up to 40% of the time; this study [8] determined that visual identification techniques for some breeds differed from actual DNA results up to 60% of the time; this study [9] determined that accurate breed identification varied between 10.4%-67.7% (depending on the number of breeds identified in a dog's DNA); and finally, this study [10] determined that DNA results matched visual breed identification only around 25% of the time. Essentially, the problem with attempting to identify and list the breed(s) involved with the DBRFs is that there is a high probability that either the shelter and/or the owner have not correctly identified the specific breed of their dog -- which then leads to inaccurate information in media reports as almost all media reports on dog bites simply identify the breed as reported by the owner/shelter (which again is likely to differ from the dog's actual DNA around 50% of the time, per cited studies). Regardless, there is a lot of evidence to support that breed information (especially in media reports, which is the *primary* source of breed data for these sources) is prone to high rates of inaccuracy without DNA. So while their DRBF lists may be fairly accurate, their breed data/information is highly suspect. The fact (per multiple studies on canine DNA) is that accurate breed identification by DNA highly contradicts casual breed assumptions by visual inspection (breed assumptions by owners, shelters, etc.). Furthermore, there are far too many bulldog-type (aka "bully-type") breeds (and even more bully-type mixes) with very similar physical characteristics to the 3-5 breeds commonly classified as pit bulls and attempting to classify every single one of these different, unique breeds (and mixes) as "pit bulls" is entirely inaccurate; therefore, the fact that these sites attempt to claim that their breed information is accurate/factual is highly problematic and leads to well-warranted questions around the agenda and biases of the sources listed above.Michael2468b (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is what the study Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States says For single dog incidents (148 incidents), on the basis of the strict definition (exact match), breed descriptors in media reports were discordant for 32 of 148 (21.6%) dogs; animal control or local law enforcement assessment of breed differed from the media account for 45 of 129 (34.9%) dogs. On the basis of the expanded definition (any agreement between alleged breeds and mixes), breed descriptors among media reports were discordant for 19 of 148 (12.8%) dogs; animal control or local law enforcement assessment of breed differed from the media account for 18 of 129 (14.0%) dogs. That is, in 21.6% of all DBRFs, media outlets reported different specific breeds. In 78.4% of all DBRFs, they were in agreement. But the most interesting part is the last figure; in only 14.0% of all DBRFs did animal control and media reports diverge on what breed of dog was involved. Furthermore With respect to pedigree or results of DNA analysis for single dog cases, pedigree documentation, parentage, or DNA information was available for 19 dogs. These data were discordant with media reports for 7 of 19 cases on the basis of the strict breed definition and 0 of 18 cases on the basis of the expanded breed definition. So, given the "strict breed definition", the media reports were correct in 12 out of 19 cases and in 18 out of 18 cases given the "expanded breed definition". It is obvious that someone who spends a lot of time investigating DBRFs can reach an even higher accuracy than what time-pressured journalists can. I.e, all else being equal, dogsbite.org must be a more reliable source for breed identification than media reports.

The three other studies find poor correlation between visual assessement and DNA testing (but a high correlation between assessors!). That is unsurprising because pit bulls are a hetereogenous group of breeds with similar morphological features. Taking the argument to its extreme, one couldn't ever know if a dog is a pit bull or not. But courts have ruled that dog owners can: In sum, we believe that the physical and behavioral traits of pit bulls together with the commonly available knowledge of dog breeds typically acquired by potential dog owners or otherwise possessed by veterinarians or breeders are sufficient to inform a dog owner as to whether he owns a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog.

Regardless, there is a lot of evidence to support that breed information (especially in media reports, which is the *primary* source of breed data for these sources) is prone to high rates of inaccuracy without DNA. Lynn also collects breed identification photos for most dogs: Of the 48 dog bite fatalities recorded in 2019, a record 81% (39) had some form of an identification photograph, the highest percentage since we began our collection effort. Pit bulls and their mixes represent 74% of all images collected in 2019. Of the 39 cases with breed identification photographs, 59% (23) contained images captured or republished by news media; 59% (23) contained images located on social media pages of the dog's owner or family members; and 49% (19) contained images that were the result of DogsBite research and otherwise may have gone unpublished.

If breed identification is as difficult as you say, then dogsbite's data must contain tons of errors. Then it must be possible for someone to point out at least a few of them.

tl;dr: For List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, dogsbite.org is a good source. The page needs a disclaimer explaining why dog classification is difficult and somewhat subjective. Deleting the page and/or blacklisting dogsbite.org is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ImTheIP (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, that site can be a source for DBRFs -- but not for valid (true/factual) breed information. All 4 studies (and there are other studies as well with similar conclusions regarding visual breed identification vs. actual DNA) still validate the inherent challenges and inaccuracies of visual breed identification vs. actual/true breed determination by DNA. The Co-occurrence study still specifically concludes:"For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified. -- Valid breed determination for only 17.6% of the incidents does not infer confidence in the breed data attributed to DBRFs by any measure. The other 3 studies validate the discrepancies between casual breed assumptions by visual inspection vs. actual DNA results -- ergo pictures are not a reliable method for determining breed. Therefore, even if there were pictures for 100% of the dogs involved, that would still not serve to validate breed and any site/individual claiming otherwise is going counter to the conclusions in the studies on this subject matter -- importantly, the studies found that even those familiar with dogs and breeds (veterinarians, shelter staff, etc.) are prone to being unable to accurately identify a dog's breed(s). Furthermore, there are far too many bully-type breeds (and even more bully-type mixes) that look very similar to the 3-5 breeds classified as pit bulls to be able to assert (as a fact) that a dog is a specific breed based only on a picture or shelter label etc. If a site is going to make breed-specific assertions about risk; then that site needs to be breed-specific -- and what these studies have concluded is that without DNA, any breed-specific claims are likely to be inaccurate and therefore cannot be used as a reliable source (for breed information). The main issue with these sites is that while they are entitled to guess/assume/suspect the breed(s) of a dog, they cannot with any reasonable amount of certainly or authority claim that their breed assumptions are "facts" without DNA (as per cited studies) -- and doing so is at best disingenuous. Canine DNA is far too complex for visual breed identification to be accurate which is why DNA is needed and is currently the most accurate method for valid breed determination -- without DNA, breed is just a guess.Michael2468b (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Co-occurrence study? You mean "Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009)" by Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD; Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD, MPH; Karen M. Delise; Donald V. Cleary, BA; Amy R. Marder, VMD. Two other Wikipedia editors picked apart the contradictions/paradoxes in that exact study recently — one here in this thread, and one on the Pit bull talk page. Now it's my turn. That 2013 study's conflict of interest disclosure simply stated "The National Canine Research Council supported the efforts of Karen Delise from 2006 to 2011 for assembly of case reports" with NO MENTION of her actual position within NCRC, which was Founder and Director of Research. Note that even in late 2012 (pre-publish) and still in 2014 (no changes there) Delise is listed on the website as "Founder & Director of Research". So how far do we go with believing NCRC and their commissioned studies when they lie on the conflict of interest disclosure? Or did it take two years to "shop around" for a journal that would take the study (explaining the discrepancy of 2011 versus 2013); in which case, do we trust that this is "good science"? Oh, I forgot to mention the earlier history. National Canine Research Council (NCRC) is a pit bull advocacy organization, formerly known as National Canine Research Foundation, closely associated with (and co-staffed) with former LOBBYING organization known as Animal Canine Foundation and Washington Animal Foundation. The first two were founded by and run by Karen Delise, who even copyrighted the NCRF website, and she co-staffed with the other two organizations. In 2004, Karen Delise self-proclaimed on her website "Karen also is the most versed expert on fatal dog attacks and consults the American Canine Foundation and other organizations. Karen has spent over ten years researching fatal dog attacks." And in 2014 is billed as "More than twenty years of research and investigation have led to Ms. Delise being considered the nation's leading expert on dog bite-related fatalities." In 2013 (the year the study was published), NCRC and its several predecessor organizations had all been run by the same person for well nigh 20 years with a deliberate and focused pro-pit bull agenda. And we're supposed to believe that her only contribution was "assembly of case reports" with no post title. And you want to consider that not-properly-disclosed 2013 study as a reliable source? At least three of those four studies you mentioned were commissioned and/or authored by persons connected with NCRC. I gotta say, in the same spirit as WP:BOOMERANG (but for debates) if you're going to drag one side of a divide through a reliable sources gristmill, you should be encouraged to look at the other side, too. Normal Op (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Point taken with respect to the "Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256..." study; nevertheless, the study's conclusions are similar to the conclusions found in multiple other studies (provided above) regarding the accuracy (or lack thereof) of visual breed identification vs. accurate breed determination by DNA. If needed, we can delete the Co-occurrence study entirely from this conversation and the point still stands that making assertions about breed(s) without DNA is proven to be relatively inaccurate. It's pointless for me to clarify this point further because that's exactly what the studies (sure, not including the "Co-occurrence..." study) have already done.Michael2468b (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I spent a long time reading through Co-occurence, trying to understand it so I don't think that it should be discarded. :) Regarding the numbers, 14.0% was the missclassification rate for single-dog attacks using the expanded definition. The high missclassification rate of 40.2% you cite is for multi-dog attacks using the strict definition. They define the strict definition as requiring an exact match. The example they give is illuminating: Thus, pit bull and American Staffordshire Terrier would be concordant, but pit bull and pit bull mix would be discordant, as would American Staffordshire Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier mix. In other words, if media reported pit bull and animal control reported pit bull mix, they consider that a missclassification. Such errors are completely unsurprising as journalists aren't experts. In their expanded definition, they lump different types of pit bulls together: For the expanded definition, concordances related to pit bull-type dogs were considered when reported as pit bull, pit bull terrier, pit bull mix, pit bull terrier mix, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any alleged mix thereof. Thus, yielding a much lower missclassification rate. The classification scheme used on the sites in question is, as far as I can tell much closer to the expanded definition than the strict one.

Breed determination was only possible for 45 dogs. That is low but given the expanded definition all dogs matched! These data were discordant with media reports for 7 of 19 cases on the basis of the strict breed definition and 0 of 18 cases on the basis of the expanded breed definition. ... For multiple dog cases, pedigree documentation, parentage, or DNA information was available for 28 dogs. These data were discordant with media reports for 7 of 28 (25.0%) cases on the basis of the strict breed definition and 0 of 28 (0%) cases on the basis of the expanded breed definition. And this is for the media reports which obviously are less accurate than the animal control reports. Interestingly the study doesn't report the breed of the 45 dogs determined, I wonder why!

You also have Toledo v. Tellings (2007) and other rulings telling dog owners that they indeed can tell if their dog is a pit bull or not. And a metastudy from 2019: Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed ... Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. The claim implies that breed determination without DNA is possible (or else the whole metastudy is bogus).

There are only about 30 to 50 DBRFs per year and they all lead to police investigations. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't be able to correctly determine the breed in at least the majority of cases. At least it flies in the face of common wisdom; telling a dog owner with a dog of breed X that they can't know it is an X unless they have had it DNA-tested will likely upset them. tl;dr The claim that breeds can't be determined without DNA-evidence is extraordinary and runs counter to conventional wisdom. ImTheIP (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood; however, respectfully I don’t think anyone is making an extraordinary claim of mistaking Chihuahuas for Bulldogs or Dachshunds for German Shepherds. The challenge is with specific unique breeds within breed types/groups - for example, accurate visual identification for specific breeds within the diverse bully-type (bulldog-type) breed group such as the various pit bull type breeds and other similar breeds and mixes such as Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Cane Corso, Boxer dog, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, and many others. And unsurprisingly (per the DNA studies) there is a higher level of agreement/accuracy for purebred dogs than for mixed breed dogs. However, accuracy declines when attempting to identify the difference between, for example, an American Staffordshire Terrier mix and an Dogo Argentino mix or an American Bulldog mix and a Cane Corso mix. These are just a few examples, there are many breeds in the broad bully-type category that have similar physical characteristics that unless they are purebred, are harder to accurately identify their predominant breed and secondary breed(s) without DNA. Not an argument, just a clarifying point with respect to misidentifying dog breeds. Also, the "Co-occurrence" report is not a DNA study, it's admittedly a study on the discrepancies between media reports and animal control based only on assumed breed by visual breed identification (not DNA) -- which are discrepancies that are still important to study, but it's not a study on visual breed ID vs actual DNA. The studies that analyzed the accuracy of visual breed identification vs. actual breed determination by DNA did find larger percentages of discrepancies - especially for mixed breed dogs.Michael2468b (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you explain the result of the 2019 metastudy: "Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe."? Doesn't that imply that there is some reliable data on breeds and dog bites? ImTheIP (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Anecdotal/personal

** FWIW, as an anecdotal example, my neighbor has a smaller Dogo Argentino mix (it's 65 pounds whereas most Dogo Argentinos are around 100 pounds) and when she adopted him from the shelter, he was labeled as an "American Pit Bull Terrier mix". However, she bought a DNA test at the vet and the results were (if I remember correctly) something like 60% Dogo Argentino, 20% Labrador Retriever, and the balance of his DNA was a mix of several other breeds including Boston Terrier and Swiss Shepherd -- no mention of American Pit Bull Terrier in his DNA. So this is just an example of how dogs with bully-type ancestry and features commonly get misidentified as "pit bulls" just because of their physical characteristics. Also, I thought the dog was more of an American Bulldog mix - but I was wrong as well... and I'm pretty familiar with most of the bully breeds.Michael2468b (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Michael2468b: Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Normal Op (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough; but to be clear, there was no "venting" - just an anecdotal account which I 100% made clear that it was only that -- an anecdotal account. Nevertheless, it is a real-world example of how breeds can very easily be misidentified.Michael2468b (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable - to begin, it is already proven that attempts to identify dogs by their appearances only are not reliable. Breed identification requires a positive ID based on corroborating official breed registry records and/or DNA testing. WikiProject Dogs has started a list of RS that may prove helpful. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link, Atsme. I note that these sources aren't included there (as reliable or unreliable). Are they out of scope for that page? Maybe WPDogs wants to take on writing up some guidance about dog attacks? Of course, part of the reason I posted here was in the hope of attracting fresh eyes to this. There seem to be a few editors on Wikipedia primarily to argue one way or the other on this issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome, Rhododendrites. I posted notice of this discussion on the project page, and remain optimistic that we will be looking further into these types of sources in the days to come. We are a bit snowed-under right now trying to clean-up as much of the promotional material, misinformation and unreliable sourcing that our time allows. Cavalryman has been most diligent, and we welcome more volunteers to the project! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry if I'm missing this in the growing threads above, but is there really no source of these statistics that isn't an advocacy organization first and foremost? I have a hard time trusting the statistics of a website set up to make a certain conclusion which collects statistics that happen to support that conclusion (likewise a lawyer who profits from a particular view advocating for that view). It cuts both ways -- if someone were using statistics on, say, "savethepitbullz.com" (arbitrary -- no idea if it exists) I would likewise default to not considering it reliable.

