Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 451

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 445

←

Archive 449

→

informational report: BBC according to Telegraph

Latest comment: 3 months ago25 comments10 people in discussion

Offering this for everyone's edification. Just one datapoint, and unlikely to affect the BBC's reliability, but goes toward bias, and we should consider the impact of this and keep an eye on this report if it is corroborated or criticized: Telegraph: "BBC breached its own editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times" It may factor into considerations of NPOV and due weight and balance, though I'm not proposing any specific action, just wanted to bring this up to folks' attention. Consensus is AFAIK that both BBC and Telegraph are generally reliable for everything. Andre🚐 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The RSPS entry for the Telegraph notes that there's some consensus that it may be politically biased, and the accuracy of the BBC (or lack thereof) is definitely a political issue in the UK. Indeed, the report discussed but not linked to from the article appears to be heavily supported by pro-Israel and conservative groups. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm interested to know whether the BBC actually breached its own guidelines 1500 times (or even more than a few times). WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG tell us that those guidelines and the publishing of corrections are signals of a reputable org that can be trusted for reporting of facts and considered generally reliable. I haven't previously seen a lot of discussion that BBC may be not following its own guidelines, so that seems like a relevant fact if it turns out to be true. Not much purpose in having such guidelines if they aren't actually followed. Andre🚐 22:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines would probably suggest that we wait for comment from further sources before proclaiming the BBC biased on the say-so of a single report. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I said I wasn't proposing any specific action. Andre🚐 22:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that this isn't a report by The Telegraph, this is them reporting on a report by Michael Ellis, who very much is not a neutral source on the subject matter. So I don't see how much, if any, weight should be given to the claims in his report. Silver seren^C 22:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the research? The link in the sentence Researchers identified a total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, which included impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest. leads me to another Telegraph article that doesn't mention any such research (I'm looking at an archive version so it could be a bug). The first thought I had was whether this is BBC News or the whole BBC, the two tend to get conflated on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). The BBC makes a lot of content and not all of it is equally reliable. Travel docutainment for an example tends to contains information that makes a fun story but that maybe isn't be the academic majority view. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I've looked around a bit and I'm not seeing any actual links to the claimed report. Since it's not actual research done by a credited group, but by a bunch of people specifically getting together to make it, I don't think they've published it anywhere. As for the contents, funny enough, the Daily Mail lays it out more clearly.

The Asserson report looked at BBC output across television, radio, online news, podcasts and social media during a four-month period beginning October 7 last year. The research was carried out by a team of 20 lawyers and 20 data scientists who used artificial intelligence to analyse nine million words of BBC coverage. A total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC's guidelines were identified, including impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest.

The report read: 'The findings reveal a deeply worrying pattern of bias and multiple breaches by the BBC of its own editorial guidelines on impartiality, fairness and establishing the truth.' The BBC's Arabic Channel was singled out in the report as one of the 'most-biased' media outlets in its coverage of the war. In total, it was found that the broadcaster's output associated Israel with war crimes four times more than Hamas, with genocide 14 times more and with breaching international law six times more.

It also raised concerns about the number of journalists at the corporation who have previously shown sympathy with the terrorist organisation. The report found 11 cases where the coverage was done by reporters who allegedly had made public statements in support of Hamas.

Though this doesn't seem like it gives much more credibility to the report, if one of their main complaints is that the BBC has more news reports specifically about war crimes and breaching international law regarding Israel than Hamas. Wouldn't that be true of most news organizations covering the war in the past year? There's been more to talk about with Israel than Hamas in many cases, particularly with the ICC and ICJ investigations. None of this sounds particularly noteworthy. Silver seren^C 23:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The BBC's Arabic Channel was singled out this goes to my point about the scale of BBC output. Search shows 207 uses of BBC Arabic news[1] in comparison to 50,000+ use of the English news channel[2]. Is there a big difference between the output of the different language version? I couldn't say, I doubt it's ever been discussed or looked into given it's so rarely used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There appears to have been prior Asserson reports one from 2002 can be found here[3]. It includes every instance where the BBC called the lands occupied by Israel in 1967 the 'occupied Palestinian territories', and every time Israel settlements in those territories where called 'illegal'. I have a feeling Asserson is not the most neutral on the issues involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

more detailed BBC response rather than the Israel supporting round robin, it's an AI based "study", "We have serious questions about the methodology of this report, particularly its heavy reliance on AI to analyse impartiality, and its interpretation of the BBC’s editorial guidelines. We don’t think coverage can be assessed solely by counting particular words divorced from context."

Here's an argument in the other direction, don't think we need to rush to judgement here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I honestly think this specific Telegraph article says more about the reliability of the Telegraph than the BBC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"by counting particular words divorced from context." In other words, quote mining. Dimadick (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The actual pdf report is here [4] Andre🚐 05:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

*facepalm* Thanks for finding that, but it's even worse than I thought. They not only used ChatGPT for their analysis, but they even used it to determine the bias claims itself by having ChatGPT make a "sympathy report". Silver seren^C 05:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd disregard anything ChatGPT-related, but I'm interested to see any fact checks or any substantive claims of bias or selective reportage, etc. I haven't looked at it yet. Andre🚐 06:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've read a good chunk of it by now. The "sympathy report" is a massive amount of it, where they used ChatGPT to determine whether articles were "sympathetic" to Israel or Palestine. It's an incredibly vague criteria. The rest of the report is mostly whining about wording and things, such as complaining that the BBC didn't use the word "terrorist" in every article that mentioned Hamas or that they used war crimes to describe the ICC and ICJ investigations, but look at all this terrible stuff Hamas did. In short, a lot of the report is whataboutism, just as was expected before you found a copy of it. The coverage of the report in the news media, as I quoted above with the Daily Mail, is pretty accurate toward how petty and inconsequential much of the report is. Silver seren^C 06:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

A report by an well-known pro-Israel activist finds bias against Israel! Who'd have thunk it? Zero^talk 07:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The story has now been picked up by Variety, [5], who found this the most noteworthy part of the report: In a random sample of 253 interviews conducted by the BBC’s Arabic service, the report also found that over a quarter “were connected to Hamas or another terrorist group or had posted extreme antisemitic views online.” However these facts were not disclosed to the audience alongside the interviews. There's also an editorial from Labour MP Ian Austin [6]now. Andre🚐 08:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to note Austin isn't an MP anymore, he was made a life peer by Boris Johnson for his work for Theresa May's government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
As a dumb American I don't know what a life peer is, but it sounds kinda silly and Britishy :-) Andre🚐 09:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Life peer Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is rather silly to be honest, as is the practice of UK news outlets to frame information in the most slanted way possible. Austin is a former Labour MP, but that somewhat misses that he is now an independent member of the house of lords who was given that position by a Conservative Prime Minister for working with a Conservative government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I notice at the very end of the Daily Telegraph article it has that a survey found 17% thought the BBC was biased towards Israel and 15$ towards the Palestinians. Which leaves a lot not thinking it is biased one way or the other, or perhaps not caring. I guess now thay can say it is therefore a researched story rather than a hit piece. In opinion and editorial articles the Daily Telegraph leans very heavily towards Israel and promotes Israeli misinformation. For instance [7] is them promoting a story about the Gaza Health Ministry that didn't get off the starting blocks with reputable newspapers even ones that leaned towards Israel. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
"BBC, Bias and Gaza: A Partial Study of Impartiality" Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

bne IntelliNews

Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Is this a reliable source? Mist1et03 (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

For what specific claim in what context in which article? Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and he should give us citation. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for failing to provide any context. I had drafted an explanation yesterday, but the server prevented me from publishing it.

The article that rouse my attention was [8]https://www.intellinews.com/czechia-invites-israeli-minister-on-international-arrest-warrant-for-a-visit-342863/ , which, at that time, hadn't been covered by other media outlets according to the Google search result.

I digged a bit deeper and found that despite being cited by some 250 articles here, this site hadn't undergone any discussion on its reliability, at least when I was searching for it. So I'd like to ask for opinions. Mist1et03 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not that i think that the site is unreliable, it's just that i feel like this information is not that "hot" to be implemented immediately into some article, but can wait a few days. As far as i see, nobody else reported on this, not even Czech media.

So while BNE has been cited by some other reputable and more famous agencies, even if they are reliable, you should wait a few days maybe, and then decide on whether it can be used as a source for this information or not. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Most sources will never be discussed as no-one ever questions their use, so that a source that has been used so infrequently hasn't had a discussion about it's reliability is the norm. WP:NEWSORG gives guidance on how to handle news organisation in general. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone. So to conclude, we know too little about the source and the story it covers. And even if the story is true, WP:NOTNEWS applies in this circumstance. Mist1et03 (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

thisisgame

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this a reliable source? I brought up ThisIsGame at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 32#ThisIsGame but didn't get any answer, so I'm checking this again over here. To recap what was said:

ThisIsGame has an official partnership with Game Developer (formerly Gamasutra), a reliable source on WP:VG/S, since the 2010s. Both websites have had referred to and translated materials from each other, like this ThisIsGame article from 2019 and this Game Developer article from 2011.
The founder and owner Simon Lim (AKA Im Sanghun) was formerly a journalist at Ilgan Sports and The Hankyoreh, both reputable and reliable sources.
Another executive Hyeon Namil is an alumni of PC Powerzine, a reputable print video game magazine from 1995 to 2005.
It has had invited external authors from other media to write for its website, like this piece from Nexon Computer Museum.