I also think it's important to separate the reliability of the statistics from the reliability of, well, everything else. We don't typically treat a database/statistics the same way we do coverage of a topic that uses those statistics, and there's a reason we try not to use opinion pieces, PR, propaganda, etc. as reliable sources, even if its data collection seems ok enough (there are exceptions, but they're hard-earned). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Statistics by breed aren't captured by veterinary orgs or the CDC due to their inherent unreliability - as far as I know these (DBO/A247) are the only organizations that publish these sort of statistics. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong! Even NCRC and its predecessor NCRF published incident reports and lists of fatalities. And you know that! [11] [12]. And your excuse about the CDC has no basis in fact. Normal Op (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware of these sites, and would appreciate less WP:ASPERSIONS. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: To answer your earlier question, there's probably no neutral side publishing any related data because you can boil it down simply enough to two rabidly-opposed sides: (A) people who like or want to keep pit bulls as pets, and no-kill shelters full of pit bulls that need to offload them somewhere, and (B) people who view pit bulls as a public safety menace and want better oversight, accountability, and laws. Group A labels Group B as "anti-pit bull", most likely because pit bulls are over-represented proportionally in the collection of attacks so any efforts against dangerous dog hazards seems like an anti-pitbull agenda. Group A is well-funded (millions) and has created organisations such as NCRC, AFF & BFAS which can "fund studies" to prove their viewpoints (see AFF & BFAS Form 990s for proof that they are funding the studies that later show up on NCRC's website), then take their paid lobbyists to change legislation using their collection of studies as proof. Unlike Group A, Group B has no huge well-funded organizations, philantropists funding it, or lobbyists; this group includes DogsBite.org, Clifton, & Phillips. PearlSt82 posts only Group-A-favored studies (yes, I've checked) and vehemently opposes all medical studies that point to a higher incidence of pit bulls causing disfigurements or fatalities, and opposes any article that mentions favorably anyone from Group B. So sorry, no neutral middle ground to pull from, I'm afraid. Normal Op (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• All unreliable, as stated above they are a collection of data selected to support the preferred conclusions of website creators. Cavalryman (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC).
• Sounds unreliable. On the other issue, readers may be interested in this British parliamentary committee report, Controlling Dangerous Dogs, wherein appear the words The British Veterinary Association and British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Kennel Club, and David Ryan, former Chair of the Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors, were unanimous in their condemnation of the breed specific provisions in Section 1. of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1994 which banned dogs of "pit bull terrier type". (As noted, "pit bull terrier" is not per se a recognized breed in Britain.) The National Police Chiefs Council also said that "we would like to move away from a specific list [of banned types]" and told the committee "traditional fighting dog lines had been diluted” to the degree that such dogs were often now found to be ‘near types’ that fell outside the Section 1 classifications." One not-necessarily reliable source cites a weak methodology to claim Labrador retrievers attack the most or rather, that the most frequently owned breed is responsible for the greatest proportion of attacks for which insurance is claimed. (And maybe that Labrador owners are more likely have insurance than are pit bull owners.) GPinkerton (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not an international discussion, but a discussion related to US fatal dog attacks, and is a spinoff of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Normal Op (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes I know, just wanted to point out that the issues are international and there is a List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom which if its American equivalent is deleted will also require attention. GPinkerton (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds WP:NOTRELIABLE due to WP:SELFPUB. An advocacy source might be a WP:BIASED RS, but I think that self-published material would only be included where some other source that is RS used it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: DogExpert.com/fatal-dog-attacks is another website discussing and listing fatal dog attacks. (I just now found it.) What do you guys think about this one? Normal Op (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Another personal for-profit website by someone involved in dog bite litigation. This time a professional witness rather than a lawyer. Doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about, of course, but like some of the others there's (a) no editorial oversight, (b) the purpose is to make money, (c) advocacy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Why are we even discussing this here. No one is using those websites as citations anyway and this conversation is a FORK of the conversation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. The discussion belongs on that page. Any special angle of this conversation has already run its course and you've now circled back around to the AfD arguments. Normal Op (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• A linksearch when I opened this thread showed that some of these sources do appear in articles (though, granted, not many). I opened this because whether they are reliable transcends that particular AfD, and if they are unreliable they're not relevant to that AfD. Don't know if it was the most efficient approach, but it does seem to be attracting a couple people who were not previously involved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment/request: In previous comments, Normal Op made several statements to the effect that the National Canine Resarch Council should be treated as inherently unreliable, including when people connected with them are published in journals. However, this source is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs/Reliable_sources. Since its somewhat related to the discussion at hand, would this be an appropriate venue to establish reliability of that organization as well? PearlSt82 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  @PearlSt82: Was there any discussion that lead to it being listed? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there was discussion on this, but based on their about page, I would think it would be at least reliable enough to quote with attribution. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any as reliable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Mark Durie as a source for Criticism of Joe Biden okay?

I came across following write up about Mark Durie. Would that be considered reliable source for Criticism of Joe Biden article (I am contemplating for).

https://www.jns.org/opinion/joe-biden-courts-islam-not-muslims/

Bookku (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it, why is his opinion worthy of note, who is he?Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No way, most "criticism of living person X" have been deleted for NPOV and BLP reasons. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. — Newslinger talk 13:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Can Ibn Warraq be used as a reliable source on Islam?

Ibn Warraq is a notable critic of Islam, and his use at criticism of Islam is probably appropriate. Can he also be used as a WP:RS at other Islam related articles? There is a discussion at Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#RfC_Whether_to_allow_Ibn_Warraq_and_Swami_Vivekananda_opinions_in_the_article? on whether he is a reliable source for the claim that the "rituals of the Pilgrimage to Mecca" constitute superstition. The source is Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim published by Prometheus Books. Warraq is controversial (Ibn_Warraq#Reception) and not an academic.VR _talk 11:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

He is reliable for his own views. Including his views in "Criticism of Islam" would only be appropriate if covered by a third party RS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

He is reliable for his views, where they are noteworthy/due (e.g. his criticism of Islam), but he is not reliable as a source on Islam, including on superstition in Islam, and his views should be considered FRINGE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My view is that he should not be used as a neutral source on Islamic belief, and I can't really see a circumstance where his attributed views would even fit within the scope of Islamic articles. Possible exceptions might be criticism sections related to specific Islamic practices such as circumcision, halal meat or the niqab. But even then, I would proceed with a great deal of caution. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Views on International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, Free Tibet, Radio Free Asia

As related to the request for views on Central Tibetan Administration [13], there are other sources for which guidance is needed. Edits were deleted today on Yarchen Gar [14] with the reason stated as the sources are advocacy groups. The deletion of the sources creates a void in RS regarding the reported cultural genocide in Tibet. Similar deletions of text and sources occur in the 11th Panchen Lama [15] and in Sinicization of Tibet [16] where UNESCO information is characterized as "daft hackery". In Antireligious campaigns in China, sources and text detailing the sequence of events in the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists from 1989-present were threatened with removal [17].

The sources being challenged and deleted include International Campaign for Tibet/ICT, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, UNPO, Free Tibet, and Radio Free Asia. Verified RS also deleted include BBC UK, and The Statesman.

A list with links to sources' home pages, and to a few citations among others. (The diffs above contain the specific reports used from each source, and can be provided in separate diffs here if needed):

• International Campaign for Tibet [18]; cited by NYTimes by the BBC [19] [20] [21], and by the Washington Post [22] [23], among others. Its board chairman Richard Gere was invited to speak about Chinese censorship, and noted restricted access of journalists into Tibet, before a US Senate subcommittee in 2020 [24]
• UNESCO: [25]; cited internationally
• Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post: [26]; a recent report on Chinese travel restrictions to Tibet placed on foreigners and journalists [27]
• Tibet Watch: [28]; cited by NYTimes [29]
• Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, UNPO: [30], founded by Central Tibetan Administration; page in French Wikipedia [31]
• Free Tibet: [32]; cited by NYTimes [33] [34], by the Washington Post [35], and by the US State Department [36]. FT has also run an anti-propaganda campaign against Chinese state news reports placed in US media [37].
• Radio Free Asia: [38]; cited by NYTimes [39]

In the pages listed above and in other related pages, may these sources (all, most, exceptions) be used with inline citations? The diffs also illustrate the voids in information if the sources cannot be used in any form. Although these sources are offered together in this discussion, each can be separated into its own discussion/RfC if that's advised.

Hope the request isn't unnecessarily complicated or redundant, but what reports reveal is China's history of censoring information seems to include restricted access inside Tibet and therefore to RS from other sources. Thanks so much! Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Should be used, usually attributed. Since the Chinese smother any and everything that breathes a word against their compulsory utopia, claims originating inside Chinese-controlled territory is inherently suspect and needs attribution to make clear that it is the official line. Conversely, "anti-"CCP sources should always balance the Party line, to avoid giving the communists undue weight. Where statements originating from dissenting organizations conflict with official Chinese claims, and where such statements are reused by go-to reliable sources, I would say they need not be attributed unless extraordinary. (Claims of genocide in greater Tibet, inner Mongolia, and East Turkestan are not at all extraordinary and are a commonplace in all non-CCP media, and should be stated as fact.) GPinkerton (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The last sentence (Claims of genocide in greater Tibet, inner Mongolia, and East Turkestan are not at all extraordinary and are a commonplace in all non-CCP media, and should be stated as fact.) is instant disqualifying WP:SOAPBOX given Human rights in Tibet has plenty of academics refuting such claims as well as the WP:FRINGE East Turkestan name. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The day someone refutes the facts concerning Chinese colonialism is a day that has not, and will not, dawn. Academics may quibble and disagree, but the facts are unchanged and are very, very far from refuted. That claim is a bright red soapbox with stars on. GPinkerton (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The above strawman is deserving of a block, as is advocacy of violating WP:5P2: presenting contentious claims as fact (especially "Inner Mongolia genocide"), without any attribution whatsoever. You have been warned. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Let's calm down here, this is just a discussion about the named sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The only contentious claims being presented as fact is the bare-faced lie that there are plenty of academics refuting such claims, which demonstrates either bad faith or ignorance either of the meaning of the verb "to refute" or of the history of communism with Chinese characteristics. It is not my job to educate others on current affairs, but the incontrovertible fact of genocide in Inner Mongolia is a matter of history, not of dispute. Claims to the contrary are spurious face-saving attempts to rewrite the record. Brown, Kerry (2007-07-01). "The Cultural Revolution in Inner Mongolia 1967–1969: The Purge of the "Heirs of Genghis Khan"". Asian Affairs. 38 (2): 173–187. doi:10.1080/03068370701349128. ISSN 0306-8374. The Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR), sandwiched between the Mongolian People's Republic and the PRC, was to be one of the worst affected areas of China during the CR [[[Cultural Revolution]]]. While the impact of the CR came slightly late to the area, and extended mainly over the period 1967 to 1969, it was to result in over 22,000 deaths, and 300,000 injuries, according to official statistics. Demographic studies have shown that, based on the almost zero growth rate of the population from 1965 to 1975, the real level of casualties may have reached up to 100,000 deaths. Almost every person of Mongolian ethnicity in the region was affected in some way by the events of the CR. These have a claim to being acts of genocide, and are a wound that lingers to this day. I will not comment on the motives behind the wholly unreasonable suggestion of a block. If others see it as an attempt to silence, that is their own inference. GPinkerton (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC) [40] This message does show the calibre of the Chinese-controlled media's defensive and embarrassed posturing quite well, and illustrates the usual desire of that side of the argument to resort to personal attacks, being unable to engage meaningfully with the mountain of evidence. In short, a failure to refute evidence implicating the PRC ultimately leads to contentless ad hominems from its apologists. GPinkerton (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: These are all very different sources (including NGOs, advocacy groups, government-funded broadcasting corporations, and UN agencies) and can't be assessed collectively. Most should only be used with WP:INTEXT attribution, shouldn't be directly used for outright statements of fact in WP:WIKIVOICE, and should be only used via what independent reliable sources (e.g. NYT, BBC, academic sources, etc.) say about them. But there’s a gradient of reliability here, with UNESCO publications more reliable than say UNPO publications. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, @GPinkerton is saying use the sources with attributions, except when found in RS then no attributions are necessary. I would concur. And, it seems @MarkH21 is saying most should be used as sources only if they're cited in RS, but given the range of reliability, some are good to use with attributions and without RS cites.

GPinkerton's points about "refuting" genocide are also well taken.