Unfortunately their About Us is lackluster (a common issue in Korean sources) so it's hard to guarantee credentials for everyone working there, but the website does a lot of interviews and field reports themselves, and the company and their writers have had interaction with a lot of other organizations, including English sources like Gamasutra and The Game Award. I think it's generally reliable for video game topic unless they make an exceptional claim. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I have a question about a dispute.

If reliable Historian A writes that "Historian B says x", can we say in wikivoice that "Historian B says x"? Obviously it would be better to cite Historian B directly, but in this case Historian B's works have not been translated into English so I can not access them. Is it legitimate to cite Historian B (with attribution) in this indirect way?

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the context here? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Palestine_war&diff=prev&oldid=1245176061

"Historian Aref al-Aref gives the number of Palestinian deaths as 13,000, with the majority of that number being civilians." Cited to Henry Laurens^[1]

References

^ Henry Laurens, La question de Palestine, Vol. 3. 1947-1967, l'accomplissement des prophéties (2007)

Discussed here Talk:1948 Palestine war#Morris' "800 murdered" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies, it's not exactly a WP:RSN problem. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

From your link it says "If your knowledge of the source is secondhand—that is, if you have read Jones (2010), who cited Smith (2009), and you want to use what Smith (2009) said—make clear that your knowledge of Smith is based on your reading of Jones." I understand this to imply that such "secondhand" citing is legitimate. Am I interpreting that correctly? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion yes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is usually ok.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Listicle as a RS?

Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

In Template:Did you know nominations/Poll (parrot) Di (they-them) and Launchballer are claiming that https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/communities/marco-eagle/2016/08/03/strange-but-true-andrew-jackson-and-cursing-parrot/87926936/ is a reliable source. Additional opinions would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced to the Marco Eagle which is "Part of the USA TODAY Network" (bottom of page). When you click on "Careers" it goes to here which says Gannett, a mass-media holding company, owns over 200 local media plus USA Today and other things. Overall I see no general reason it would not be reliable, but have not read the article itself to judge. -- GreenC 17:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read the article. My question is about the specific article, not the publication in general. RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that I have looked into this, the source is not reliable. Indeed many of the sources are not reliable because they are merely parroting an old legend, but they are still good for establishing notability of the parrot. I'll work on this article hopefully if I have time. -- GreenC 05:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Snopes says this is unverified [9] which already throws doubt on an "article" that is just a colleciton of trivia. Would not consider a usable fact on WP. --Masem (t) 17:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The claim in question is apparently the main thing the article subject is known for and its basis for notability. I see several other sources on the page that appear to make the same claim based on their titles. Is there a reason why we can't simply use one or two of the article's best sources for the DYK nom? Or are we saying that this is the article's best source? I don't see the point of expending community time litigating something if it can be resolved through simpler means. Left guide (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Reading this and the DYK I'll just say if Snopes have an article on the factoid then it should be considered at least slightly controversial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Fadeaway World

Latest comment: 3 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Is Fadeaway World a reliable source for basketball content (particularly NBA stats)? Myself and one other user seem to be butting heads about this matter at a couple of ongoing AfDs. I maintain that the site's corrections policy, fact-checking policy, editorial guidelines, and ethics policy prove its reliability, and I believe this is the main argument presented by the other user that questions the site. I'd appreciate wider community input to develop consensus on the matter. Left guide (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this. For convenience, I'll post my prior points here. WP:USEBYOTHERS is one guideline:

How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.

As a background, the trend in newer sports sites is to hire inexperienced writers: Like at SB Nation and similar blog networks, the Maven site operators are independent contractors. They start with low base pay and no benefits, though company officials say they can make more if they drive traffic and ad sales. (The Washington Post) In that Post article, it covered Sports Illustrated and how Maven, which is now the Arena Group—which also owns Fadeaway World—was even hiring high schoolers to write.—Bagumba (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: WP:USEBYOTHERS can sometimes help absent other evidence, but it's not a prerequisite for reliability, and in this topic area, sources seem to gravitate towards primary sources like nba.com and basketball-reference.com (rather than fellow secondary sources) for stats out of simplicity and convenience. As to your second point, I don't see anything on the WP:RS guideline page or elsewhere around the project that automatically deems a source unreliable due to a purported lack of experience in its writers. Meanwhile, there are several policy and guideline clauses that affirm Fadeaway World's reliability from the aforementioned site links (my emphasis):

WP:BESTSOURCES clause of WP:NPOV and WP:REPUTABLE clause of WP:RS:

All articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

WP:SOURCE clause of WP:V:

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Do you have evidence of other reliable sources directly proving that Fadeaway World has made uncorrected false or inaccurate statements about NBA stats? Left guide (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In general, the original primary source is most suitable for straightforward descriptive statements of fact. Is there any reason why you're looking for secondary sources if stats are the only thing being supported? Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: Yes, because it's a source that's being discussed for notability purposes at AfDs, and primary sources don't count towards notability. It's helpful to know whether this source can be used to shore up notability in future article creations to defend against deletion. Left guide (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

USEBYOTHERS was an example under the WP:REPUTABLE guideline, which says

The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive.

The NBA is so widely covered, so I don't think we need to be lax on a source's reputation. I'll see what others' perspective is. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This is less use by others, and more commentary by others. Reliable third parties saying the source is unreliable points to the source not having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Also if they operate in the same way as SB Nation then they are not reliable. SB Nation also has nice pages about editorial controls but if you look into the facts each content moderator has to oversee multiple different amateur blogs. This isn't want is meant by editorial control and oversight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with above statements that NBA is subject of widespread coverage in some serious RS, think SI.com, etc. I dont think we should consider a lesser source like to be eligible to go toe-to-toe with a real RS. Lets call this more of blog type UGC site, that has some policies (no idea of true). But it should not be used against a better source, used for notability, puffery, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
As an aside, SI has gone downhill after its move to freelancers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

RFCBEFORE about revising RSPCRITERIA

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Input welcome at WT:RSP § It's RFC time, an WP:RFCBEFORE about revising WP:RSPCRITERIA. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Use of Fox News on Jo Boaler

Latest comment: 3 months ago64 comments14 people in discussion

Sangdeboeuf has reverted content three times on Jo Boaler over the last few weeks. The content is specifically:

Boaler's work on the 2023 revision of the California Math Curriculum Framework was alleged to contain numerous misrepresentations and inaccuracies. In response, Boaler said that the accusations demonstrated "a lack of understanding of educational research protocols and processes."^[1]

The claim is that the content violates WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS because the article uses the word "equity". While the article is published under the media section of the website, the claim here is that the use of any topic deemed to be political is sufficient for excluding content sourced to Fox News. In this case, Fox News is one of the few mainstream sources that Boaler has spoken to about this specific topic.

While there are potential BLP issues with any news source, in this case we are dealing with direct quotes from the living person in question. I suppose this boils down to: Should we include Boaler's critical response to the allegations, or should it be excluded?

Grossman, Hannah; Lencki, Maria (1 April 2024). "Stanford professor defends herself after being accused of 'reckless disregard for accuracy'". Fox News. Retrieved 2 April 2024.

^ Grossman & Lencki 2024.

Looking to gather and integrate community input. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a massive non-story, and pretty clealry exemplifies why we don't use Fox. Fox created a controversy over a "report" (i.e., 100 pages of anonymous ranting that was probably thrown in the trash by the Stanford administration) and then asked for comment. It was dumb of Boaler to engage with Fox, but her bad PR strategy doesn't make any of this due for inclusion in the BLP. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The topic here is whether we should include her rebuttal of the allegations. The coverage of the anonymous allegations is a separate topic which may be worth digging into, but that's not based on Fox News sources. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, if there are other sources use them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Since we are currently mentioning allegations of wrongdoing against Boaler—"alleging Boaler had violated the research policies of the university"—we should mention her denial of the allegations (see WP:BLPPUBLIC). If Fox is the only outlet that has published the denial, we should still include it. That doesn't mean we should use the Fox source to expand the mention of allegations. A better version would just be

In March 2024, an anonymous complaint was sent to Stanford's dean of research alleging Boaler had violated the research policies of the university. Boaler denied the allegations.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done a comprehensive search recently, but when the content was added the Fox News source was the only mainstream source that reported on her rebuttal of the allegations. I'll see if I can find anything else that's been reported since then. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"Boaler denied the allegations" requires a source, like everything. You can't cutely dance around citing sources that you're taking information from just because you think the source is icky. That's textbook WP:Plagiarism. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. I'm suggesting that we cite the Fox source for the denial. Am I dancing around or plagiarizing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, then I misinterpreted your statement to mean not using the source at all; you just meant "to expand". SamuelRiv (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone but Fox and/or other unreliable culture war conservative publications reporting on these anonymous allegations? If not, neither the allegations nor the denial should be in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Voorts has a good point. IF the allegations have been widely reported (and thus DUE to mention) THEN her rebuttal is relevant and Fox can essentially be cited as an ABOUTSELF statement on her part. HOWEVER, if Fox is the only outlet to report on the allegations then the entire thing is UNDUE and both the allegations and her rebuttal should be omitted. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur. The anonymous allegations and the denial seem UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. In the BLP, it's sourced to the San Francisco Chronicle: [10]. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that refers to the previous allegations. Inside Higher Ed covered this specific set of allegations here: [11]. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Three of those links are to The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper. Not exactly bolstering the case for due weight IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Though I've seen it used as a standalone source in other articles, I agree that the Stanford Daily alone should not be used to establish due weight. Inside Higher Ed, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and Ed Source are all top tier reliable sources when it comes to broadly reporting news in the education world. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine. In that case we don't need the Fox News source at all, and we can close this discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Stanford isn't investigating this at all seems to reinforce that it would be undue to include these anonymous allegations in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not how WP:DUE weight works. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This could be used for an WP:ABOUTSELF statement, but that would apply only the second sentence. The first sentence is additional commentary separate from the ABOUTSELF statement, so Fox is likely not a suitable source for it.

Being reliably sourced isn't necessarily a reason for inclusion, rather all content that is included must be verifiable to a reliable source. So whether the statement is due if only Fox has covered it isn't a matter of reliability, and should be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What specifically is the issue with the Fox News reporting? TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is obvious cult war stuff, and so covered by FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Something doesn't have to be exactly labelled by the source for it to apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear the reason they are reporting on this at all is because of culture war issues, however they phrase their article or what category of article it's sorted into doesn't change that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for the motivations at Fox News. I can only say that I think Boaler's response is an important part of the story. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

FOXNEWSPOLITICS describes what the community's consenus is and why Fox is considered to be generally unreliable for politics. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The cited article is not politics news reporting. Is there something specific about the reporting or the article which is concerning to you? TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is quite clearly a culture wars political issue: going after a scholar with anonymous attacks because she promotes racial equity in STEM. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the anonymous attacks are due to the fact that she promotes racial equity in STEM? That's a WP:BLP claim, and needs proper sourcing. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It would need a source if I were trying to add that claim to the article. I'm just using my common sense and knowledge of how conservative politics operate in the United States. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This helps no-one. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The question was why does FOXNEWSPOLITICS apply, and I was explaining why I think this is a political issue rather than a story about academic integrity. There's a fuzzy line between political, cultural, and academic issues, particularly in the United States where education has become centered in the culture wars. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're going to have to come up with some kind of policy rationale for treating regular news content as political if it's not explicitly labelled as politics. Going with your gut doesn't pass muster, especially when you make unsourced claims like: "going after a scholar with anonymous attacks because she promotes racial equity in STEM". I haven't seen any reporting that suggests that's what is actually happening here. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You're inventing a completely arbitrary standard for what counts as political coverage. Just looking at the "media" category on Fox's website, the top stories include one about Kamala Harris's presidential run, another about Donald Trump's comments about Kamala Harris, and another about Harris's drug policy positions. Do these stories have nothing to do with politics because they aren't explicitly labelled as political? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Your own Inside Higher Ed source describes this as part of an attack against scholars promoting racial equity: Rufo and conservative media outlets have published multiple accusations of plagiarism and research misconduct [...] They’ve all been backed by anonymous complaints, and they’re all against officials or scholars at prestigious institutions who either work in DEI or have studied race and equity. [...] There’s a reason he’s focused on DEI and 'grievance departments,' Rufo said. [...] Observers such as Isaac Kamola, director of the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom at the American Association of University Professors, see 'a coordinated attack' behind it all. In short, this is another hack job by Christopher Rufo, similar to the anti–CRT panic of a few years ago: [17] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please stick to the article in question. This is not the Inside Higher Ed article. There is no mention of Trump, Rufo, Harris, etc. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You said that you haven't seen any reporting that suggests there was an attack on Boaler because she promotes racial equity in STEM. I pointed out that your own source in fact suggests this. You don't get to dictate how sources are used here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a [DEI or whatever Fox diversity-buzzword-bogeyman of the moment is] story. It's also an evaluation of a scientific publication. That's both parts of WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of DEI in the article. There is also no mention of any scientific publication, as there are none being referenced. Maybe you are reading the wrong article? TheMissingMuse (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Quoting the very first line of the Fox source (my bolding): A Stanford professor, who was one of the thought leaders behind San Francisco's removal of algebra in junior high for equity reasons, is coming under fire [...] "Equity" is very much a part of DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. As reported by Fox, the anonymous complaint contends that Boaler misrepresented the findings and/or methods of a number of reference papers, which concerns a scientific publication. Are you sure you're not reading the wrong article?

The 2021 California mathematics framework, which was the source of the controversy here, has already been heavily politicized: [18][19][20] The anonymous complaint, as well as the university's response, are already mentioned at Jo Boaler, citing The Chronicle of Higher Ed: [21] The Fox article adds nothing significant IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The use of the word equity does not make this a political article. Which reference paper was a scientific publication? TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the complaint details 52 instances in which Boaler [...] allegedly misstated or misconstrued outside studies about learning, neuroscience, and math education.[22] Did you want me to go through all 52? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Fox News covering the intersection of science and culture-war politics is, well, it's not a circumstance in which we can cite Fox News. XOR'easter (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no science or culture war politics in this article. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the 2021 California mathematics framework, which became a proxy for various political issues, including equity and social justice, [23] is explicitly referenced in the Fox News article: [24] It quite evidently a political topic that both The New Yorker and CalMatters describe as part of the culture wars. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly a political story in context (by being at the crux of a major culture war issue), so no, it's not usable. It's obviously WP:BLP sensitive besides, which would require a high-quality source. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Shifting Focus

I would like to thank everyone for their feedback. There has some strong constructive input from various editors including Slatersteven, Firefangledfeathers, SamuelRiv, ActivelyDisinterested, and voorts. While I don't agree with everything they have said, their feedback has been invaluable.

There has also been another contingent of editors who have been responding quite emphatically that Fox News is just not a source to be used in anything that has even the patina of politics, with just the use of the word equity in the article being disqualifying. I certainly appreciate this perspective as well.

There have also been some questions about whether or not the coverage of the incident in question rises to the level required for inclusion. We have not dug into that deeply, however the broad coverage in the mainstream press and educational press establishes it as more than just an internal issue for Boaler.

It's probably worth shifting focus to evaluate whether or not this topic should be included in the article, and the address the issue of whether or not Boaler's response should be included per WP:ABOUTSELF. While I did not add the content in question to the article, I was the one who added Boaler's response, because I think it's an important part of the story. As for whether or not there is due weight for the topic to be included, I would ask: which noticeboard is appropriate for that discussion?

Input invited, and thank you everyone for participating! TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether something should be included is an NPOV issue. It's usually best discussed on the article talk page, but outside opinion could be sought at WP:NPOV or as this is a living person you could try WP:BLPN (as it's usual better attended then NPOV). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the help. I will raise the broader topic there. Cheers! TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a single person has said the use of the word equity by itself is the reason to reject the Fox News article. That is a straw man invented by you. The actual reasons given by me and several others are that Boaler has been the target of politically motivated attacks, with the California mathematics framework being used by the right wing as a proxy for DEI in their culture war, and that the source is ~~reporting on~~ unreliable for scientific claims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC) edited 03:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

To say that "Boaler has been the target of politically motivated attacks, with the California mathematics framework being used by the right wing as a proxy for DEI in their culture war" is a misleading oversimplification. The criticism of the framework came from across the political spectrum and some extremely harsh personal attacks connected with that dispute came from progressive sources. See [25] and [26] for more context. Will Orrick (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not misleading and it's not an oversimplification. OP asked about a particular aspect of the criticism (i.e. an anonymous complaint discussed in a Fox News story) and that's what we've been discussing. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to provide supporting evidence for this statement: "This is quite clearly a culture wars political issue: going after a scholar with anonymous attacks because she promotes racial equity in STEM." Having paid close attention to the dispute over the framework as it unfolded I would not be quick to assume that the complaint was motivated by hostility to equity. The progressive critics of the framework claim that its proposals would harm equity. Given some of the tactics some of those critics used in attacking Boaler personally, it is not hard to imagine that the complaint could have come from one of them. It could also have come from some politically neutral party with strong opinions about mathematics education or about research practices. Will Orrick (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is here. The story was initially published in The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative blog. Whatever the reasons for the initial complaint, it's only in the news now because of the right-wing culture war on DEI. At least one observer sees a "coordinated attack" behind the recent wave of anonymous complaints against mostly black scholars studying race and equity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that The Washington Free Beacon broke the story points to a right wing source. (I checked that the story in The Chronicle of Higher Education was derived from the one in The Washington Free Beacon, and not the other way around.) I still don't see how one can know that the motivation was culture war based. My reading of Boaler's work is that it is primarily concerned with pedagogy and curriculum, with culture war themes, if present at all, a distant second. The main issues in this controversy cut across political boundaries and relate to tracking, acceleration, student-directed vs. teacher-directed approaches to instruction, but most importantly, to curriculum choices, in particular data science vs. algebra II. Opposition came from all parts of the political spectrum, as, unfortunately, did the ad hominem attacks on Boaler's work.