So, can we say if the sources are used with attributions, they should not be subject to deletions and additional challenges? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• If they’re covered in independent secondary RSes but attributed to these sources (e.g. if the NYT says "According to ___"), the statements should still be attributed and not given in WP:WIKIVOICE.
  Also we can’t make any blanket statement that they should not be subject to deletions and additional challenges. Even material from RSes is subject to WP:WEIGHT considerations, since verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.
  The use of these sources really depends on the context (e.g. which source you are trying to use, whether the topic is controversial, how is it covered in other sources, etc.). These sources are so different that we can’t really make a general statement about them all as a group. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Letting editors know I pinged @Usedtobecool and @Adoring nanny before any responses were posted. I later pinged @Newslinger since the editor's involved with RSN. All were pinged to build CON. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Ok. Correct me if it's wrong, but it seems we have two separate readings: @GPinkerton's position of Should be used, usually attributed- use statements generally when also reused by RS, and inline citations needed only for extraordinary reports -versus- @MarkH21's position of Comments- only use RS that covers statements. Is this correct? (Includes an assumption of difference in the words "reused", as in RS inline citations or as generally used as accepted statement of fact, and "covered", as in from RS inline citations only.) If the understanding is correct, then are we still looking for CON? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see the position of inline citations needed only for extraordinary reports anywhere here. Inline citation (required for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space by the verifiability policy) is not the same as in-text attribution (required for biased sources by the neutrality policy).
  Again, these are 8 very different sources that can be used very differently in different contexts. We don't need to find a global consensus on a rule that simultaneously applies to all 8 sources across all articles, besides the existing policies and guidelines (particularly WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS). If you have a content dispute over a particular statement being added to a particular article, then find consensus for that content on the talk page of that article.
  In general, these policies and guidelines will require you to use any other source that may have clear biases or unclear reliability with care, generally in-text attributed, and usually backed by separate RS coverage. Furthermore, if a source is making a statement that you can't find in any independent reliable source, it's probably not of sufficient due weight to be included in a particular article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Per We don't need to find a global consensus on a rule that simultaneously applies to all 8 sources–I suggest this section be closed henceforth. Radio Free Asia, which actually purports to be a news agency, can be the subject of the first separate discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• @MarkH21 the "inline citations for extraordinary reports" was based on GP's assessment. This topic is not ready to be closed, since @GPinkerton has been pinged earlier to establish if CON has been achieved, since it seems we have two different assessments. For the record, I concur with GP's assessment, if that's allowed by the submitter of the request. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• You are not in any position whatsoever to close this discussion or assess whether it should be, especially in light of your blatant canvassing and subsequent blatant deception of my warning against that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 12:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

*The statement about closing was made by @CaradhrasAiguo:"I suggest this section be closed henceforth." The CON issue between @GPinkerton & @MarkH21 makes closing premature. (Posting notice of pings should remove CANVAS concerns (policy understood after pings were posted, have previously and duly clarified the pings and intention, as suggested by policy) ). Let's work towards consensus. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• GPinkerton said it may not need in-text attribution if the claim is not extraordinary and is backed by other sources (Where statements originating from dissenting organizations conflict with official Chinese claims, and where such statements are reused by go-to reliable sources, I would say they need not be attributed unless extraordinary), not that it may not need inline citations. They’re different things.
  There’s no CON issue here, because RSN isn’t expected to make blanket judgments for 8 very different sources across all contexts. This is becoming incredibly repetitive. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• It seems evident that Pasdecomplot isn't learning, and what constitutes WP:EXTRAORDINARY isn't a usable standard, given GPinkerton's own disruptive claim of genocide in Inner Mongolia (when his own source does not state that it definitively is) and accompanying personal attacks of apologists for the PRC. Time for the block hammer to fall on both of these two. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks @MarkH21 for the clarification. Sorry for the repetition, but was looking for solid CON to cite in editing disputes. Hopefully a non-involved editor can make the closing remarks.
• The text (added bold) still disputed by @CaradhrasAiguo is"...over the period 1967 to 1969, it was to result in over 22,000 deaths, and 300,000 injuries, according to official statistics. Demographic studies have shown that, based on the almost zero growth rate of the population from 1965 to 1975, the real level of casualties may have reached up to 100,000 deaths. Almost every person of Mongolian ethnicity in the region was affected in some way by the events of the CR. These have a claim to being acts of genocide, and are a wound that lingers to this day." I will not comment on the motives behind the wholly unreasonable suggestion of a block. If others see it as an attempt to silence, that is their own inference. GPinkerton, where the claim to genocide can also signify a stake. In Tibet, diffs (here/in CTA) state unequivocally that PRC policy is ethnic cleansing.
• Compare Kerry Brown's careful consideration of the topic to Robert Barnett's, as introduced here by CaradhrasAiguoGiven there is recent scholarly opinion (Robert Barnett) under "Debate on the intention of the PRC" refuting the unfounded cultural genocide claims, adding the category Category:Human rights abuses in China is spurious at best...[user] CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[41]. The link on Barnett leads to, In 2008, [Barnett] said that it was time for accusations of cultural genocide to be dropped: "I think we have to get over any suggestion that the Chinese are ill-intentioned or trying to wipe out Tibet."[79] Barnett voiced his doubts in a review in the New York Review of Books: "Why, if Tibetan culture within Tibet is being 'fast erased from existence', [do] so many Tibetans within Tibet still appear to have a more vigorous cultural life, with over a hundred literary magazines in Tibetan, than their exile counterparts?"[80].
• The words "appear to have a vigorous cultural life" are not a refutation of PRC cultural genocide in Tibet, contrary to CaradhrasAiguo's quoted opinion and POV. And contrary to the editor's opinions here.

As an unfortunate aside, the words ...but nevertheless it does appear to have happened. is used for a mischaracterization of pinging editors that had recently reached out to be helpful. Likewise, the use of "appear" mischaracterizes the ping to the editor closely involved in RSN, as it was suggested. Canvassing didn't happen; an allegation of CANVAS was already addressed with a ping notice; and it's unnecessary that the mischaracerization was again brought into a RSN thread, now by an involved administrator @Valereee, since policy recommends such things belong on editor's talk, not in the page's talk, and I would imagine certainly not in RSN discussions.

Thanks again @MarkH21 and @GPinkerton. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• PDC, that was a note to the closer, which any interested editor is free to make. It was a new comment, not a reply to anyone, so I didn't indent it as if it were a reply. When you indented it, you made it look like it was a reply to someone. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• And another comment about Barnett's rather absurd opinion @CaradhrasAiguo which does not refute the cultural genocide in Tibet: ...with over a hundred literary magazines in Tibetan. Are independent publishing houses in Tibet publishing the literary magazines without oversight or editorial control by the Chinese state controlled media? Given the preponderance of RS on censorship in China, and on the ongoing cultural genocide, Barnett's opinion that the number of literary magazines is evidence there's not a cultural genocide should qualify Barnett as an unreliable academic source. Furthermore, Barnett's opinion comes from a review for NYBook Review - it's not published in a scholarly peer reviewed journal, nor in a book. An opinion written for an unvetted book review by an unreliable academic source does not support claims that scholars have refuted cultural genocide in Tibet. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources should be discussed individually. I may be one of the users who was "canvassed" to this discussion. In any case, I watch this page and would have noticed. I think sources should be taken one by one. WP:USEBYOTHERS may be relevant to some of these. Between the (possibly innocent) canvassing and the joining of eight sources in this discussion, I'd suggest starting over with one or two of the sources in separate discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• [Note by @Valereee below shifted to bottom of page from its original position in responses. Pasdecomplot ]
• As a note, this discussion likely will need a formal close with a very direct statement of conclusion that doesn't depend on knowledge of policy to understand. Also note there does seem to have been attempts at canvassing; the editor probably didn't know that wasn't kosher, but nevertheless it does appear to have happened. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

um, okay. I have no objection to this being moved to the bottom of the discussion, but why? It's just a note to the closer. It doesn't even opine on this discussion. —valereee (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

TheyWorkForYou

The website summarises the voting record of MPs in England and Wales using a transparent process. Would it be reasonable to describe an MP's voting record using material from TheyWorkForYou? E.g. Craig Mackinlay#Parliamentary voting record. 92.40.186.147 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• N.B. the site in fact tracks the voting record not only of MPs for England and Wales, but all British MPs, MSPs, MSs, MLAs, and peers. The scope is by no means limited to one part of Britain. GPinkerton (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 (even though no RfC template has been added). The last controversy as described by RSs here on Wikipedia dates to 2007 and earlier, relating to the content reproduction of Hansard (the UK Parliament's record). They were described by The Telegraph, an established (even if deried in some circles as the Torygraph) WP:RS, in 2008 as 41st in their list of "Top 100 most useful sites". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Dubious as it in part seems to use Wikipedia, thus three is a anger of circular citing. And there is this [[42]], I begin to lean towards not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: per my comments below, there is no evidence the site takes information from Wikipedia. The Times say no such thing, so an unreferenced claim someone has added to the article should be dismissed with prejudice. FDW777 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

True, but a claim they may not cover all the facts is. This [[43]] also says much the same.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No, they cover all the facts. The article says that the Scots ministers were just unhappy with how this made them look, and how some people were specifically targeting them for criticism. So they added a caveat to the website. Which is what a reliable source does. Lots of people disagree with how certain reliable sources portray them, it doesn't make the source unreliable. Koncorde (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, Reliable. The criticism mentioned above by Slater still starts with "While the facts on this site are true, there’s vital context missing" and ends with "TheyWorkForYou might be clumsy in their attempt to do so, but at least they’re trying" which suggests this is far from a takedown, and rather just demonstrates that the utility of the website is as a reliable source for facts. It's just not very good when it comes to providing the full context of parliament. The idea James Heappey says lots of nice things about climate change is great. However he still votes party line. If he doesn't agree with the party but is willing to vote with them in order to keep his job this is in and of itself very telling despite GQ handwaving about the complexities of Parliament and his personal assertions; to quote

We will have to trust his word on this; tracking every single bit of secondary legislation related to climate change that went through the Commons without a vote since 2015 would be theoretically possible, but immensely time-consuming (and dull). There is also the minor issue of the chamber having no attendance records, so we’d find out what passed, but not who was there when it happened, which would bring us back to square one.

To summarise the article "Heappey says this, we can't prove it's true, nor that he was in attendance, and we're not about to do the looking into it thing... so TWFY it is." Any circular sourcing to wikipedia I would need to take a look at; unfortunately the source for the claim is the Times which is both paywalled and the article appears to have been removed? Maybe an archive exists. Koncorde (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: The Times changed website, the current article is here. There's no mention in the article (or the archived version) of content being copied from Wikipedia, I will remove the claim from the article. FDW777 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: Interesting, the author isn't even the person cited in the TWFY article. Jenny Booth in the article, James Knight on The Times archive. Koncorde (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• comment In case it is relevant, TheyWorkForYou is cited by some reputable news sources: The Guardian [44][45][46], The Independent:[47], The Financial Times:[48] (paywall), The Times [49], BBC News: [50] 92.40.186.146 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the foregoing reasons - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 reliable site, reliable information. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Good source, though the summaries of the voting record aren't as useful as the voting records themselves. GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Removed "RfC" from the section heading, as this discussion lacks a {{rfc}} tag. If you would like to convert this discussion into a formal request for comment, please follow the directions at WP:RFCST and then restore "RfC" to the section heading. — Newslinger talk 00:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The summaries of overall voting positions are a reliable secondary source, which I would presume due for shorter (i.e. most) MP pages – they're certainly more relevant, important, and useful as public resource than a list of committees and the name of an MP's dog. Every vote is evaluated individually and I've never encountered questionable assessments but I would attribute summaries anyway to sidestep issues of nuance since it's based on a raw count. If you add voting records to multiple articles, I would consider making a table/template to be as neat and concise as possible, and to make it easier to include information like the total number and split of votes used for each summary, where they deviate from their party, the period in which certain votes were cast, and caveats, like the site does. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Views on Central Tibetan Administration

While editing several pages concerning Tibet, reincarnated tulkus, Chinese religious persecution in Tibet, and Chinese sinicization policies, the governmental source Central Tibetan Administration has been challenged as being an "avocacy group". I differ, since it's an elected body which represents the exile community, and its press releases [51], statements and reports [52] [53] on Tibet are as valid as reports issued by other state governments regarding their own territories.

The CTA is cited by msm and RS including by the BBC UK [54], reported on by the NYTimes [55] and regularly cited by Indian newspapers, including The Statesman[56] and The Times of India [57] and the Economic Times [58], and the Hindustan Times [59] the Deccan Herald and by other RS internationally. It can be referred to as the "Tibetan government in exile" in sources, but that's not its proper name. Since it's formation in 1959, CTA evolved into a democratically elected body in 2011, as it is today.

For context and during the same time, it's been reporting on the brutal effects of China's policies in Tibet, called a cultural genocide since at least 2008 by observers (including here: "Dalai Lama: 'Cultural genocide' behind self-immolations" [60] ), underscored by the leaked Xinjiang papers that also exposed Chen Quanguo's role in Tibet, which it says shifted to Xinjiang, along with the expansion of Chinese reeducation camps (reported in Tibet in 2009 by ICT, and reporting monks abandonned their monastery to avoid a "reeducation center" [61] while a reeducation camp was identified by HRW as Ningtri in 2017 [62] ). Reports of the Tibetan genocide from common RS are difficult to locate since the access of foreigners is restricted. There hasn't been a leak in Tibet like the Xinjiang papers, making CTA reports more critical for citations. Most readily accessible reports come from sources like Tibet Watch, International Campaign for Tibet (has become increasingly trustworthy) and Free Tibet, some of which also cite CTA.

What are the thoughts here on using and citing Central Tibetan Administration as a reliable source? I am confident in their reports, especially given the precept of not lying [63] which is an integral aspect of Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetans, as well as the CTA. Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The answer depends on what we're trying to use them as a source for and whether there are better sources for the information. China-Tibet relations, CTA should never be used for. No government should be used as a reliable source about political issues that government is involved in/interested in. US govt press releases can't be considered reliable for information about US and N Korea. About noncontroversial factual details, like how many people live in Tibet, we could use CTA, but generally we'd prefer to filter even that through a secondary source -- if the NYT reports there are 3M people, sourcing the data to the CTA, we'd prefer the NYT source. This is because we consider the NYT to be a source that fact-checks. We believe if the NYT quotes CTA, it's because they verified what CTA is saying. —valereee (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

When foreign media report what the sources says, they attribute it in text. For example the BBC link says, "At least 80 people have been killed in unrest following protests by Tibetans against Chinese rule, the Tibetan government in exile says." It's not as if they copy and print articles from them in the same way newspapers across the world pick up AP, Reuters and other wire services. While there is no reason to doubt the CTA, there is no way of our assessing their reliability. I would only use them if reported in a secondary source such as the BBC and attribute the statement to them in text. TFD (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What's involved with assessing their reliability? Is that a process an editor is involved in by providing comparisons of reports with other RS? Can their reliability be evidenced by the citations in western newspapers (sorry, added a few diffs before I noticed responses, there are more I could provide) and in India's newspapers, as well as in other non-English papers? And, could CTA be cited inline, the way, for example, the BBC did? I ask since they are considered in Asia to be a RS, given the coverage they receive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasdecomplot (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Part of what Valereee is pointing out is that a government is not a reliable source for most statements of fact in WP:WIKIVOICE, whether it's a UN member nation or a government-in-exile. They can be reliable as WP:ABOUTSELF primary sources, but otherwise one would prefer a secondary source for statements made by a government as The Four Deuces also points out. For more general government documents (e.g. government agency reports), see this ongoing discussion for how government documents can vary in nature (primary, secondary, or tertiary; reliable or unreliable). — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