It may be the case that the only reason this is in the news now is due to the right wing media. That is regrettable, as the issues with the scholarship in the CMF were widely discussed back in 2022. See Brian Conrad's web page and a blog post about it by Peter Woit. Brian Conrad's comments on the blog post, in particular the second one, are relevant. Will Orrick (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Boaler has received extensive criticism from across the political spectrum, with the most substantive criticism having nothing to do with culture war issues. In fact, if you review high quality sources like | The Chronicle of Higher Ed, and the | NY Times sources (see article for more sources) you'll find that culture war issues are essentially absent from the issues raised. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but you raised the issue of this particular anonymous complaint, and several of us has argued that it is a right wing culture wars canard. Both things can be true at the same time. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has provided any reliable sources that support that perspective. No one has suggested that Fox News is a good source for establishing due weight for the topic. The only relevant content unique to that source is Boaler's rebuttal of the complaint. I think that's important to include, but I may be alone in that. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required by article content, this would be a matter of consensus building. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The Fox article does contain details about Boaler's response to the complaint that I haven't seen anywhere else, for example her claim that the complaint was padded to make it appear to encompass a larger body of work than it actually does. These details don't appear to be suitable for Wikipedia, but for the reader wanting to hear Boaler's side, a reference to the Fox article could be informative. Will Orrick (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Ed and NY Times sources, from 2023 and 2021 respectively, have nothing to do with the 2024 Fox News article nor the recent anonymous allegations made against Boaler. You're just shifting the goalposts now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that Fox have, or would, falsify Boaler's quote. So the only reliability issue is the first sentence of the diff, which could just be left out as it's covered already based on other sources. Again whether that should be included isn't a matter of reliability, and should be discussed somewhere appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Commenting on school curriculum is often political discourse, so if the source is Fox News then WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS applies and the material shouldn't be used. Doubly so if you're thinking about a BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Source

Latest comment: 3 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Hi I made an edit recently using this source and just wanted to check whether The Indo Canadian Voicehttps://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/MinorityMedia/items/show/1037 can be considered as a reliable source under Wikipedia rules. Thank you ! - Also just to note they also have a weekly physical print that goes out to the local south asian community in Vancouver,

"In September 2024, Satish Kumar, President of the Vedic Hindu Cultural Society in Surrey, British Columbia apologized to the Sikh community after a letter he wrote to the Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre objecting to the visit of Canadian Sikh MP's to the temple. ^[1] " Jattlife121 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

References

^ "Vedic Hindu Cultural Society of BC's president apologizes after causing needless communal controversy". Indo Canadian Voice. 12 September 2024. Satish Kumar, President of Vedic Hindu Cultural Society of BC that manages Surrey's Shri Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, apologized to the community after a letter he wrote on September 4 to the Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre objecting to the visit of his Sikh MPs to the temple on the occasion of a Hindu festival got leaked out.

It doesn't have a fact-checking or editorial policy; circulates for free in random stores; calls itself "award-winning" in its logo but doesn't say what award it won anywhere on its website (and I couldn't find anything via Google); and publishes stories about people getting internships. I would say this is probably not reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the story about getting an internship misleading or factually incorrect? Is a free-circulation newspaper suddenly a marker of unreliability (even though it's a sustainable business model for metro newspapers across the world, including very reliable and prestigious ones)? What is a "random store"? These are sloppy judgements.

Now, there are plenty of reasons for why it is not to be considered a quality print publication -- even with print circulation and a named staff, it does not have named writers or bylines, and it has sloppy photo citations. There is an advertising policy but not an editorial policy in its print edition. I'm generally flexible on shoddy subpar publications when it comes to hyperlocal news, but this is Vancouver -- there should be no shortage of better material to cite -- you should even be able to local newsblogs with explicit bylines and editorial policy.

Of course, in this case, OP is not using this for hyperlocal news, but provincial news plus an MP, so there's really no reason to use a subpar hyperlocal source on here period when you should find ample coverage elsewhere. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Yes the story is quite new and developing. I am sure in the coming days, further reliable sources will be reporting on the events. Jattlife121 (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.sikhpa.com/canadian-hindu-org-call-sikh-mps-ideological-opposed-persons-in-leaked-letter/ @SamuelRiv Would this also be considered as such ? Jattlife121 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes we definitely need a RFC, but what happened to the last RFC, and how did it get a reliable rating? I vaguely recall an inconsistency between the balance of views and final decision, yet I can no longer find it. Andromedean (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't need an RFC and doesn't appear to have had one before. In general reliability is handled by policies and guidelines, so most sources have never been discussed let alone had RFCs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Could you further expand on this in simple terms per my question. Would be kindly appreciated. Jattlife121 (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This is in reply to Andromedean question, rather than the source in general. It didn't get a reliable rating, as that's not how it generally works. Editors are expected to use their own good judgement on whether a source is reliable (based on policy). Discussions like this, and RFCs, only happen if there is disagreement about a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

hill-bagging.co.uk

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A new user is using hill-bagging.co.uk to change the heights and relative heights of hills and mountains in Wales by asserting that the information used in this web-site is more accurate than Ordnance survey and is acknowledged as being more accurate than Ordnance Survey. I can find no evidence of that assertion in any reliable source. (see here, here and here and many many more.) Even if it were the case, it is my understanding that the Ordnance Survey data is accepted as the best generally available data for geographic information in the UK and that the data collected by enthusiasts with modern GPS equipment doesn't trump that for Wikipedia as is is not peer reviewed or accepted by any reputable body. My view is that this source is intriniscally unreliable and is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia articles. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems there may be something to the idea that OS isn’t infallible: [27], [28]. Unfortunately these seem to be WP:SPSes published by enthusiasts. I don’t necessarily disbelieve them; rather it may be a case of WP:VNT. In [29] we read: … a team of independent surveyors who have been responsible for the revision of several summit heights on OS maps, which makes it sound like the enthusiasts may have a means of requesting that OS data be updated. In my view, we should let the OS do the job of evaluating the claims of the enthusiasts. Once OS see fit to update their data, we can update our articles. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's acknowledged as more reliable by other reliable sources, the it shouldn't be difficult to show that. But unless that can be shown the OS should be preferred. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Southern Illinois Now & Channel New Asia

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the Wikipedia article, 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident, the name of the victim is being cited to Southern Illinois Now and Channel New Asia.

Most major news sources do not mention the name, see

User:Fowler&fowler/Sources_that_do_not_mention_the_victim's_name_in_the_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_August_2024

Are the two sources reliable and can they be used to determine due weight in the literature on an equal footing with the vast majority of sources that do not mention the name. See also Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident#RfC:_Name_of_victim Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

These are likely reliable, but if something is due for inclusion is a NPOV issue not one of reliability. That something can be verified doesn't mean it must be included, rather if something is included it must be verifiable. I would suggest anyone interested in the question should comment in the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Are news sources reliable for articles on history?

Latest comment: 3 months ago86 comments22 people in discussion

I have been working on the Yasuke article. It is a topic which has received a lot more coverage in the popular press than in academic sources. However, it keeps coming up in every discussion that there are news sources that cover the topic, and that if anything goes against them, it goes against the majority view. This has conflicted with my attempt to replace news sources with more academic sources, like Britannica. I point out that there are major errors in the CNN Travel article, but that isn’t accepted by another editor, who insists that because CNN is reliable, then the specific article is reliable. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html The main expert interviewed in the article wrote a book on Yasuke as well as the Britannica article. The expert’s ideas are not without controversy, but the CNN article conflicts with what the expert has said about Nobunga, and in one case says the wrong source. There is so little literature on Yasuke that one can easily trace most ideas about him and all the primary sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

we've already talked about lockley here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability of Thomas Lockley

Was a mess, did not pay attention to it all, no clue what the consensus was at the end.

generally, unless if you can prove otherwise, news articles are generally assumed to be useful secondary sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

... i guess this was the closest RFC about lockley Talk:Yasuke/Archive_3#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

TLDR; until someone else has a secondary sourcing about Yasuke, can't really do much else... best you can do if someone hates lockley is attribute a statement to lockley? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

News articles are not generally reliable secondary sourcing for history -- see WP:HISTRS for overview. (Contemporary news articles are primary sources, while features are the equivalent of pop science, even when written by an expert, as noted in the discussion you linked, as they do not cite sources for controversial claims, which is exactly what is at issue.)

The linked discussion links to a review of Lockley's book (from which the CNN article seems to mostly be excerpted), in which it is made clear that the lack of citations are in the book as well, and it is intended as a pop history for casual reading.

This is not particularly complicated. Secondary scholarly/rigorous work supercedes non-secondary and/or non-scholarly/rigorous work in WP generally. It's not that Lockley's book is not a RS generally; it's that it would seem that anything in there that isn't verifiable in the scholarship generally is his speculation in a non-rigorous work, and so must at best be given with attribution. (The more history-topic-inclined editors may decide some statements should be discarded entirely as non-encyclopedic.) SamuelRiv (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t about Lockley, it is about CNN. I think a few quotes explains the situation well.

CNN: "When feudal Japan’s most powerful warlord Nobunaga Oda met Yasuke, a black slave-turned-retainer, in 1581, he believed the man was a god"

Britannica: "The researcher Thomas Lockley (the author of this article) speculates that they may have seen him as a form of divine visitor due to the fact that the Buddha and other holy figures were often portrayed as black-skinned in Japan at this time."

I couldn’t find the quote from the book African Samurai, but Lockley believes that Nobunaga was an atheist or at least not very devout, which I understand is in line with other scholarship. The connection between buddha statues and black skin is Lockley´s opinion, no other scholar says this. In this case, CNN Travel is not even correctly portraying what Lockley says. There are other errors, and the general tone of the article is non-academic. Every time I remove the citation, it is added to some uncontested claim in order to add weight. Other more academic sources have been removed in order to insert news sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

See wp:or, we do not get to judge RS unless we can show they make stuff up, not just disagree with one (not all) expert. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS applies here. (And see pretty much every guideline on RS -- we absolutely do judge RS -- it's not a binary.) SamuelRiv (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That is an essay, and does not trump policy. Yes we can judge a source where is (for example) goes against widely accepted consensus (see wp:fringe, which is a policy), or where it contradicts itself, or where it flat out tells an obvious falsehood (such as the sky is not blue). What we do not do is use our own knowledge rather than referring to RS that contest a claim) to dismiss a source. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy that all RS on their face are equal, or that we cannot use multiple factors to judge the suitability RS in context. Per the intro overview of WP:RS: Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. That's pretty much 95% of what's done on RSN (or else we're resolving technical points in a larger contextual comparison of RS in context that goes on in an article's Talk page). And while we ideally try not to turn essays into P&G unnecessarily, the pandemic forced us to make WP:MEDRS into a guideline -- fwiw a roughly similar hierarchy for publications exists in most academic fields. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this an RS or not? Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What do I say to an editor that ignores all arguments about context? The editor that disagrees with me has a similar interpretation wikipolicy as Slatersteven. I would say, more extreme. Suggesting only in cases of fraud or CoI can a source be questioned. In this case, it isn’t about a particular claim, because the citations have been moved from one claim to another, and ended up attached to a non-contested claim that at one point had four inline citations. Does the fact that it is in CNN Travel matter? I think it would be considered Human interest and therefore less reliable? Also, the article appears 90 % based on Lockley, who had just written a book at the time. So does that count as churnalism? Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

>"See wp:or, we do not get to judge RS"<

If @Rotary Engine doesn't mind me paraphrasing a comment he/she made elsewhere:

". . . the specific nature of the source in both the context of the nature of the article and the specific content for which a source is intended to be used is important in determining reliability. [Per WP:RSCONTEXT]: Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Additional guidance in the context of historical claims might be found in WP:HISTRS (essay), WP:BESTSOURCES, and WP:SOURCETYPES. . ." [emphasis added]

And, per WP:RS:

". . . Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. . ."

(edit: pardon, I see this has already been discussed a bit by SamuelRiv & Slatersteven above; still worth emphasizing, IMO -- these, I think, clearly show that "unless it says 'the sky is red', we cannot use any reasoning about it whatsoever" is far too limited a criterion. It is not impermissible to make basic, incontestable inferences.)

As @Tinynanorobots says below, there is seemingly a persistent attempt at using "we can't use any judgment re: sources but rather must parrot them religiously!" as a bludgeon to ensure that the article/discussion is dominated entirely by the ouroboric recycling, in popular media, of what is -- as @SamuelRiv correctly points out below -- actually just a very few actual (pertinent, academic) sources.

I think that's a misread of the guidelines in both letter & spirit.

In some sense, it's a continuum -- no one would object at someone saying "hold on, these news articles are all saying that Yasuke was known for his proficiency with rocket launchers; maybe we need to look at where this 'fact' is actually originating", but more complex objections can become contentious -- but to suggest "recycled, unsourced claims in the popular media, on a topic not in their wheelhouse, must not be questioned at all* because they're on the WP:RS list" is a bridge too far, IMO.

(Interesting, perhaps, to note that one argument made in the RfC in question has been that we must assume news organizations such as CNN Travel have teams of fact-checkers & on-hand experts ensuring accuracy. As Zero references in a reply below, this is extremely optimistic, heh.)

*(edit: by "not be questioned at all", I mean "...not be questioned as to weight at all": i.e. that it is verboten to infer anything from their being news media puff-pieces which all reference one or two original / academic [if you count Lockley as "academic"] sources.

I would argue against this, as said. To suggest that "no, these are all on the WP:RS list & hence we are not to reason about them whatsoever: whether there are 10, 20, or 100 of 'em, it counts as 10/20/100x more bricks on the 'majority view' pile" -- ...is to suggest that one's job as an editor is to turn one's brain off.)

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Himaldrmann Don't mind the paraphrase/quote at all. Appreciate the mention. Any pronouns are fine. May post a comment at the bottom of the thread. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh good lord are we still doing this? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that the question here isn't whether this is a reliable source per se, more whether this particular claim is due for a particular article. If it is an exceptional claim, it may be published in an otherwise reputable source and still not be due for the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is plenty of free-form discussion on the talk page of Yasuke about what is and isn't due. Best to let questions of due and undue happen there. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion always stops on the argument on the quality of sources. At least one editor believes that sources that are listed as RS can’t be questioned. All the sources that agree should be counted, and that forms the majority opinion. This comes up in every discussion topic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that if multiple news sources make a similar claim then those can be used if not other better sources exist. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

There are better sources, but the other editor keeps replacing the better sources with news sources because of weight. When I point out that the news sources aren’t as good, I am called a [[truthfinder]] and accused of violating NPOV. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding from the article discussion threads is that it goes back to its previous RfC (linked earlier), which was a rather complicated discussion about what is a very tiny amount of actual usable sources (exactly 2 scholars that investigate the topic directly, iirc). You're correct that almost every English-language news article is essentially recycling Lockley, which is academically sourced to his one book. The result of the RfC afaik of the pertinent questions is that "it's more complicated than a simple yes/no" (regarding implying a particular definition of 'samurai' across several centuries in particular, wrt what seems the most controversial issue here) and that one or two academics summarizing it is fine because only one or two academics have ever studied it in detail, and their assessments (not their separate speculations) were not particularly controversial, even if quoted from a pop book or their (expert-written) CNN article instead of/in parallel with their academic papers. Either way, if the source SamuelRiv (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, but I don’t understand it. You didn’t finish your last sentence. Also, I don’t think this has to do with Yasuke´s status as a samurai. The CNN article not only states speculation as fact, it contradicts Lockley´s book and the article he wrote for Britannica. It also seems to cite the "historical fiction" part of Lockley´s book as fact. The problem is not so much that the article recycles Lockley, but that it falsely represents his ideas. This is shown by comparison of the CNN article with other works by Lockley. Tinynanorobots (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's book is the one with any semblance of academic review (by the publisher and in academic publications after the fact), while the CNN article has none. I love citing a pop sci journalist who writes a good lay summary of an academic source (in addition to the original source), but they can sometimes get things wrong, or extract grossly nonrepresentative quotes from the author. Since we have Lockley's book (and plenty of other lay sources summarizing Lockley), and the CNN article cites only Lockley, I agree it would be ridiculous to cite the CNN article if it misrepresents the source at all. Citing a lay summary (in parallel) is only worthwhile if it's (1) free and (2) good. (For my previous post I probably meant to erase that final sentence that was cut off.) SamuelRiv (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the problem with citing Lockley's book is that the local consensus seemed to be that his book was not acceptable for use in the Yasuke article due to the academic review saying that the author doesn't use citations which makes it difficult to discern his speculation from researched factual statements. The previous attempt to discuss Lockley's book here for a wider consensus was extremely drawn out, bogged down, and is confusing as to what it represents, so much so that I cannot derive any real meaning from it.

Honestly, I wonder if holding an RfC about whether or not Lockley's book is a reliable source might be in order if for no reason than to hopefully get a definitive answer. I have seen people post in the talk discussion that the RSN consensus was it was unreliable, I have seen other editors argue the opposite. It is a confusing mess. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 20:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The previous RfC seemed to suggest it was fine enough for a number of things. The discussion turned up a number of other scholarly RS that might be usable, such as Lopez-Vera (none of which were 100% ideal for this topic, but every topic takes what it gets). But a pop journalism writeup of a pop history book is useless -- just cite the pop history book -- that's what pop history is for (except for getting online text for verification, in which case, cite both in parallel). There's no need for another RfC -- they decided these historians were reliable enough in the previous one, and they settled how to say the most controversial claim in the article. Just use the sources there. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

just cite the pop history book. Except that won't work. People have tried to just cite the pop history book, it gets reverted. It is basically never ending, one side will try to add something and it will get reverted. The other side will try to add something, it will get reverted. One claims "unreliable", the other yells "against the RfC'. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with Lockley´s book is that it contains dramatization, and it is hard to know what is historical fiction and what is Lockley´s theory. We could probably figure it out by comparing the content in the book with other sources, such as interviews, but every attempt to discuss that is meant with accusations of TRUTHFINDER!. The sources used for the RfC were mostly pop journalist write-ups of Lockley´s book. The RfC was mostly resolved because there is no evidence that any expert thinks that Yasuke is not a samurai. Some are just less sure, or wouldn’t use samurai for any Sengoku warrior. I am not trying to overturn the consensus. The debate over whether the article needs to cite 3-4 news sources that mostly rely on Lockley and were written years ago.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, you got a choice. On the one hand, you have two very imperfect but legit secondary sources on history by legit historians, which seem to be approved by the RfC. On the other, there seems to be some notion that because these are imperfect, it would be better to have these imperfect sources filtered through the lens of the non-historian, non-rigorous, more-pop-audience-focused, news magazines like a CNN feature (which goes so far as to additionally cite even worse sources for information, like a TV show). How does this at all make sense?