To use the example above, when the US makes a statement about a US decision regarding Korea, the statement can be used, as a statement of the US's position. Likewise, if the CTA makes a statement on its decision regarding China, we can use the statement as CTA's statement. The CTA also provides statements by the Dalai Lama, which we can likewise use as a reliable secondary source - reliability is not a concern there. Since the CTA represents Tibetans, wouldn't it follow that the CTA's general statements on what Tibetans are experiencing in Tibet would also be usable? Numbers of corpses could be a different level of statement, possibly. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll also look at the discussion. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the CTA represents Tibetans—No, it does not "represent" residents of the Tibet Autonomous Region or Tibetans in the other provinces. You need something such as Gallup polling asking the specific CTA / TGIE question, not your own viewpoints, to demonstrate otherwise. wouldn't it follow that the CTA's general statements on what Tibetans are experiencing in Tibet would also be usable?—That would be a statement of fact, which other editors have already explained to you is not an admissible use. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that the CTA would be a reliable secondary source about the Dalai Lama, since the Dalai Lama is the former head of the CTA and the Dalai Lama was directly involved with the CTA until 2011. If the Dalai Lama says something in a CTA publication, then that's effectively a primary source. The CTA also isn't a reliable secondary source concerning the treatment of Tibetans by the PRC; that's an example of a controversial topic that should only use reliable secondary sources like academic sources (academic journal articles, academic books, etc.) and major publishers (e.g. Reuters, NYT, etc.). But yes, the CTA can be used as an WP:ABOUTSELF source about the CTA itself. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

In response to @CaradhrasAiguo's concern of POV, I invite him to read edits by others editors at Central Tibetan Administration to become more familiar with the topic. That's where the information is located re the first quotation; the second quotation is from a question, not "a statement of fact" at all. Regarding the Dalai Lama's statements @MarkH21, it has been 9 years since he was directly involved; he has his own web site and spokespeople; the effective separation since 2011 could apply to a contrary position, but I hear you and understand your advice. Since we're discussing this generally, would specific cases be of interest in order to salvage usable edits, stop deletions, and achieve CON? I think it would be useful in this case. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21 A point I missed making is RS (provided above) cite statements from CTA on China, and cite statements/positions from the Dalai Lama found in CTA. The RS are confident in the reliability of CTA, as I would think that confidence should correspond with a confidence here. We don't know if, for example, NYT's bothers to verify info from CTA, to address an earlier point. We do know CTA is cited internationally, in the west and in Asia; CTA statements are cited as a counterpoint to PRC statements, and cited on their own merit, and cited about Tibetan exile affairs, and cited regarding the Dalai Lama. Therefore, the position of CTA not being usable in "controversial" areas, such as for the cultural genocide of Tibetans, is not supported by international press examples. They use CTA with attributions widely. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you messed up a ping for CaradhrasAiguo

What I explained regarding WP:INTEXT is that the CTA is not sufficient for a statement of fact in WP:WIKIVOICE, especially for controversial areas. If a secondary RS like the NYT says "A CTA report estimated that there were ___ in some place" regarding some controversial topic, a WP article could say that "A CTA report estimated there were ___ in some place" (with a footnote to the NYT article) but not "There were ___ in some place" outright. I.e. if the RS says something attributed to the CTA, then if a WP article should only mention that with attribution to the CTA too.

All this is saying is that CTA statements generally should not be used directly and generally should not be used un-attributed. Of course, whether it should be included at all depends on the context and consensus regarding WP:WEIGHT. The same general principles apply for statements from the United States Department of State, the Government of France, Amnesty International, European Union, or any other government, NGO, international organization, etc. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Letting editors know I pinged @Usedtobecool and @Adoring nanny before any responses were posted. I later pinged @Newslinger since the editor's involved with RSN. All were pinged to build CON. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So there's CON that CTA can be cited as a governmental source @MarkH21. And that additional general use (and attributes) can be predicated by specific context in regards to WEIGHT. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see that there's CON that CTA can be cited as a governmental source (it's not clear to me what that even means). Every editor here has expressed that a statement by the CTA should generally/preferably only be used if it is mentioned in a secondary RS, and that any such inclusion should be in-text attributed to the CTA. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

References

References

Noel Malcolm a RS

Good evening I was reading something about Military Frontier and stumbled upon wikipedia article and after that upon a Noel Malcolm book about Bosnia [64] also I've noticed that he is quoted a lot here but still has some controversy behind him with his other books [65]. There is probably a discussion about every historian in the world ,but still there is a lot of opposite opinions about him. So is he a RS and why is he so lets say controversial ? Thank you Theonewithreason (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Masala!

Is Masala! a reliable source for south Asian entertainment news? There is a discussion about this at Talk:Ismail_Hussain_(singer)#Masala.VR _talk 20:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope, there's no disclosures on its authors and its articles are exclusively attributed to "Masala.com reporters." Its own terms and conditions forgo any liability towards the accuracy of its content and further states that they may make use third party sources without any promises on its accuracy. It qualifies as a questionable source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it is reliable due to the Terms and conditions that forgo any liability of there accuracy of content Also a possible copyright issue due to using third party sources 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Live History India

I came across this site while reviewing a DYK hook for promotion to the main page. The hook was:

• ... that during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, Veer Baburao Shedmake fought and won multiple battles against the British within a period of seven months before being captured and hanged?

When I looked at the nominated article, Baburao Shedmake, I found that the claim that Shedmake had "won" multiple battles against the British was sourced almost entirely to a website called "Live History India". The website's article on the topic includes a number of colorful claims, including that in his first battle, Shedmake "completely routed the British Army, while inflicting serious losses of men and equipment", that in the second battle, Shedmake's men "pelted stones at the troops, and didn't let up till the troops retreated with heavy losses!" and that in a third battle "the two sides battled it out bitterly, and again, Sedmake and his men emerged victorious".[66]

Now comparing this account to that from a couple of more clearly reliable sources in the article, an Indian government source states that "Two indecisive battles were fought at Saganpur and Bamanpeth in April 1858",[67] and an article on JSTOR from Modern Asian Studies states that the British sent a force of 1700 to put down the rebellion and that "being unaccustomed to operating in such a jungle and mountainous area, the force failed to make any dent on their opponents and were forced to retreat."[68] These accounts hardly accord with that from Live History India.

Taking a closer look at the Live History India website, it describes its "vision" as follows: Through our work and your support, Live History India aims to create a platform to help Indians and India lovers rediscover the many facets of this great country. Revive and bring forth the best works on India and champion all the efforts by individuals, groups, institutions and governments to restore our great legacy. A worthy goal perhaps, but then it does make it sound like an advocacy website.

On its "In the Press" page, there are just six mentions listed, most from around the time the site was getting established, some of which state that numerous unnamed historians were involved with the project. On its "Disclaimer" page however, it says Certain elements of the Site will contain material submitted by users. LHI accepts no responsibility for the content, accuracy, conformity to applicable laws of such material.

Courtesy ping to the creator of the wikipedia article on Shedmake, Shivashree. Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gatoclass for checking the article and proofreading. As far as the DYK goes, I have removed the word "won" from the hook. Apart from that one source, the article has cited all reliable books and journals.

I hope it's good to go now for DYK. GD (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That website most certainly isn't reliable, and I would say this one isn't either; a website with a worthy goal, perhaps, but I see no evidence that it's contributors are subject-matter experts, nor that it has peer-review, or editorial review. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Boom! ( www.boomlive.in )

• Cited in 12 articles and on 5 talk pages.
• Mentioned in passing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#Newslaundry on OpIndia
• Listed on the International Fact-Checking Network webpage[69] 2 years ago; IFCN certification lasts for one year, and fact-checkers must be re-examined annually to retain their certifications.
• Listed at List of fact-checking websites.
• No Wikipedia page and no mention on the Boom disambiguation page.
• About,[70] Team,[71] Methodology,[72], Correction policy.[73]

Reliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable: It's listed on the IFCN signatories page with a marker stating "Verified on 27-May-2020", so I assume it has been re-examined. There is also consensus that the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry) can be used to determine the reliability of fact checking organisation so I'd go with reliable unless there's evidence to the contrary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per its IFCN (RSP entry) certification. An April RfC concluded that the IFCN is generally reliable for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations. I'm not sure if Boom has enough coverage to be considered notable yet, but it is reliable considering that no reliable source has criticized Boom's reliability (as far as I am aware). — Newslinger talk 04:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Countere.com

Is Countere.com a reliable source? It doesn't look to be at first glance but first glances can be misleading and I didn't see it in the archives here. A citation was added at Jessica Krug, which is a BLP and a bit of a sensitive topic in general. Want input from the greater community as to whether we should consider this website RS or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have grave doubts about a site that has a story with the headline "I Responded to 30 DMs With My PayPal Link and Nobody Sent Me Any Money" as the second story on its homepage. The tagline on their Facebook page is "The magazine for the dystopia. Founded 2020" and they brag about causing chaos. Not reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I do as well, hence why were are here, but felt it needed to be listed here at RSN, regardless of conclusion. I wish another person or two would opine one way or another on the site. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Mangauk

See https://www.mangauk.com/blade-of-the-immortal-interview-with-hiroaki-samura/ The site has been blocked for about seven years but they keep featuring unique interviews for manga authors.Tintor2 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• The result of this discussion will determine whether the interview will be added to the spam whitelist so that it can be cited in articles related to Blade of the Immortal. See WT:WHITELIST § Request to unblock article at mangauk for the original request. The mangauk.com domain is the official website of Manga Entertainment, and it was originally blacklisted for spam in 2011–2012. — Newslinger talk 15:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. — Newslinger talk 16:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I see no valid reason for it to be blocked. It's the official website of a large anime company in the UK, and (as pointed out) it contains sources that should be considered reliable. I support unblocking it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Nihonjoe: as Tintor2 has demonstrated, the site contains information relevant the project, and is the official website of a large anime company. It should be unblocked. — Goszei (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed with everyone hereBlue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 18:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Nicolaus Olahus, István Szamosközy

LordRogalDorn has been trying to add quotes from the works of two 16th-century historians, Nicolaus Olahus and István Szamosközy in the article about the Origin of the Romanians. Two editors made several attempts to explain him that the two books could not be cited without a reference to a peer-reviewed secondary or tertiary source. He debates our opinion. Do you think we can quote 16th and 17th-century historians' views about the Romanians' ethnogenesis without establishing their relevance with a reference to a peer-reviewed work? Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no two editors, only one editor made such attempts, that editor is the one I'm replying to right now - Borsoka. The other editor merely mentioned that we tend not to use secondary sources older than 50 or 100 years, which is true, but at the same time not related to Borsoka's complains and to call that an argument supporting his case is not far from a strawman. Borsoka's attempts can be summarized at: He asked me why I think the quotes should be added and I replied, then he asked me the very same question again, and again, and again. At one point, I started to copy-paste text from my previous answers because it was exactly the same question, answered previously but for some reason he refused the answer. Without specificing why he refuses or doesn't like that answer, he simply asked me the same thing again. He also tried to put words into my mouth by making some gross exaggerations I did not make, as I replied to him: Please don't exaggerate. You said that "We also don't need to quote everything Oláh and Szamosközy said" when I never suggested that in the first place. You said that "We do not need to quote all primary sources written by Catholic scholars in the 15th and 16th centuries" when I never suggested that in the first place. Now you say that "Should we also quote all contemporaneous Moldavian and Wallachian chronicles about the Romanian immigration to Hungary", when yet again, I never suggested that in the first place. If you think I might have suggested that in some way, I did not. Stick to what I said, don't exaggerate". What was his reply? Another gross exaggeration: "We are not here to quote dozens of primary sources because we like them". The only person in this discussion who ever talked about "quoting dozens of primary sources" is Borsoka. The quotes in question are only 2, only 2 quotes, no more no less, backed up with sources, that was all I added, he merely exaggerates from there. And the most important issue: WP:Source and WP:Primary. He told me I'm not in compliance with WP:Source and WP:Primary. He first argued that we are not here to make our own personal interpretation of facts. I replied that how could they ever be? They're quotes. By their very nature, quotes do the exact opposite of allowing personal interpretation of facts. He then started with the exaggerations saying "They also agreed that the Hungarians descended from the Scythians, but we should not quote all Humanist historians' text in the article about the Hungarians' origin" to which I replied "We do not need to quote all primary sources, but we are talking only about 2 quotes, not all of them. We also don't need to quote everything Oláh and Szamosközy said, this is the page about the origin of the Romanians, their work on the Hungarians can be used on the origin of the Hungarians." and the discussion kept moving in this direction, with him making gross exagerations and me constantly telling him that's not what I meant, implied or even hinted at. Wikipedia's policy states that "however primary sources may be used in accord with the WP:Primary rules." and WP:Primary states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". The quotes I added pass both of these concerns: they are not personal interpretations and don't need specialized knowledge to understand them. We already discussed how I made no personal interpretation of those sources, I merely listed them. And I will post the 2 quotes to let you see for yourself whether they require specialized knowledge to understand them: "the Roman colonists which inhabited the region, living through various wars and tribulations and dispersed by fate, they became the Romanian people." and "The sermons of all the Romanians are from the Romans, as they are Roman colonists: by our work, of great effort, we see their language is mutually-intellgeble with Latin… According to the tradition, Romanians are colonists of the Romans. This is proved by the fact that they have much in common with the Romans’ language, people whose coins are abundant in these places; undoubtedly, these are significant testimonies of the oldness and Roman rule here". Do you need specialized knowledge to understand the meaning of these quotes? LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

My first reamarks and my question are still valid. There are two editors opposing quotes from the two 16th-century historians' works and I still think 16th-century hostorians cannot be used without establishing their relevance with a reference to peer-reviewed works. Borsoka (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

My answer to you is still valid. The other editor merely mentioned that we tend not to use secondary sources older than 50 or 100 years. Making it only one editor against it, you. With all respect, what you think is not relevant when it contradicts Wikipedia's guideline. Saying that I can use primary sources without references to secondary sources when certain conditions are met: they are not personal interpretations and people don't need specialized knowledge to understand them.LordRogalDorn (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you think he reverts your edit because he agrees with you ([74])? Borsoka (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know his stance, he only recently reverted my edit, it could very well be to stop the edit-war where you would falsely state "OR". What I do know is that he never said the things you claimed he has said. Do you think your personal opinion has more weight than Wikipedia's policy? LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not want to play your game. On the article's Talk page you can read all relevant quotes from our policies to be applied. Please read edit warring carefully, because edit warring may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What game? All the relevant quotes from our policies are applied. But you already know this because we discussed each of them in particular, do you remember? have some intellectual honesty. Until you ran out of titles of policies to throw at me and switched to "sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you, because we reached a stalemate", despite that stalemate being simply you running out of arguments. As mentioned in our discussion, to which you gave no reply apart from "you misunderstand our policy" and when I asked you "the policy is clear and we discussed it, if I misunderstood it, explain where I'm wrong with quotes from the policy" your reply was an evasive "sorry, I do not want to play this game of yours", these are the relevant policies: WP:SOURCE allows the use of primary sources in certain conditions that are met here. WP:HISTRS allows the use of primary sources when used in accord with the WP:PRIMARY, and the policy from WP:PRIMARY was mentioned in the previous comment. You still didn't reply the question: Do you think your personal opinion has more weight than Wikipedia's policy? Unless you have a serious reason to disagree, please "stop playing my game" and stop the abuse of WP:BRD by filibustering because it may have serious consequences. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources at Democratic Union Party (Syria)

At Democratic Union Party (Syria) there are two editors who defend the inclusion of several sources that are not on topic and also try to conceal the source Harun Yahya (pen name of Adnan Oktar) as a source for the page, who is a well known Turkish conspiracy theorist. They claim that I remove a phrase about the PKK-PYD-KCK relation by my edit, which I don't.