If people give you a hard time for citing the original secondary source behind all this, because they think it's not an RS, then refer them to this thread and the RfC. If they raise an undue fuss, we can chew them out from there. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you are saying. What are the two sources that you are talking about? I suggest that you look at the lead at the Yasuke page. Then you will see how the sources are used and in what context.

Also, how do I know that there is a consensus on this thread? It seems like every either broadly agrees with me, or is asking questions and not giving clear responses. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

can you provide a concrete example, as in a diff? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have happened in stages. The CNN article was used to support the claim about Yasuke being given a stipend, a house, and servants. I replaced it with a citation of the Britannica article that had been newly rewritten. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1238887725 At some point, the in text citation was moved to the end of the paragraph. After that the CNN citation was restored. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1241316774 There have been a lot of edits in the lead, and the citations moved around, often as part of other edits. The claim about the stipend etc. later received a citation to an academic source, but then was replaced with CNN. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1243549402 The CNN article is not in the lead any more, but it is still used to support the claim about the stipend.

One error the CNN article contains, is that it attributes the stipend, house and servants to Jesuit sources. This is not true. All other secondary sources that mention it, point to Japanese sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of these edits did more then just remove the source, they also removed claims solely sourced to that source. Also "that it attributes the stipend, house and servants to Jesuit sources", yes as that is where all those other sources get the claim, they are talking about the primary sources. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The diffs that I linked to? I don’t see that. There are a lot of changes to the lead, but I can’t keep track of that, especially as a lot of them aren’t discussed on talk.

I am not sure what your point is about the Jesuit sources, of course it is supposed to be the primary sources. There are not that many primary sources about Yasuke, so it is easy to keep track of them. Some are written by Jesuits, but Lockley cites Ōta Gyūich as the source for the statement about the stipend, house and servants. Ōta Gyūich wasn’t a Jesuit. There are other sources that mention a stipend, but they are also Japanese. A Jesuit source mentions Yasuke receiving money, but I don’t think any expert has suggested that was a stipend. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Addition (or changes to) text, not just adding or removing sources "who served as a samurai ", I really need to go no further. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you are saying gotcha, but I don’t get your point. I made the efforts to find those diffs because you asked for them. There are additional changes, but they are unrelated to the citation change. Pretty much all the sources use "samurai" to describe Yasuke, so changing from one to the other doesn’t change that. Encyclopedia Britannica actually makes the case that Yasuke was a samurai, so it is stronger in that aspect. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

>"Also 'that it attributes the stipend, house and servants to Jesuit sources', yes as that is where all those other sources get the claim, they are talking about the primary sources."<

I think perhaps this is a misinterpretation of @Tinynanorobots, amigo (although he's not always the easiest to understand, to be fair–). I read him as saying that the primary sources for this particular claim are to be found in Japanese accounts; the Jesuit primary sources exist, but for other claims, not the "servants" bit.

>"It seems to me that all of these edits did more then just remove the source, they also removed claims solely sourced to that source"< . . . >"Addition (or changes to) text, not just adding or removing sources 'who served as a samurai ', I really need to go no further."<

I don't understand your point here either, sorry! -- if, arguendo, this is correct, then we've gone from "a better source is being replaced with a poorer one" (Tinynanorobots) to "true, but also, the information from the better (ostensibly , anyway) source is being stripped out along with it" (Slatersteven)... which, surely, would just make it an even worse example of editorial malfeasance!

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Travel guides and travel articles in newspapers are notoriously unreliable for history and should not be used. Not only that, but typically the writer has taken information from random places including Wikipedia. One of the most common errors is to uncritically report traditions as facts. Historical events that are mentioned in passing in newspaper articles are also not reliable. The only times that history in a newspaper should be considered reliable are (1) an article written by a historian or known expert, (2) an article by a journalist who directly quotes a historian or known expert. I've seen too many cases of historical errors being introduced from newspapers to suggest a weaker criterion. Zero^talk 13:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That seems overly restrictive... Unless you start with a very restrictive definition of history (something other than history being the past). A newspaper writing about something that happened last week is writing about history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone defines last week as history in this context. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a very helpful comment unless you offer your own definition of history in this context. For the record I define it that way, history is anything which is not currently happening (call it breaking news in this context). In practical terms I guess one could argue that true history begins whenever someone publishes the first academic paper... But for wikipedia's purposes history would appear to start when the first reliable non-primary source is published. If by history you just mean that news sources will be less reliable about older stuff, well duh... Thats already baked into our preferance for academic sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I am reminded of the Isaac Asimov story “The Dead Past,” which lets you only see "historical" events, as in 1 second in the past. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I was reminded of the adage that news is the first rough draft of history (or something like that) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were being reductio absurdium, but not I see that you were thinking like that. I think this is something that common sense, should be able to solve. Unfortunately, people forget that is allowed on wikipedia. There might even be an essay on history vs. the news. I think one litmus test would be if it is something that journalists or historians are considered experts on. Another might be that if there is the possibility to interview witnesses, then it is news. In this case, 1500s Japan is clearly history and not news. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with common sense is yours may not be mind, the Falklands war was 40 years ago (to me history) but you can still interview Survivors. 9/11 was 30 years ago (to me history) but you can interview survivors. History is "the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.". Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those are border cases, and probably would need to be discussed on a case by case basis. Wikipedia policy on breaking news addresses this somewhat. Part of common sense is understanding what skills are needed to understand the subject and what techniques the journalist or historian is using. Most "news" isn’t investigative journalism. A lot of it is interviews or relies on press releases, by people who don’t specialize in it and have to produce something every day. A news article from 40 years ago about the Falklands war should probably be seen as a primary source. A news article written about the Falklands War today, would probably be a reflection piece, and lean towards being human interest. A book written by an investigative journalist would be more useful. However, I think a historian writing on the Falklands War would be better. It is a case by case basis, using common sense and consensus. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, maybe, but no one contests whether something that happened centuries ago is news or history -- so @Zero's criterion is easily applicable, and we need not figure out whether "last week" counts or not.

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The CNN article in question is not a breaking news article -- it is a feature. Not all articles in newspapers are news articles. There are features (profiles, retrospectives, essays and photoessays, obits), op-eds (two separate things), etc. All of these are conceptually entirely different with regards to whatever the above is. (Unless of course the samurai have reanimated and asserted a new dominion in the past week -- I don't watch CNN, so I suppose I wouldn't know). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Excellent point! There's no need to confuse the issue with sophistry about whether a news article from last week is unwarrantedly caught by Zero's suggested guidelines: entirely apart from this particular case not being anywhere near the grey area, it's also a fundamentally different type of article.

Himaldrmann (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

So the question then is what relevance does this line of argument have, as this is (unequivocably) about history? Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

None. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

...tbh, I've no idea. I just didn't want to seem unfriendly, you know?... Himaldrmann (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Lets make this easy, as there seems to be some confusion over consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The point below about "it depends" is very valid, the question really is a bit too broad. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Some crucial information is missing from this thread, which I stumbled upon by chance. Tinynanorobots has been repeatedly removing news sources from the Yasuke article (in what seems like a slow edit war) since August 22 [30]. Symphony Regalia and I reverted their edits, and we had a discussion on the article's talk page (here), which is TL;DR. They didn't achieve consensus and recently began removing sources without providing an explanation in the edit summaries (here's my complaint on their user talk page).

The important point is this: I agree with SamuelRiv Secondary scholarly/rigorous work supercedes non-secondary and/or non-scholarly/rigorous work in WP generally, but the news sources that Tinynanorobots is removing (CNN, TIME, Smithsonian Magazine) haven't been contradicted by any scholarly sources. These sources either support non-controversial content ("Yasuke was also granted servants according to Thomas Lockley"; "He was granted a sword, a house and a stipend", "In 1968, author Yoshio Kurusu and artist Genjirō Mita published a children's book about Yasuke"; "Yasuke was the inspiration for Takashi Okazaki's Afro Samurai franchise") or contentious content that is also supported by reliable academic sources ("Yasuke [...] was a man of African origin who served as a samurai"). There is literally no reason to remove these sources, as they align with and do not conflict with academic ones.

On the article's talk page, I proposed creating two citation bundles to avoid WP:OVERCITE: one for academic sources and another for news sources (here). The aim was to prevent edit warring/disruptive editing by clarifying that the content about Yasuke's status as a samurai is well-supported by sources, while also providing readers with a collection of news sources for those interested in how Yasuke has been represented in the popular press - an important aspect of the "Yasuke case". This proposal was rejected by Tinynanorobots (here), in my opinion without good reason. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is literally no reason to remove these sources -- other than the fact that, as has been pointed out, they have been factually been misleading on key points for which they are cited (and for which they themselves give no attribution -- glancing at the discussion you link, date range). the news sources that Tinynanorobots is removing ... haven't been contradicted by any scholarly sources: This is why we have WP:Due -- in an academic topic (like very elusive histories) we don't need an academic source to be saying what is not true, when non-academic sources start saying something else or something new, especially when there are so few academic sources on this niche topic as here. If the information you want to cite is not in the academic sources, you should really ask be asking why you're citing it in the first place.

Anyway, all this substantive discussion of the content of sources as relates to the article is not appropriate to RSN, but rather the article's Talk page. Here we have said to abide by existing recommendations on history sourcing and the previous RfC. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Which did not seem to come to any real conclusion, and which (to a degree) seemed to have the same issue as this discussion, it meandered all over the place, going so far as to claim that because some of his work was peer review this made this book RS (nor does it seem to have been an RFC). So maybe a formal RFC is needed to ask the question is his book an RTS? Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If the RfC on the author was at the article Talk page, then an RfC on the author's book about the article subject belongs on the article Talk page too. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the RSN notice board. Why do people keep bringing up general questions about this issue, dodging the basic question, is the book an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

So maybe a formal RFC is needed to ask the question is his book an RTS? I don't think an RfC is necessary: virtually everyone agrees that Lockley's book Yasuke: The True Story of the Legendary African Samurai is not a reliable source. By the author's own admission, much of it is fictional. In fact, our Yasuke article does not cite the book. But this doesn't mean that Lockley is not a subject-matter expert, that his other publications don't qualify as reliable sources, or that news sources citing Lockley are not reliable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

as has been pointed out, they have been factually been misleading on key points for which they are cited What? Where? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment As I saw something said about this earlier in the discussion. Per the header of this noticeboard This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. If you wish to discuss whether content is, or is not, due for inclusion in an article that discuss should be had at the articles talk page or another appropriate forum. Inclusion is not a matter of verification but of NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there aren't questions about reliability here, just that that's the only discussion that should be had here. Splitting discussions about what content to include to an unrelated board isn't helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
One thing worth pointing out is that a few people here and on that talk page are arguing that they don't feel source X or Y as a WP:RS because they believe it to be full of errors. That isn't, generally, a valid WP:RS argument - you can't exclude a source simply because you disagree with it, which is what claiming "this source is full of errors" amounts to. Reliability is about a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; if editors could just say "this source is wrong, therefore it is unreliable", they could dismiss any source that says anything they disagree with, making it impossible to ever convince them of anything at all. That doesn't mean that we necessarily have to mindlessly repeat errors in a source (there are some options, like finding newer or higher-quality sources that disagree with it.) But "this specific piece is riddled with errors!" isn't a valid WP:RS argument, since as soon as there's a dispute it immediately becomes a circular No true Scotsman argument. --Aquillion (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Are news sources reliable for articles on history?

Note can we here just express our preference, and leave any discussion to the above (main) thread)? Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes

~~I see no reason why not (as long as they otherwise count as RS), they can do the research, or even talk to historians.~~ Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This is somewhat "it depends", but I will post it here as it should be noted that WP:RS calls out that mainstream news sources are fine from a categorical perspective (in short, policy does not support the blanket exclusion of all news sources from all history articles).

Per WP:RS:
In general, the most reliable sources are:

Peer-reviewed journals

Books published by university presses

University-level textbooks

Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses

Mainstream newspapers

Of course, some news sources are unreliable (conflicts of interest, lack of neutrality, lack of editorial oversight, etc) so that is where editors should express due diligence. Note that a lack of editorial oversight is not the same thing as Wikipedia personally editors disagreeing with the content of a source and trying to arbitrarily discard it, it is how many people at that source are involved in the overall editorial, proofreading, and publishing process. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No

(Good idea, @Slatersteven; impenetrably dense discussion seems to have kilt the motivating RfC—and I've been known to get wordy, myself... [*ahem*]—thanks for taking the initiative, compadre o7)

I think the answer is closer to No than to Yes, if we're voting—but upon reflection, I sort of wonder what possible outcomes this can even have. What's the difference between a No, a Yes, and an It Depends? The answer will be the same: "Use your judgment, look at context, look at track record of source, follow guidelines", etc. etc. I can't imagine some new guideline—or advice to ignore current ones—will come out of this...

...so I might leave off responding here, after this, though of course anyone ~~who agrees with everything I say~~ is welcome on my Talk page if they'd like to continue anything.

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No Reliable news media are reliable sources for news. They hire professional journalists whose work is then reviewed by editors. However, they are not specialists in any academic discipline. TFD (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends

A lot depends on what precisely we are verifying when we cite a news source. News sources are great for basic historical facts (such as verifying that X event occured on Y date) but they are not really appropriate for analysis or for verifying conclusions. They often suffer from RECENTISM and so are not good for determining the long term significance of the events they are reporting on. In short, there is more to the issue than a yes/no question of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Good point, the question is far too broad for a definitive answer. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends on context, content and source, the same with any other category of source; per WP:RS: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

Just as no source is 100% reliable in all contexts; no category of source is 100% reliable in all contexts.

News sources should certainly not be excluded from consideration as reliable sources in historical articles, but were the question Are they the WP:BESTSOURCES for articles on history?, the obvious answer would be "No; they are not." We should prefer WP:SCHOLARSHIP; again per WP:RS. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I remember a case long ago where a "historical fact" about a village was cited to a newspaper, but when I looked at the newspaper I found it was a comment in passing in a cooking article. I hope nobody here would consider that reliable. The point is that the reliability doesn't depend just on how long ago something was or how prestigious the newspaper is. It also depends on the context in which it appears in the newspaper. Zero^talk 13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends. As I said here above [31] there's nothing wrong with the way news sources are currently used in the Yasuke article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It always depends. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Andre🚐 21:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends per context matters -- long-form or focused journalism is probably usually reliable in this vein, and can probably be particularly useful for metropolitan history, as large papers or magazines occasionally and even semi-regularly run features on historical events and persons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends on a lot of stuff, including context, attribution, and so on. Not all news sources are equal and not every section of the same news source is equal; there's no way we could give a sweeping answer to something like this. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Bad RfC

Not an RfC, "news sources" and "history" are not well defined as this was immediately pointed out as problematic in the preceding paragraphs, and probably not here as we discuss academic sourcing in WP:HISTRS. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Its not an RFC, and we really can't answer such a general question, what is needed is a specific RFC about just this book. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

there has been one already somewhere in the archives of Talk:Yasuke Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The only one linked to here was not an RFC and was about the author in general, not the book. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

the difference between the author being reliable for historical fact, the book being reliable for historical fact, the newspaper covering a book being reliable for historical fact, and news sources in gen being reliable for historical fact seems like a case of trying to justify some argument about excluding/including the word samurai from the yasuke page.

if you want to figure this yasuke samurai stuff out, please do so without trying to make some broad distinction about whether all news stories are disallowed from historical wikipedia pages. seems like a mighty escalation to rfc with such broad and inconcise wording. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that the word samurai should be excluded from the article. I have replaced a source that just uses the word samurai, with one that explicitly says that Yasuke is a samurai. There is a case for preferring the word Bushi, but that is off topic. I have actually added extra sources that don´t rely on Lockley that use samurai for the topic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There was an RSN about Lockley after the RfC. The consensus save for one editor (who has been involved in a lot of the back and forth edits on the Yasuke page) was that his book 'African Samurai' due to its lack of citations + liberal employment of creative license, and many of his more grounded claims being more appropriate to cite from his peer reviewed scholarly work elsewhere, was unsuitable for citing on the page and should be replaced with higher quality sources. The RfC also concluded that Lockley constituted a reliable source, it is just that this one book is a problem that is best avoided entirely since little is lost from doing so. Since the closure of that RSN, the page has been changed to reflect it by directly attributing Lockley's theories from his more academic peer reviewed work and the page is significantly better off for doing so.

The CNN article is just a case of a journalist (Emiko Jozuka) without a background in history uncritically taking African Samurai's narrative at face value. The book features many claims which have no means of verification, are in no sources, and are largely conjecture such as the role of Yasuke in Nobunaga's death, his escape from honnoji, his service under nobutada, and even service in the Imjin War. The book does not clearly define what is fact, theory, or conjecture - but many of the theories within are present in Lockley's academic works (such as his suggestion that Yasuke was a Dinka rather than from Mozambique as traditionally thought.

While looking through this RSN, I think the last RSN on Lockley has been seldom mentioned despite it being a clear consensus - save one editor. Relm (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

reiterating thoughts above, Bad RFC. With such a broad question, without real actionable options, I suspect most reasonable editors would hedge and say "it depends"... which is basically a more polite way of saying they can't/won't comment without much more context.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The correct answer is 'it depends', but realistically no valid answer can be given to the question beyond pointing towards some policy pages. The answer to such a broad question would be best laid out in an essay. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this poll is bad. I would have at least mentioned CNN Travel in the context of supporting the claim regarding "servants etc." I think I made too many mistakes on this thing. As this issue is likely to be addressed elsewhere, I would like to draw a line under this. I would like to thank everyone for their input as well as patience. If I should have notified someone of this, then I am sorry, I didn’t notify anyone. I am not sure if I should officially close this or not, but I probably won´t be returning to this page for a while. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree BAD RFC. Interesting discussion, but maybe on another location and not here. Seems to be more of a discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Clinical perspective on stress, cortisol and adrenal fatigue

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Before anyone tells me to just post this to WP:MED, I already did and didn't get much feedback.

For some background I'm looking to improve the page Adrenal fatigue. Adrenal fatigue is a pseudoscientific diagnosis which already makes this a tricky topic. In case you're unfamilliar Adrenal fatigue is the proposed concept that after periods of chronic stress the adrenal glands get tired and don't produce cortisol (super important hormone) correctly. There is many high qaulity studies debunking it. The current article doesn't talk about the symptoms associated with Adrenal fatigue. I don't feel like the approach of "Adrenal fatigue isn't real so it has no symptoms" is very helpful. Ideally I would like to write about the symptoms that have been associated with adrenal fatigue but of course continue to maintain that it has no scientific basis.