The involved editors in the dispute are:

The editors who want to keep Harun Yahya (who they disguise as "Bill Rehkopf") and several sources that do not mention the KCK for a phrase mentioning the KCK.

1: Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم

2: Thepharoah17

The editor who wants to remove Harun Yahya and irrelevant sources that do not mention the KCK.

3: Paradise Chronicle

The only admin mentioned in the dispute.

El C

They claim an Admin was involved in the wording of the phrase regarding the relation between the PKK and the PYD and therefore they revert me.

Most of the 9 sources don't even mention the KCK, so they force the inclusion of the sources in dispute by edit war and at are claiming Admin support. I don't remove the phrase. I just spilt and move the phrase according to their relevance and the relevance of the sources. According to the talk page Ibn Amr also agrees on the KCK part, but only on the talk page, his edits are an edit war. It is hard for me to believe that an Admin agreed to the use and concealment of Harun Yahya as a source (I am pretty sure they didn't, they weren't involved anymore, as I pointed out who Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar is) and the use of other sources that don't even mention the KCK for a phrase that focuses on the KCK. They agreed on the wording, yes. But they can't back it up with multiple high quality sources as demanded from the Admin.

Here the diff for it.

Here is my first improvement of the page from the 1 September 2020 (onwards I only mention the month, the edits are all in 2020)

diff In which I removed some of the sources which didn't mention the KCK and split and moved the phrase in two. The KCK part went to the section Ideology and the other part about the foundation into History. I also clarified the sources like adding the author/publisher of an article to the source. The edit was reverted on the 1 September by Ibn Amr with the edit summary "the sentence you removed is very well sourced (10 or more) and took us (...) weeks to reach consensus on it. See Talk page, use it and seek consensus BEFORE removing this sentence"

diff

I then used the Talk page repeatedly on the 2 and 3 September,

diff

diff

diff

but there where no answers about Harun Yahya by anyone. ThePharoah17 and also Ibn Amr re-included Harun Yahya and the sources not mentioning the KCK. The Harun Yahya source is difficult to find as at first sight, he appears as Bill Rehkopf. In my opinion Harun Yahya is not a good source for a controversial phrase which I also stated at the talk page. Also sources that do not mention the KCK should not be used to source a phrase about the KCK.

Both, the KCK part of the phrase as well as the PYD-PKK connection would still be sourced with 3 sources. But as there is no founder of the PYD mentioned by name in any source but it is claimed that it was the PKK who founded it, as to me it is better to move this to the history part instead of the lead. A source with no name of a founder is no high quality source for a foundation. (Turkish sources would very probably deliver the names of the PKK-members amongst the PYD founders of 2003, but they don't and it would also not be a quality source) Nor is Harun Yahya. After my edit I did on the 16 September

here the diff,

the sources would have been clarified and not just a link as it is currently sometimes the case. The others prefer the current version with the unrelated sources.

For transparency: Before I came here with the dispute, the dispute was discussed at the ANI, but there I was told this is the wrong forum, and to go to another Noticeboard like RSN. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate forum for deciding who made correct or incorrect allegations on a talk page. It is an appropriate forum for discussing whether a source is reliable or not. But I'm not clear from the way this question is framed which sources are contentious here. Can you specify the sources we need to discuss, and what claims they are being used as sources for? Is it specifically this source (an opinion blog by Harun Yahya in The Hill, removed in this edit and restored in this edit but with the author inaccurately given in the citation as Bill Rehkopf)? My view is this is an inappropriate source for a factual claim as it is an opinion piece, and that "Harun Yahya" (Adnan Oktar) is not a reliable source for anything other than his own views as he is very much FRINGE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The sources I view as unreliable are the following:

The very Harun Yahya source you found (source No. 8 in the PYD article states it is from Bill Rehkopf),

this anonymous one of the

International Crisis Group (Heiko Wimmen is not the Author of the piece, he wrote another article on top of the link. The article sourcing the foundation of the PYD by PKK members is located below and is anonymous. It's the only source I read which mentions a founder of the PYD, and the article does not disclose the name. No Author nor a name of a founder. No high quality source to source something controversial in the lead.

another anonymous one of the

Carnegie Middle East Center it is a general article about the PYD. But nothing in depth. Also no high quality source. I also tried to show who the publisher is, but they reverted me.

another anonymous one of the

Council of Foreign Relations which doesn't mention the KCK but is used to source the KCK. The piece is a general timeline about Kurds. No high quality source worth for the inclusion of controversial content in the lead.

then a

Jstor/Atlantic Council piece which would be a better source but it doesn't mention the KCK as well (for which is used as a source) nor the foundation of the PYD in 2003 for which it is also used as a source. It focuses on the PYD from 2012 onwards (page 3-8)

a Reuters source which does also not mention the KCK for which it is also used to source, nor does it mention the foundation of the PYD in 2003 by the PKK, for which the piece is also used as a source for.

and a Hoover Institute piece of Fabrice Balanche who they also try to conceal. I tried several times to make his name seen, but everytime I was reverted. The source doesn't mention a founder of the PKK by name, nor mentions the KCK for which it also used as a source.

Most of the sources don't even mention what they are supposed to source.

This source from the Middle East Policy is an acceptable one for the KCK and has authors like Michael Gunter etc. It mentions the foundation of the PYD in 2003. But the PYD is not portrayed as a Syrian branch/offshoot of the PKK. According to this source it was only founded by Kurds with a sympathy towards the PKK, and it also has no name of a founder to show. This source can stay for the KCK. But it is also not a good source for a foundation of the PYD as a Syrian branch of the PKK.

I hope, it is now better to understand. It is a long edit, but there are also many sources in dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There has been no further resistence to adapting the sources. No comment came here from the opposing party, maybe the discussion itself and the edit summary of the only contributor to the discussion was enough. Issue solved for now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

two quick checks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

My apologies. It was not my intention to have a disagreement copied to this page for continued litigation. I misunderstood GreenC's use of the linked sources, and thought they were to be used for sourcing. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

---

For sourcing the article "The Pet Goat", do Ledge of Liberty or Google Answers qualify as reliable sources? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 05:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm the other involved party here. Obviously those sources are NOT reliable, nor used in the article. Here is the problem: the story "The Pet Goat" was published in the book Reading Mastery - Level 2 Storybook 1 by Engelmann, Siegfried. There is no disagreement, Fourthords agrees, and many reliable sources confirm it. The question is which edition of the book was it published in for the purpose of adding an entry in the The_Pet_Goat#Editions section. Now this is pretty silly because there is no evidence it was not published in every edition or any edition. Furthermore those links above show dozens of people who all say the same thing. Is there is a mass conspiracy? Fourthords has given no reason not to list any edition of the book in the editions section. The onus is on him to verify that story is in the book, reliable sources say it is and enough metadata is provided to find a copy of the book. -- GreenC 13:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

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

vk.com

VK (https://vk.com/) is a social media service, popular in the Russian-language community (mostly in Russia itself, I think, but outside of it as well). Although it is not inherently Russian-specific, and there are posts and in English and other non-Russian languages, it is predominantly Russian; it is the Russian equivalent to Facebook. Is it citable as a WP:RS? Does the answer turn on whether the VK poster is believed to be the subject of the article? Or whether the account from which the VK poster posts is a verified account?

Perennial sources says of Facebook: "Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight." The same is true of VK, so I would expect that it is not a reliable source (at least with respect to non-verified accounts).

To put some meat on this, the basis for this question is this edit to Alexandra Elbakyan; the particular citation is to what is likely Elbakyan's VK page at [75]. I removed it on the ground that VK is equivalent to Facebook, a documented nonRS; but it was reinstated by the editor with an edit summary that they believe the account to authentically belong to Elbakyan.

I note that VK does have a mechanism to verify that an account belongs to a the user it claims to be (akin to Twitter's (now-suspended) verified account process), which results in the account being marked with a 100%-verified logo (as shown on that VK page). The purported Elbakyan VK page at issue here does not have that logo; it is not a verified account, although realistically, I have no reason to believe it to be an imposter.

My own take is that a posting from a non-verified account fails WP:RS and should not be used; a posting from a verified account could be used, subject to the general guidance at WP:BLPSELFPUB.

I don't see the reliability of VK having been discussed on this noticeboard, and since it's a very popular site in the Russian-speaking community, and the issue is likely to ramifications beyond this article, I thought it would be worth a discussion here rather than just on article's talk page.

It doesn't seem to have much traction as a source on Wikipedia; eyeballing a couple link searches ([76], [77]) there are only a few hundred links to it. Most are not in article space, and I suspect the majority of the ones that are are in articles are there as ELs rather than as references, for example as at Centr and Bolshoi Theatre. I suspect that's because of a general realization that it's not a RS. TJRC (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As user-generated content, VK is generally unreliable for facts by WP content guidelines. As with Facebook, it may at times be useful for primary material. Jlevi (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The VK account is the same as the one linked at sci-hub.tw/alexandra so it's legit. Self published sources should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF information and should never be used for third party claims about living persons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

+1--So9q (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

VK should be blacklisted as it is never useful for any purpose unlike Facebook that is sometimes useful for primary material. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

How so? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Going to heavily disagree with the premise of this post. It's the Russian version of Facebook. It's not a source in and of itself. It is a platform that lets people post content. It doesn't need blacklisting and designating it as an unreliable source isn't useful because it is not a source. The sources are people who are making posts on it, and the questions we need to ask ourselves isn't whether or not blanket banning VK is appropriate; it's whether the people posting on VK are reliable. If the verified account for the Russian government posts about their official position on a diplomatic event, it's probably OK. If it's just some random person it's probably not. It's appropriate to use posts on VK as a source in the same contexts as Facebook. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 00:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally unreliable, just as Facebook (RSP entry), LinkedIn (RSP entry), Quora (RSP entry), Reddit (RSP entry), Twitter (RSP entry), etc. are generally unreliable. VK (VKontakte) is a social network that primarily consists of user-generated content. If a VK account is a verified account or if the VK account owner is verified in some way, then content published on the VK account can be used under the restrictions of WP:ABOUTSELF as if it were published on the account owner's personal website. — Newslinger talk 05:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

For Special:Diff/979465619, I agree with Hemiauchenia that Sci-Hub's ownership of the sci_hub VK account is adequately verified via the ВКонта́кте image link at the bottom of Sci-Hub's home page. The "1 billion" claim should be treated similarly as if it were published on Sci-Hub itself. It seems a bit promotional, and a reliable secondary source would be preferred. At a minimum, the article should state that the "1 billion" figure is Sci-Hub's own claim. — Newslinger talk 05:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

+1 I agree and see that someone already fixed the sentence. I have asked the author of Sci-hub via Telegram to provide full statistics on the website to sidestep the problems and get raw data instead.--So9q (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

TV.com

Can I ask where do we stand on TV.com as a source? Govvy (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on the hits I checked at [78], we don't think highly of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I won't use the source. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

TV.com appears to be mostly user-generated content, which makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia's purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

Can anyone verify if filmmusicreporter.com can be used as a reliable source? It looks like back in 2011, there was a short discussion about it on the WP:FILM talk page, and it looked like the two editors who commented came to the conclusion that it was an WP:SPS. It looks like the source is popping up again, specifically at Spontaneous, and a few other upcoming film articles that I can't recall at the moment. BOVINEBOY2008 09:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks dubious even for an SPS. Here's the about page. Comments don't look real either. I'm wondering what this site is for. - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

lostarmour.info

Should lostarmour.info be blacklisted? 176.88.136.86 (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The site is a Russian image board that claims to count the number destroyed military equipment in modern conflicts (Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan etc.) by using Twitter images of the purportedly destroyed military equipment (Twitter is a non RS on Wikipedia). I think this source, currently being widely used in modern combat articles should immediately be blacklisted/deprecated due its unreliability. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily blacklisted, but just ignored, that is not used. Simple non-RS issue. Zezen (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Currently used in 20 pages. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The New Statesman

Is The New Statesman a generally reliable source? At a glance I can't find any prior discussions on it at RSN, weirdly, yet it's been cited to support other sources' reliability, and we cite it at WP:RSP for issues with the Morning Star. We use this source a lot across articles. It has sometimes been alleged that the paper has a slight left-wing bias, although the question here is is it generally reliable, particularly for statements of fact, as a source, and are there any areas where it is not reliable? Does attribution need to be given when used as a source? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly it's an opinion source, but it's definitely an indicator for notability, and I've not known it to make stuff up, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Quite good from my perspective, with a long and solid track record. The NYT had a small section on its 50th birthday in 1963, saying: "The New Statesman, outspoken weekly reflecting the views of Britain's intellectual left, celebrated its 50th birthday today. In messages, President Kennedy praised its 'distinction of style' and Prime Minister Macmillan its 'presentation'" It was quite solid 50 years ago, and it remains good today. The NYT often references the source for facts, to reference their interviews, and to demonstrate notability of a subject in a different paper: [79][80][81][82]. Reuters treats it similarly: [83]. On the other hand, Fox criticized the paper in 2004 for its coverage of an alleged rape, saying that TNS was too credulous of the claims made by the alleged victim. Hmmmm.... though more recent investigations seem to imply that Fox may not have been on the right side of history on this one. Jlevi (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Edit: Oh, right, with consideration for the boilerplate 'news vs opinion' caveat, of course. Jlevi (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Columbia Journalism Review UBO: [84][85][86]

The Atlantic UBO: [87][88] Jlevi (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• It is reliable but as with any political magazine, editors need to distinguish between news and opinion pieces. TFD (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable but opinion needs to be attributed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Highly reliable although a lot of the content is opinon and needs to be treated as such. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable with the caveat that it is 75% opinion and reflects a centrist/centre-left perspective. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - apology to Roger Scruton No-one has yet mentioned that the New Statesman had to apologise to Roger Scruton for grossly misrepresenting his views. [89] [90]To me, this is the equivalent of ‘making stuff up’, and seriously affects its credibility. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems like this has to do with social media, rather than the publication itself. The apology notes that "Sir Roger is quoted accurately in the article... After its publication online, links to the article were tweeted out together with partial quotations from the interview...". Though this seems like a gross social media strategy, I don't think we typically weigh social media posts in evaluation of sources. If other examples of this sort of thing exist, maybe there would be more to say. Jlevi (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, Mr Scruton was quoted out of context to make it appear that he was racist against the Chinese, and that he was criticising George Soros without also criticising anti-Semitic hostility to Mr Soros. It was because he was misrepresented as a racist that he was sacked by the government, as stated in the BBC source, and then reinstated when it was realised that he had been traduced. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You're correct. I read the article [91] and also the full transcript [92]. The article was unrepresentative of Roger Scruton's position. For some editors such misrepresentation in a right-leaning publication would lead to deprecation. The article was written in 2019. The New Statesman is a progressive left-leaning publication and Roger Scruton is a conservative.--Guest2625 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I read both the article and transcript, and it reads like a reasonably accurate article to me, tbh. In any case, one debatable article would not be enough to render it a deprecated source, especially when the article has been pored over by the magazine in order to establish reliability.-Boynamedsue (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand what ‘the article has been pored over by the magazine in order to establish reliability’ means. Obviously, if they had to apologise for it, they didn’t pore over it enough. And the author of the article, George Eaton, is still working at the NS. When Boris Johnson invented a quote, the Times sacked him.This enhanced the credibility of the Times. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable I think the publication is well written and generally reliable. I read it sometimes. However, since it's a left-leaning publication there needs to be caution when it writes about conservative-related topics. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be regarded as reliable. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Geoconservation Research

Is Geoconservation Research (http://gcr.khuisf.ac.ir/) a reliable journal? It is run by the Islamic Azad University of Isfahan, and states that its editor in chief is well respected paleontologist Michael J. Benton. Since its founding in 2018, it has published 18 articles, which relate to various issues, mostly geotourism and geoheritage related. The article I wish to cite is Burmese Amber Fossils, Mining, Sales and Profits by respected palaeontologist George Poinar and Sieghard Ellenberger, about Burmese amber. There's a lot of controversy about Burmese amber, which is mined in a conflict zone in northern Kachin State in Myanmar, and whether or not profits from its sale go towards funding conflict, and many of the claims made in the paper are not verifiable from external sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

According to this article [93] CNN has emailed Poinar and confirmed that this study is legitimately from him, so I don't think there should be any doubt about whether it might be a fraudulent open-access journal not really from the university. That being said, even if GCR (abbreviating) is a reliable journal in the field of paleontology it seems like this article in particular is a primary source that is composed of Poinar and Ellenberger's anecdotal experiences in Myanmar/Burma. I don't think this article should be used to definitively say that "the profits from Burmese amber have not been used to support ethnic cleansing". Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Poinar wrote it, my point was that I'm not sure that the journal has adequate peer review for material like this. Poinar and Ellenberger's main contention is that the production of amber crashed after the 2017 takeover of the mines by the Tatmadaw, and the vast majority of the amber that was mined was prior to 2017 when the mines were controlled by the Kachin Independence Army. This is coroborated by a 2019 article in Science:

Two former mine owners, speaking through an interpreter in phone interviews, say taxes have been even steeper since government troops took control of the area. Both shut their mines when they became unprofitable after the government takeover, and almost all deep mines are now out of business, dealers here corroborate. Only shallow mines and perhaps a few secret operations are still running.

This is relevant because the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has proposed a moratorium on publishing for specimens collected after 2017, implying that funding the Tatmadaw is the problem, not the KIA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting claim but it's not enough to definitively that buying Burmese amber does not fund the Burmese government. Clearly there's disagreement in the field over this (otherwise why boycott?) and both viewpoints should be reflected in the article. On the topic of whether GCR itself is a reliable source I wouldn't know enough about the field of paleontology to say. Maybe cross-posting to WikiProject paleontology would be helpful here. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

National Geographic and Adam Weishaupt (the Illuminati guy)

Is the National Geographic so reliable that Wikipedia needs to accept elements of an anti-semitic conspiracy theory based on an NG article that iself lacks any reliable sourcing? See the history of Adam Weishaupt and the talkpage section titled "Was Weishaupt Jewish?" for background. --Hegvald (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It should mention this claim, qualifying it by citing this RS by name and maybe the opposing ones, if any, for DUE. Why not?

BTW, I have removed the hat tag there, for easier finding the discussion that you highlighted here: I have not and will not otherwise touch this article.

Zezen (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What do mean by "this RS"? --Hegvald (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hegvald, there is an extensive critique of Hernández' article for the National Geographic here. Vexations (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for "why not," see Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, which is ultimately the source of claims that Weishaupt was Jewish. Notice that there's a lack of Jewish or Masonic sources saying "ok, he had Jewish ancestors BUUUT." Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

In 2015 Rupert Murdoch bought 73% of The National Geographic Society's assets, including the magazine, books, maps, and all other Media assets. Then 1n March 2019 The Walt Disney Corporation acquired that 73%,

The magazine is now published by "National Geographic Partners" (AKA Disney) instead of of The National Geographic Society, which retains 27% ownership but has no control over content.[94]

Since then the magazine has become an unreliable source.[95][96][97] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the one aforementioned article those examples point more to the unreliabilty of their book department which has different editors to those at the magazine, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

When the new owners of a respected and reliable publication show that they are willing to publish garbage using the formerly good name, someone always says "but we only caught division X publishing bullshit. We need to assume that division Y is reliable until we catch them doing it". This is usually combines with a "division Y has different editors" claim as if they didn't report to the same bosses and as if those bosses never move editors between divisions. No, we should not play Whac-A-Mole, treating all the subdivisions of an organization as if they are independent. Once the top management has shown that they are fine with the book division publishing craptacular material about space aliens and magic foods that cure cancer, the magazine division needs to be considered unreliable until proven otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, that argument is like saying The Times should be deprecated because it is part of the same corporation that owns The Sun. Each publication has seperate editors and needs to be considered on its own merits such as The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday in the RFC following. We can't just assume a source is unreliable due to its ownership, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's like saying that [ https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/bizarre/ ] and [ https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/fabulous-celebrity/ ] should not be treated as separate entities. I am not saying the National Geographic and ABC News should be treated the same just because Disney owns both. I am saying that National Geographic Magazine and National Geographic Books should be treated the same.

You misstated the result concerning The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. The overwhelming consensus was "Option 4 The content at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/index.html seems to be no different and inseparable from the rest of the outlet". "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated"

"Hey! You only showed that page 3 of the Frostbite Falls Picayune Intelligence is unreliable! Page 5 was written and edited by a different person!! Also, you only proved that Lake Tahoe is a fresh water lake at the north shore. It might be filled with salt water at the south shore and crude oil in the middle..." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy, the RFC on whether the Daily Mail deprecation applies to the Mail on Sunday is still open (and to my eye is far from having consensus). That said, I would agree that NatGeo has fallen dramatically in reliability in recent years. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

If we seperate the reliability of staff editors and contributor editors at the same publication such as Forbes, Huffington Post and Entrepreneur then there is a case that different divisions run by different editors should be considered separately, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)While NatGeo as an institution is generally not unreliable, specialist sources would outweigh them. Christopher L. Hodapp is more of an authority on these matters and he has endorsed two similarly weighty (though not notable) authors' rebuttals of that article. One of those authors (Josef Wages) was the editor for the English translation of the Illuminati rituals, the other (Terry Melanson) is cited throughout our articles on Illuminati. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The National Geographic Society was considered reliable, but they no longer control the content of the books, magazine, maps, or videos. Now everything is controlled by Disney. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Of the discussions linked in RSPS for National Geographic, one is pre-2015 (see what Guy Macon wrote) and the other seems ambiguous, leaning towards "against". I don't think the current green status has a solid basis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Related: National Geographic Society sets biggest layoff in its history Newslinger, is this enough to change the perennial sources entry, or should I post an RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    • ​I think an RfC would be best. A mass layoff is definitely enough to justify an RfC, although it's common for editors to hold off on reclassifying a source until enough time has passed for its content quality to noticeably change. The January 2019 discussion on BuzzFeed News immediately after its layoffs didn't find consensus to reclassify it right away. The layoffs from National Geographic happened just under five years ago, and this discussion does mention more than just the layoffs, so an RfC might produce a different result here. — Newslinger talk 13:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have seen the online article that Vexations (talk · contribs) mentions above, and it is telling that the NG has already corrected a claim about Mayer Amschel Rothschild that had originally been in the Hernandez article (see box at the bottom of her article). In either case it would appear that the best secondary sources on Weishaupt's origin are most likely to be the two articles by Brökel and Hausfelder that deal specifically with Weishaupt's family and are published in German regional historical periodicals, neither of which, alas, is available to me. Somebody with access to a good German university library could probably find them. (Gerhard Brökel "Adam Weishaupt: der Gründer des Geheimbundes der Illuminaten und seine Vorfahren in Brilon", Jahrbuch Hochsauerlandkreis 2004. Edmund Hausfelder, "Die Familie des Adam Weishaupt und seine Schwiegereltern Sausenhofer", in Sammelblatt des Historischen Vereins Ingolstadt 120 (2011), p. 215-245. Both are mentioned by JevaSinghAnand (talk · contribs) in a comment from 2015. (Jeva Singh-Anand also appears to have been an authority on the illuminati and a collaborator of Josef Wages, mentioned above by Ian.thomson (talk · contribs).) --Hegvald (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Singh-Anand translated the Illuminati rituals and other works by Weishaupt into English. Wages and Singh-Anand rather seem to have a positive view of Weishaupt as a philosopher so they wouldn't exactly have any reason to try to hide any Jewish ancestry if Weishaupt had any. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC: HuffPost

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this RfC, editors conclude that the Huffington Post's reliability varies. The community considers that the site demonstrates open bias concerning US politics. A few editors consider the site's reliability for politics outside the US, and show examples of bias concerning British politics as well, but there is insufficient participation on this point for me to call it a consensus. In non-political fields, the Huffington Post staff writers are subject to editorial oversight and the community finds them generally fairly reliable for factual reporting, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and may give less prominence, or omit to cover, things that deny it. The Huffington Post uses clickbaity headlines to attract attention, and the body text of any article should be considered more reliable than the headlines.

The community views HuffPost's contributor blogs as very variable in quality with near-zero editorial oversight, and these should be treated with great caution.

Finally, the community notes that the Huffington Post's reliability has increased since 2012. Articles from before about 2012 are less reliable than the modern ones and should be treated with more caution.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

---

What is the reliability of the HuffPost?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily MailHemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Responses (HuffPost)

• Option 1: perfectly reliable. Opinion pieces are opinion pieces, same with any other news source. "18 Reasons Why X Is Y"- and "As An X, Here Is My Opinion On Y"-style articles may be of little use to us but are harmless. Relative to the United States, it has a liberal bias; it does not contain misinformation or factual inaccuracies, just a selective bias in topics a little bit stronger than our most reliable news sources. It's particularly useful for interviews, entertainment (e.g. television reviews) and internet culture but not always useful for showing notability or due weight. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2½. More or less OK for general reporting but distinctly biased, so less reliable for politics (like Faux News) and it gives a platform to people like homeopathy shill Dana Ullman. The default should be not to use HuffPo. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @JzG: Dana Ullman writes as a "HuffPost contributor", right? We list that separately at WP:RSP. — Bilorv (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    • yeah, the blogs are often random trash much as they are on Forbes - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Similar to Fox. There will always be a better source for WP:DUE article content. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Fox is ranked Option 1 for general topics and Option 2 for politics and science. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 08:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 as reliable as legacy media. TFD (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as reliable. Wouldn't call it "legacy media" as TFD does, but it was one of the first new sources in "new media" in the midst of Internet that established itself based on standard journalism models, and has proven themselves reliable (with the usual cavaets with its contributor model, already called out), and thus no reason to question it without any evidence to challenge that position. --Masem (t) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for staff written content although opinion pieces should be attributed as usual. No evidence presented of unreliabilty, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I have generally found it to be reliable. Draws a clear line between staff-written content and advertising. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. HuffPost is certainly WP:BIASED but not unreliable. I have not seen evidence of poor journalism or fact-checking issues from them. Obviously this applies only to the publication itself, not to its contributor content, which is separate and correctly treated as WP:SPS at RSP. Armadillopteryx 00:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option2: I would consider it of questionable (or, more exactly, erratic) reliability even now, and one cannot prove it generally reliable, by showing it has been reliable sometimes. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per JzG. Not a great source, but not awful. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for news content - it's a perfectly normal WP:NEWSORG on this level. Watch out for blog posts, though - these are not WP:NEWSBLOGs - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • note: the blog posts are "Contributor", "Contributor Network" or explicitly marked "Blogs" - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, totally reliable, issues corrections, has editorial oversight. Abductive (reasoning) 13:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, especially for c. 2012 to present. Its coverage in its early period of existence needs to be looked at more critically, (Option 2). I also think they have a partisan bias, so extraordinary claims may need attribution. I say all this as someone with a strong left bias myself. But biased is not the same as unreliable. Fox was not considered unreliable (for politics and science) because it was biased and neither is NYPost being discussed for that reason, while it is a contributing factor. I have not seen any evidence presented of fabricated coverage. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 given the complete lack of evidence given to the contrary. I suggest this be speedy closed soon unless some rationale is given. -- Calidum 18:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Looking at the arguments above I was leaning towards 3 but I think 2 is a happy medium. Extra consideration should be given using them as the sole source for something politically controversial. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Bias? Meh, everyone is bias. Having said that they run super sensational headlines all the time, like a leftwing Fox News (as pointed out by other editors)...they've gotten the facts really, really wrong many times. One example I can think of his when the claimed 80,000 people died in the UK after being kicked off welfare. In reality 2,600 had died and no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the Department for Work and Pensions actions had actually caused any of the deaths. I remember reading the article as someone who is very sympathetic to those being forced off welfare and thinking "That's just insane, as if that really happened" the numbers were just completely crazy and didn't add up at all. They corrected the numbers, but the article is still crazy and implies that the department for Work and Pensions killed more than 2,600 people. They run a lot of sensational crap like this. I don't consider it a serious news outlet, they get stories from dubious sources like blogs and forums, it's a sensationalist left-wing tabloid. Definitely not a 1 editors shouldn't be letting through such wild and obviously false claims, but they do correct their mistakes so not a 4 but they come very close to being completely unreliable for statements of fact - they may have corrected the wild claim that British welfare agencies killed 80,000 people, but the article still claims that a British government department killed nearly 3000 of it's vulnerable citizens with no real evidence to back that claim other than a very flimsy correlation. [98] Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

There's good reason to believe that the change to Universal Credit under Ian Duncan Smith probably has killed many people indirectly. See [99] [100] [101] Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to Hemiauchenia's excellent sourcing to back up their argument, I'll give a topical analogy: COVID-19 doesn't just cause deaths by COVID-19, but excess deaths too, and when considering the effect it has had it would be wrong to omit calculation of those deaths. However, as to the specific article in question, HuffPost issued a correction almost immediately: An earlier version of this story incorrectly claimed [...] This was incorrect and was changed within 15 minutes of the story being published. Issuing corrections with such speed is an indicator of reliability, not a strike against it. All publications make similarly mistaken claims from time to time, but it is only the reliable ones which correct them speedily and effectively. — Bilorv (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article is essentially correct after that amendment, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

True, I just think they are quick to publish sensational stories and the fact that such a wild figure made it past the editorial staff is evidence, the story still isn't straight reporting it has a sensational tone and looking at the guardian story, the numbers still seem off...and there's a lot of correlation/causation being presented rather than straight reporting. They are too quick to go for the sensational story or run a certain narrative, like Fox and other trashy outlets. I don't reckon they should be deprecated but we can find better, less sensational sources with tighter editorial controls. Bacondrum (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 — tabloidy and sensationalist clickbait; willingness to put homeopathy nonsense on the same site — even if it's "just a blog" — exposes a willingness to promote misinformation for clicks; and it's only been around since 2005, which is substantially less of a track record than reputable sources like AFP, Reuters, AP, etc. Best avoided in favor of better sources. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 02:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for political news (American and international), Option 1.25 for non-political non-controversial news. I would have given a 1.5 for political news, but the Indian HuffPost website has even more biased wording and selective reporting than every Indian left-wing paper and news site besides Bloomberg Quint, which is actually owned by an American company. 45.251.33.169 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1½ for news content — not a blemish-free record, but not one indicative of an irredeemably flawed process, either. Potentially useful as a supplement to legacy media, e.g., if they quote someone at fuller length than the WaPo did. "Contributor" content is often random trash much as they are on Forbes, as David Gerard said above. XOR'easter (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Bilorv. ~ HAL333 07:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Has become increasingly well-established with evidence of editorial control. The inaccurate story flagged up was fixed within 15 minutes and a correction is still appended to the article. Care should be taken over clickbait-y headlines, and the entry should clarify that blogs/contributors, previously much of the site's content, should be treated separately (as WP:SPS). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 09:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Has moved over the past decade from trashy listicle factory and clickbait mill to reputable journalistic institution. (Like Fox in a mirror.) Obviously usual caveats on bias, blogs, opinion pieces, etc. The idea that IDS and his crew of incompetants managed to leave 3,000+ to the wolves with their purely ideological "reforms" (cuts) to welfare is not extraordinary and should surprise no-one. GPinkerton (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per above comments. Only reason why it should be treated differently than "legacy media" would be because there is a lot of blogging content on the website from previous incarnations, which had perhaps less quality control than opinion sections of other reliable sources, so we might need to more prominently emphasise our usual caveats about opinion content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per their 2016 practice of attaching a note to every article about Donald Trump saying Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. In particular, the "regularly incites political violence" part is just plain false. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

e.g. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are talking about the man who recently encouraged extrajudicial mass murder with the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts"? He has encouraged and incited racist state brutality since before HuffPost started commenting on it. I notice you find it Generally unreliable for factual reporting but unfortunately your one stated "factual" objection is just your opinion. — Bilorv (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• 1, it's fine, just the usual case of dividing opinion from news. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - unreliable per the above, and following are a few more samples of unreliability: EPA - "Huffington Post Report Filled with Biased and Misleading Claims", WaPo, Poynter, and libel suits. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Trump administration's EPA press release is a response to an article about itself which attempts to "fact check" insinuations that are not only not in the article but don't seem to be implied or even relevant. It doesn't offer any evidence of poor journalism or unreliability. The WaPo story involves a quote from someone who had falsely claimed to be an eyewitness to a shooting, which was corrected and withdrawn, though it is a sign of suboptimal standards (at least back in 2014). The Poynter article is about an amusing typo. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Basically that any such categorization is an over generalization and we should stop this type of thing. Actual reliability means objective, unbiased reporting, not just avoiding clearly false statements. By those standards their extreme bias means that in many contexts their reliability is very very low. In other contexts their reliability is fine. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1.5 for staff-writer content - XOR'easter is correct. For contributor blogs, WP:RSOPINION applies as usual. For contentious content, I would prefer to use higher-quality sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters, etc.), but the track record on news reporting is decent and they do make a delineation between commentary, advertising, and news. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 How are they any different from Fox News? They are equally as political (or "polarizing" as some would put it) Fortliberty (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per JzG, Bacondrum, and other points raised above. They don't have a reputation for vigorous fact checking or editorial oversight; rather, they have a reputation for sensationalism (e.g. click bait headlines) and bias, though not outright fabrication AFAICT, and they do correct errors, hence not option 4. This is an encyclopedia, and we can do better than citing to a source that has basically never outgrown its origins as a group blog and news aggregator. For anything we could cite HuffPost for, there is a better source available. Lev!vich 14:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1; not seeing any indication that they're generally unreliable. The examples cited above fall into two categories - first, stuff where they issued corrections (often fairly minor details, which covers all the WP:RS coverage); and second, people who were described unflatteringly taking issue with that description, without any actual secondary source backing up their objections (the Trump Administration EPA, the libel suit - which does not seem to have succeeded yet? Anyone can sue for any reason, doesn't mean they'll win.) Those seem like a case for WP:MANDY - obviously people are going to object to unflattering reporting about them, but if it is untrue there should be secondary coverage saying so. Much more importantly, none of these sources suggest any long-term or systematic problem with the Huffington Post's reporting. Some editors here have taken issue with its tone, or disagreed with stuff it says, but no actual coverage about that seems forthcoming, and in any case we don't classify sources as reliable or unreliable based on their tone unless there is a reason to think that this influences the accuracy of their reporting... which, again, nobody has actually produced any evidence for. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, every source is biased, I'm not seeing any evidence they have a reputation for factual inaccuracy or that they have categorically published false information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for general reporting and Option 3 for their contributors. Read this article where a contributor appears to promote homeopathy [102]. Things may have changed in recent years, but older articles (regular articles and blogs) need to be used with caution. I'm not so sure about their recent general reporting though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I think everyone agrees their contributor content is trash. I also suspect the pre-2012 content is in the same boat. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Tendency towards tabloidy clickbait and a sketchy record on fact checking.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - depends on context and excluding any user-generated blog or video parts. Seems obviously “Generally reliable” in having editors and publishing norms in the usual parts, for the context of popular press. And certainly a noted site. A bit sensationalized, but meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - For articles which are not of a political nature, Huffpost is as reliable as any other legacy media source. On subjects of political significance, there can be some spin in the presentation of facts—the facts themselves are usually accurate, but there are exceptions—so it's important to view what they say on those matters with a critical eye. When possible, corroborating with a second reliable source can be good practice. -- ExParte ^talk 06:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Far too many poorly sourced and sensationalised articles littered with inaccuracies or glaring omissions. There are good articles but not nearly enough consistency to be accepted as a source without very close scrutiny. They don't seem to have investigative staff so it would be rare for them to have coverage which is not available elsewhere in a much better and more balanced prose. Cambial Yellowing❧ 06:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Cambial Yellowing: Do you have any specific examples of poor reporting that you'd like to share? Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 - HuffPost is basically the ying to Fox News's yang in that it seems to have a major left-lean bias per what has been said above. It should not be considered a factual source. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 00:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for staff written contwnt, largely as per David Gerard . No significant evidence provided for more than normal errors and soem political spin. Blogs are a different case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Options 1 & 2 I have not yet read much of HuffPost, but I've seen some rather good articles and the site has won a Pulitzer Prize. But of course some articles (specially the ones of before 2018), should be able to be discussed individually if they are a reliable source.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - HuffPost is certainly a reliable source of information. While they may have a significant bias, I think it's completely fair to cite a HuffPost News article as a source. Opinion articles are a different story, however. TexanElite (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Bilorv. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, totally reliable, issues corrections, has editorial oversight, per other Option 1 votes. Andrew Englehart (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for staff reportage, similar to BuzzFeed News or Fox News. Avoid reproducing loaded language from the source, and defer to more established publications for controversial statements. Option 3 for contributors. feminist (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per many above. Fine for factual reporting, obviously does not extend to the opinion sections. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (HuffPost)

• @Hemiauchenia: Are you specifically referring to articles written by HuffPost staff (and not HuffPost contributors)? — Newslinger talk 23:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Yes, HuffPost contributors was sunsetted in 2018. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this isn't true for the UK edition, the statement in the article by the UK EiC that "The US platform allows bloggers to self-publish, creating an unregulated, unedited and unrefined stream of noise into the noisy space that is the internet. In the UK that is entirely different - we do monitor, edit and curate the blogs before they launch.", is telling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please present evidence for the (un)reliability of the source, otherwise these discussions become rather impressionistic/opinion-based. (t · c) buidhe 23:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Some editors may be confusing political with factual reliability. While the Huffington Post has been unreliable in its support for the Democratic Party, it's facts have been reliable. For example, they published articles about Tara Reade's sexual assault allegations against the Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden weeks before legacy media. But that's an objection about what stories they chose to report, rather than their accuracy. There's no need anyway to ban every publication that doesn't support Joe Biden 100%. For broadly covered stories, weight prevents us from including stories that legacy media ignores. TFD (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• The confusion is that there are and were blogs (or "contributor" articles, or similar names), of varying degrees of editorial review. The US ones included the likes of Dana Ullman. The UK ones claimed greater editorial oversight, but they were unpaid for-exposure blogs on a Forbes-like model (I know people HuffPost tried to talk into giving them copy for free). These aren't NEWSORG content - and I wouldn't even call them NEWSBLOG content. They're just blog posts, and only RS insofar as they're expert opinion - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• They publish falsehoods and wild exaggeration: In this 2015 story they imply that the DWP killed 3000 vulnerable welfare recipients with no evidence to back that claim, initially the article claimed it was 80,000 dead. No reliable source with proper editorial over-site would run that story: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/27/benefits-death-claimants-welfare-ids_n_8047424.html?guccounter=1 2009 they promote magic healing water as evidence based homeopathy? That's an oxymoron, it's pseudoscience and while this might be a blog, what reputable source would dabble in this kind of crap: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-wisdom-of-symptoms-re_b_299070 And that's just a small sample of crap they publish. Bacondrum (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bacondrum, The first story looks similar to a Guardian story[103] As for the second one, it's marked "contributor". This discussion is only on staff content. (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying the story doesn't have any merit, the DWP was and is cruel and unreasonable, no doubt there are massive issues. The Guardian had to correct their story too, but the tone is much more akin to straight reporting and they never claimed 80,000 had died - how did such an outlandish and wildly wrong number make it through the editorial process?. Overall the Huff is sensational, while it might lean my way politically, it's a trashy sensationalist outlet. I don't think it should be depreciated, but I find claims that it's a totally solid reliable news source a bit hard to swallow. The Guardian is solid overall, the Huff does a lot of...huffing. Bacondrum (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

One story for which they issued a correction and one by a contributor 11 years ago don't really amount to a lot. Compare to e.g. the pile of evidence in the New York Post RfC. Not saying you're wrong, but for being the first real evidence presented here... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

There's heaps more issues, those were just two I could think of off the top of my head, I often find the Huffs output pretty cringe worthy so I only really read it when it makes the news for the wrong reasons. I remember them being in the news a number of times for publishing crazy psuedoscience stuff. Salon ran this in 2009: https://www.salon.com/2009/07/30/huffington_post/ pretty mental stuff, the Huff was recommending "deep-cleansing enemas" to treat swine flu??? Fair bit of dubious reportage by the Huff documented in other outlets used in our article if you check the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HuffPost#Criticism_and_controversy Bacondrum (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That story was long ago and the nature of the media organization and their content has changed immensely since then. They started as clickbait, now are a mainstream news medium. GPinkerton (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Any evidence they have recently published outright lies as news, not opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

HuffPost’s use of lies to help “sell” the Iran deal -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Apart from that being the blogger disagreeing with political interpretations, rather than factual claims - are you seriously positing https://savethewest.com/ as a source for any claim whatsoever? - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"HuffPo suffers the (unfortunately common) media delusion that science works like politics. Due to this, it is known for shamelessly pushing pseudoscience and woo, and has been caught deliberately lying about doing so" Rational Wiki -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Douban

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

 – Bsherr (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed Douban increasingly being mentioned in Chinese film articles (in particular the article for the science fiction film The Wandering Earth) From what I've read Douban seems to be like IMDB and their scores are WP:USERGENERATED, and so their scores should only be used in exceptional cases, when other publications have decided they might actually be notable.

Has Douban been discussed before? (I considered asking Project Film but they wouldn't necessarily know anything about the reliability of Chinese website, even if they are film website so this seemed like a good place to ask.) It would seem to be an unreliable source. Am I wrong? -- 109.77.196.143 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. We cannot cite Douban because it consists solely of user-generated content. It can be included in an external links section similar to how we use IMDB, but that's all. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

We have around 1,197 citations to Douban per douban.com  . Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• We can cite third-party mentions of Douban film ratings, instead of citing Douban itself. feminist (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It will be very helpful to be able to point to this discussion as needed. -- 109.76.210.200 (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

RedState

There is recent reporting on RedState having pseudonymous writers who publish misinformation and do not disclose their conflicts of interest.[104] This has implications for the reliability of RedState. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Our article on them does say that the Honorable Donald Trump has criticised them, so it is definitely something worth looking into. In January 2014 their ownership changed, so that could be when they went downhill, if they were ever reliable. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: - it may interest you that a wave of 2018 RedState firings reportedly focused on its anti-Trump writers. starship.paint (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that is when its reliability went downhill, assuming it was ever reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The article concerns a single pseudonymous writer,“streiff”. His real identity was outed as that of Bill Crews. He joined RedState in 2004 and is one of its "most widely read contributors." Crews has worked as a press officer at NIAID since 2007. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As an "opinion website" that in my view doesn't distinguish between opinion and other content, RedState shouldn't be used to source facts. starship.paint (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Setlist.fm

Is this a reliable source? Particularly re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Early_Years_1965%E2%80%931972&oldid=980575645#cite_ref-Montreux70_6-0 @Dyolf87:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:UGC, as per their about and FAQ pages. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable as it is already listed as an unreliable source by WikiProject Music because it is usergenerated, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dyolf87: Please see other users here and my self-revert being reverted per this discussion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the South Carolina State Firefighters' Association a reliable source?

I'm in the process of creating a new article, and I wanted to know if this webpage is reliable [105]. It appears to be a blog that comes from a seemingly trustworthy source. I understand that blogs usually aren't reliable, but this seems to have undergone a fact-checking process. However, I am unsure if the fact-checking process was good enough because the blog does not cite any sources. I am only asking because this website does not appear to have ever been cited on the English Wikipedia. All help will be appreciated. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind that articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, while you have presented a tertiary source about the fire of 1923. TFD (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I knew that this source would be somewhat questionable, but I couldn't quite figure out why. I only included this source because it was the only detailed source I could find that seemed reliable enough for my article. The rest of my references are secondary sources that I am confident are reliable. I have since read WP:TERTIARY more thoroughly, and I don't see how I would be violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by including this in my article. What do you think? Should I move my draft to the mainspace? This is the first time I've tried attempting to create a clean article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Just looking around I suggest you may need to dig into some books and newspaper sources. (Note what you can access via [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/ the Wikipedia Library Card for free with some registration). Newspapers.com would be one site I would try that you should be able to get free access to. While these would be primary sources for the stories around 1923, that will help flesh out sourcing. --Masem (t) 17:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That is not a bad idea. I just applied. I hope this can help me get the facts sorted out. I'm planning on moving the article to the mainspace right now though, because I'm convinced that it satisfies WP:TERTIARYUSE. Once I get access to the database, I plan on revising the article. Is it okay if I do this? Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation about Minnie Ashley (Beatrice Ashley Chandler)

I have not seen one online article that reveals the true birthdate of actress Minnie Ashley. As a direct descendant that shares the same pedigree (I am the great grandson of Minnie Ashley’s brother) I would like to know how any of the Wikipedia articles about Minnie Ashley can be corrected. My knowledge is first hand and I can prove through various documents that were retrieved from Vital Statistics, Published city street directories and family photos and information in letters written by other members of my family.

Please read wp:rs and wp:or, as well as wp:v. Your own knowledge is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB in external links

See discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Adding IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic to external links (wherever possible). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Atlas Obscura

Atlas Obscura is a website dedicated to documenting interesting and obscure places. We currently have 1,500 citations to Atlas Obscura per atlasobscura.com  . My main issue with their website is that while it does have a magazine section with articles written by professional writers, these only make up less than half (668) of the citations to the website per atlasobscura.com/articles  , the rest are place entires, which are entirely user generated content, which we have 834 citations to per atlasobscura.com/places  . Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• • Not sure that is correct, have just had a look at some of the listed contributors to place articles and they are professionals holding positions now or formally at the publication or are journalists, experienced writers, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That might be true for some of the places, but for instance https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/ghibli-museum seems to be entirely UGC with no staff or professional writer input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice that the main source listed for the Ghibli Museum entry is...Wikipedia. (And, presumably, a personal visit by the writer.) --Calton | Talk 08:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Like it or not, there are - many - sources that are widely accepted as reliable that use Wikipedia as a source. The biggest potential problem with this is the case of circular references. Unless I overlooked something, that does not appear to be the case here. The Wikipedia article has a list of 29 references, and none of them are to atlasobscura. Is that entry referenced somewhere else on Wikipedia? Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

They are professionals holding positions now or formally at the publication or are journalists, experienced writers I'd like to see the evidence for this, as well as evidence that there's professional editing to back it up. Hell, I just contributed edits to the Ghibli Museum article and I am NOT a professional holding a position now or formerly at the publication nor am I a journalist or experienced writer. --Calton | Talk 08:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:AGF the contributors I checked out were on some articles about lakes in Australia where they were all described in the terms I quoted but if it is ugc without strict editorial control then that is a problem,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like a clear answer for this as well. It does look like anyone can sign up and start adding content. The quality of content is higher than I would expect for a publication without any editorial control. There are almost always other sources that verify the facts in their articles. Spudlace (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:AGF. See the reliable sources guidelines and the verification policy, which trumps your "because I said so" suggestion when it comes to sourcing claims. --Calton | Talk 11:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Pretzels as symbols of human sacrifice

I removed a claim from the Pretzel article that "Modern scholars identify the pretzel as a symbol of human sacrifice to the Celtic goddess Sirona.[dubious – discuss] The rope of dough with three holes represents a three-part noose, which was used to kill three people by hanging" sourced to this Atlas Obscura article, I was reverted by Spudlace, who claimed that they would "look at it later". The source of the claim in the Atlas Obscura article cites William Woys Weaver, who states

But the meaning of the pretzel hadn’t always been Christian. Food historian William Woys Weaver, who has heavily researched the baked good, says the pretzel’s Christian origins are fabricated. “There is no documentation whatsoever for the invention in 610 of the pretzel by a monk,” he says. The pretzel’s origins actually predate Christianity by hundreds of years. Their twisty shape is a symbol of Sirona, the Gaulish goddess of spring and the sacrificial rites associated with the harvest. While the PFG saw the Holy Trinity in the holes of the pretzel, Weaver says the pretzel’s form is “a votive symbol of a triplicate noose, the type used to hang three people at once, since three deaths were considered more potent than one.”

William Woys Weaver descibes himself as "an independent food historian and author of numerous books, including Culinary Ephemera: An Illustrated History and Sauerkraut Yankees: Pennsylvania Dutch Food and Foodways. He also directs the Keystone Center for the Study of Regional Foods and Food Tourism and maintains the Roughwood Seed Collection for heirloom food plants." I don't think he can be considered a reliable source for these fairly extraordinary claims, and the credulous way they are treated in the article makes me question the reliability of Atlas Obscura's article content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Hemiauchenia but you seem to have forgotten that your edit also removed "Popular stories claim that the pretzel was invented by a Christian monk to represent arms crossed in prayer" which is trivial and described as "culinary mythology" by the Oxford Companion to Food. I don't think William Woys Weaver's views need to be included unless there are other secondary sources for it, but I don't think this should have been removed for the reason of "Atlas Obscura is not a reliable source". There are many editors making improvements throughout the day I have little doubt that someone will be by to look over it and clean up the tags. Spudlace (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this should have been removed for the reason of "Atlas Obscura is not a reliable source". Since Atlas Obscura isn't reliable source, there'S every reason to remove it, which I have done so. --Calton | Talk 08:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on their FAQ you may have been right to do so. Spudlace (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• William Woys Weaver is definitely a subject matter expert (see here and here), so it's just a matter of finding a better source for the claim than this one. A quick search turns up this and this. (The latter also makes it obvious Weaver is an expert, given that he gave the keynote address on the topic at the Great Lakes History Conference.) Those ought to be sufficient for a mention attributed to him; but note that they make no mention of human sacrifice, only of the connection to the Celtic harvest knot and the goddess Sirona. With the lurid human sacrifice aspect omitted the claim is no longer particularly WP:EXCEPTIONAL, so I would focus on that and attribute it to Weaver rather than vague "scholars." --Aquillion (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

WWW is definitely a subject matter expert for food history, particularly as it pertains to the United States. However, he definitely is a not a reliable source for ancient history and would not trust any claim about that time period without rock solid sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Company at which the individual works

[106] being used on George Richard Robinson. Here's the diff. Was I right to revert the change? Are companies at which the individual works reliable sources for information about said individual?

This particular case is about an individual that's dead, and the information in question happened nearly 100 years ago. Said information is regarding promotions the individual received. In this case I would say yes, it is reliable. Notable is slightly less obvious, but considering its about someone who's dead and events that took place nearly 100 years ago....probably more likely to be something notable than if it were about someone currently employed by the company. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Whitelist a specific page on A Voice for Men

I wrote an article about Honey Badger (men's rights), a word for female men's rights activists, substantial mainstream sources. The term itself was first used on avoiceformen.com/women/to-the-women-that-arent-like-that/#comment-1275480260 which is a page on the blacklist. By definition there is no substitute for the first use of the term. I asked for it to be whitelisted for this specific purpose, and was directed here. --GRuban (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Please take to WT:WHITELIST. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: He was directed here from there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, but that source doesn't support "was first used"; it only supports "was used", so is it really necessary for the article? Schazjmd (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No, read the article not just the comment: this is the place where AVfM asked female men's rights activists what to call them, and one said this comment, which then caught on. A prominent Badger pointed me there, as first use.--GRuban (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I could see the source supporting "a discussion on A Voice for Men agreed on the term 'honey badger' to describe..." but I think it's weak for a claim of "first use anywhere". Schazjmd (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That would suffice, since AVfM is basically the main site of the men's right movement on the Internet; I've got plenty of sources for that. I'm not trying to cite "first use in recorded history", it's the name of an animal after all, merely "from this point it started being used in the men's rights movement". --GRuban (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Afaik, the policies allows you to cite primary sources if they contain prima facie evidence for what is claimed. That the discussion on the page mentions honey badger means that a Wikipedia article can claim that the discussion on the page mentions honey badger. ImTheIP (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that only allows us to use primary sources that fall under WP:RS. We cannot cite a forum post to indicate something like "here's the first place this term was used" - that would be textbook WP:OR. It also seems pretty clearly WP:UNDUE - if no reliable source has noted that forum post, then it isn't significant. --Aquillion (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A Disqus comment is a type of user-generated content, and is equivalent to a social media post. It's generally unreliable for factual claims, but this is an inquiry for using the comment as a primary source, so we look for different criteria. Is there any evidence that Tara Palmatier is the owner of the "Dr. Tara J. Palmatier" Disqus account? Also, what is the significance of Palmatier – is she a notable individual in the manosphere? — Newslinger talk 18:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Palmatier is a reasonably notable individual in the manosphere. There are a limited number of prominent Honey Badgers, and while my estimate is that she is not in the top 5, she is in the top 20. I didn't give her a section in my article, and don't think we can get enough mainstream sources for a standalone page about her, but she does get mainstream press, for example a paragraph or two in Marie Claire and MSNBC, with trivial mentions in Time, GQ, Washington Post. Her home site is https://shrink4men.com/. Here she is signing a statement explicitly as a Honey Badger Brigade member.[107] She is a featured writer for AVfM (avoiceformen.com/featured-writer/dr-tara-j-palmatier/) and co-authored a book with Paul Elam, the owner of AVfM,[108] so I think her identity as the poster is not realistically in doubt. --GRuban (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. After looking further into Disqus's commenting system, I see that comments on Disqus can be made with registered accounts (which have user profiles and unique usernames) and also as guests (which do not have accounts but can select a display name each time they make a comment). The particular comment under examination was made as a guest, because the "Dr. Tara J. Palmatier" display name does not link to a Disqus profile. Unfortunately, since anybody can post a guest comment on Disqus under any name, I don't think a citation of the comment itself is enough to verify that Palmatier wrote the comment, and would not consider this comment a reliable primary source.

Also, I have concerns about the sentence in the Honey Badger (men's rights) article that the comment is intended to verify: "The term 'Honey Badgers' was originated in 2012 by Dr. Tara J. Palmatier when an AVfM writer asked women men's rights activists for a 'cool name' to describe themselves." Even if the Disqus comment were verified to have been written by Palmatier, citing the comment by itself would not be enough to show that Palmatier is the originator of the term; the comment would only establish that Palmatier used the term in 2012 in response to the post on A Voice for Men. Without a reliable secondary source referring to either this AVfM post or Palmatier's comment, I don't think this would be due in the Honey Badger (men's rights) article.

From your links, it's clear that news publications have quoted Palmatier, so if any reliable secondary sources have mentioned at least one of the following:

1. AVfM's "To the women that aren't like that" post, in the context of the Honey Badger term
2. Palmatier's comment in response to the AVfM post

then the requested link is eligible to be cited in the Honey Badger (men's rights) article as a primary source to supplement the secondary source. Alternatively, if a reliable secondary source has described Palmatier as the individual who coined the Honey Badger term, then that source by itself would be sufficient to make the claim in the Honey Badger (men's rights) article without needing the AVfM page. Otherwise, I believe it would be best to exclude this information as undue weight. — Newslinger talk 09:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately we do have a reliable secondary source that talks about the origin of the term, and it's wrong, as it strongly implies that the term was started by Elam himself a year later. That's why the Badger wrote me, when I was citing that secondary source, pointing out that it was wrong, and the men's rights community knows it's wrong. They have a rather low opinion of us Wikipedians, which may well be confirmed here. But, so it goes. I will return the text to the parts of that secondary source that are correct, and will put a note in the article not to correct it without another one, citing this conversation. Disappointing, and reminiscent of the episode behind WP:CHEESE. --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

​I agree that it is disappointing when secondary news sources do not contain all of the information we would like to include in an article. The Vice article does not actually say that Elam coined the term, either, so your current "The term 'Honey Badgers' was started to refer to female men's rights activists on A Voice for Men." wording in Special:Diff/980957181 is the best compromise, in my opinion. If by "the Badger wrote me", you mean that Palmatier contacted you with a correction, I would respond to her with advice: since Palmatier has occasionally been interviewed by journalists writing for reliable sources, she can make the claim that she coined the Honey Badger term in one of her interviews. If the claim makes it to publication, it would then be eligible for inclusion in the Honey Badger (men's rights) article. — Newslinger talk 05:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Then, what about this suggestion: have the text you suggested as the best compromise be in the article, i include both sources as references, and place a footnote beside the Vice reference stating that the claim made in the Vice article regarding the origin of the term is wrong, as evidenced by the other source. It's not entirely fair to label the situation as 'secondary sources not saying what we want them to say': the primary source in question clearly proves that what the secondary source says is factually inaccurate. if we are using secondary sources as references that primary sources prove contain inaccuracies within them, then we would be doing a disservice to readers by not making note of that. We would be effectively propagating misinformation. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, this suggestion would be a violation of WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Original research is not a substitute for secondary reliable sourcing. As I have mentioned before, a Disqus comment by itself is not sufficient evidence to establish that the comment is the origin of a term. Also, the Vice article does not actually say that Elam coined the term. — Newslinger talk 10:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Bad source. Primary, with a dog in the fight, and unreliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)