The issue that I've come to is that the high qaulity studies debunking Adrenal fatigue don't go into much detail about this sort of thing. They mention vague symptoms but not in detail. I have found a source that does go into details but the issue with this source is that it's written by a chiropracter, James Wilson, and written from the perspective of adrenal fatigue being real. This makes the article unreliable in a lot of ways.

My question is, can I use this as a source in the article with the context that there is no proof the disorder is real? I'm unsure of exactly how I would word this but I was thinking of something along the lines of "Symptoms that have been assocaited with adrenal fatigue include xyz".

Wikipedia article in question: Adrenal fatigue

My sandbox for the article: User:IntentionallyDense/Adrenal fatigue

Research article: Wilson, James L. (2014). "Clinical perspective on stress, cortisol and adrenal fatigue". Advances in Integrative Medicine. 1 (2): 93–96. doi:10.1016/j.aimed.2014.05.002.

Any input is appreciated. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if the source can be used in this way, but if it can be I would propose either of the following: "Symptoms that have been claimed to be associated with adrenal fatigue (by those who say it occurs) include xyz." / "Claimed symptoms of the debunked disorder include xyz." --Super Goku V (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This is helpful thank you. I'll see what others have to say but I really like that phrasing. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest editing the article using Super Goku V suggestion and see if anyone objects. The issue with pre-approving sources is that anyone objecting won't know to object until you edit, making any pre-approval pointless. This is why the process for consensus forming is starts with 'By editing', if someone objects discuss it with them and use a noticeboard like this if you need further input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I wasn't looking for pre-approval persay I was moreso looking to see if there was any major issues with the approach I am planning on taking. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Be bold and if you get reverted discuss the changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Daily Mail comparison

Latest comment: 3 months ago16 comments9 people in discussion

Several places have framed the deprecation of the Daily Mail as political, comparing it to Fox News or the Telegram.[32][33][34][35] I want to offer an analysis of an apolitical article for future editors to reference. The chart below compares a 2019 Daily Mail article to the WP:RS cited in the Wikipedia article on Rodney, Mississippi, a rural ghost town.


WP:RS	The Daily Mail
The town is in the Mississippi Delta region of northwest Mississippi.	The town is in the "Mississippi River Delta" (which is in another state and 200 miles away).
Economically dependent on river traffic, Rodney, Mississippi, gradually declined when the Mississippi River shifted several miles away from the town.	The town was "ruined by the American Civil War", framing it as the singular result of Union cannon fire.
The river began to change course when a sandbar formed around the time of the American Civil War.	The river changed course after the Civil War "because of the huge reconstruction" of damaged buildings and the construction of a bridge "crossing the Mississippi River".
The town's decline was exacerbated when the railroad bypassed it to run through Fayette, Mississippi.	After the Civil War, the town underwent "a rebuild and it was decided that a railroad would be constructed" across the river.
Construction begun on Rodney Presbyterian Church in 1829 and Mt. Zion Baptist Church in 1851.	The Presbyterian Church and Mt. Zion were built "after 1763 when the town was inhabited by the French" (about one hundred years too early).
The Presbyterian Church was began by the residents who also initiated the founding of Oakland College.	The church was "constructed by the Native Americans before" the French arrived.
Alston is a former grocery store.	Alston Grocery (shown in a photograph) is described as "a rusted lonely red cabin that survived" bombardment during the Civil War.

There are smaller errors, but those are the major ones. Thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see why we would even bother giving these random opinion pieces the time of day to be honest. If they don't consider fabricating their own front pages (among other things) a dealbreaker that really says more about them than it does about us. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I will admo

Are you really expecting encyclopaedia type information about a deserted town in America from a popular British newspaper? Something of very marginal interest but fills a few column inches to keep its readers occupied for a couple of minutes? How many readers in America know or care where whole countries like Austria are? It is not where somebody writing about the town would expect to get reliable information from any more than they'd expect to get something reliable about Tyneham in the Los Angeles Times. NadVolum (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

These seem to be omissions, not errors, your point is? Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

But (and lol) how is saying that the town is in a location ("in another State") not incorrect? Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I had a much longer reply, but I scrapped it. Going over all the issues raised in prior discussions isn't really going to be helpful. The depreciation of the source isn't political but these are poor examples of the reasons why. The issue isn't their bias or minor mistakes, they are not trusted as a publisher. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I will admit maybe I was confused, is this arguing that they are generally reliable or generally unreliable? Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Generally unreliable. No change from the current situation, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Then what is the point of this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"an analysis of an apolitical article for future editors to reference" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Good work... but it might serve us better in the long term as an essay easily pointed to than somethingin the archives of this page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I doesn't seem a very convincing case to me. How does this show it is unreliable for the sorts of things one might hope it would be reliable for? NadVolum (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Every major detail in the article is wrong and often in implausible ways. Some errors may be mistakes, but many seem like outright fabrication. This red-brick, protestant church in no way resembles Native American religious sites in the area (like Poverty Point). The railroad crossing is fictitious, and not chronologically plausible. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

So what? Nobody in their right mind would expect a non-american newspaper to give authorative information about that. NadVolum (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

A publication as large as The Mail can afford a full-time US correspondent, never mind just to fly out a reporter for a day or two, or to hire a freelancer, or even simply to telephone the local newspaper office or local historical society. Not saying this is a reason for deprecation, just that this many basic factual errors in a single article is not a trivial thing. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

While I have no particular problem with the continued deprecation of the Daily Mail, I don't feel this adds anything to the case. It's inaccurate, but we shouldn't really expect accurate geographical/historical information about minor settlements in the USA. I am willing to lay odds we can find stories as bad in reliable sources on either side of the Atlantic.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Suitability of Syllabus source

Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi,

I was looking for some feedback about the Reliability of Syllabi as a source for Wikipedia. In particular, there has been an attempt to use this syllabus as a reliable source. The user trying to use the source in question has attempted to use it in the first sentence of the lead, displacing the author's academically published book [36]. The user involved in the dispute has put forward the syllabus to try and substantiate a claim that not all Geji engaged in sex-work, but I don't think the syllabus supports that claim, and the claim is also at odds with the scholar's academic book that says they provide sexual entertainment. The syllabus is from a 2010 course, the book was published in 2018. Likewise, in their 2001 Book, the scholar [37] says musical performance and sexual performance were, in fact, usually the forte of an individual known as a "singing girl" (geji 歌妓, literally "song courtesan) on p.77. My instinct in this case is that the source is unreliable for these purposes and we should favor the academic books, but I wanted to seek outside opinion from more experienced editors. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

In general, I would say that syllabuses, and other similar documents (e.g. lesson plans), are not reliable for anything other than perhaps as primary sources on the content of the course. Certainly, they would not be reliable for definitive statements of fact in the lead section of an article on any other topic.

I note also, and share, the concern about the comparative age of the two sources (syllabus & academic book), and suggest that we should prefer the later, more reliable, source. Also suggest that any article content should cleave strong to the source content; which I am not sure the use of the syllabus at Geji did.

Hope this helps. Rotary Engine ^talk 04:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is Geji with diff . In future, please provide the actual context for your source in question, including the article and proposed edit.

Also, I do not understand your question. It's either a non-question (yes we don't like syllabi, yes we favor academic sources, obviously), or you actually have a particular piece of content that you are referring to in the massive diff for which these books, and their dates, are important. If the content and the difference between academic dates by the same scholar is that important (which is my impression given the information you gave me) then maybe you should take an honest discussion of scholarly sources back to Talk:Geji. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. I didn't know I should provide a diff to the article when I was asking about whether a source would be reliable or not. In particular in Special:Diff/1246332563 a user inserted the syllabus in the lead of the article. Another editor removed it. The editor who added it had also used it as evidence in a dispute that the article should say not all Geji were sex workers. I wasn't sure what the stance of Wikipedia was on the reliability of a course syllabus as a source and I wanted to check. As for then maybe you should take an honest discussion of scholarly sources back to Talk:Geji that has been tried, and it has been relatively fruitless as the editor has argued immensely when I've told them before that a source wasn't reliable. Likewise, another editor accused me of being racist against Chinese women as part of the content dispute. So, before I went and said "this source isn't reliable", I wanted to make sure that was actually the case. In particular, the editor is taking the fact that the syllabus says appeal lay primarily in their surpassing musical and literary cultivation, not their sexual services as evidence that not all Geji engaged in sexwork, however, the syllabus only says that their sexual services weren't their primary appeal. It doesn't say they didn't provide them. Then when the editor added them to the article, they displaced the 2018 academic book. As I said, I am of the mind that the source shouldn't be used at all given the academic scholarship that exists, but I wanted to see what the opinions of others was since when I searched the archive I did see some folks discussing syllabi as WP:EXPERTSPS. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the uses to which I've seen it recently put to use, WP:EXPERTSPS probably wants some serious re-evaluation. I can see a place where we might want to include content sourced to monograms, and similar long form, in-depth, yet unreviewed, content; maybe. But the use of various Tweets, hot takes and, yes, syllabubs, seems somehow entirely misaligned with WP:RS; and with the purpose of creating a free (and not too much inaccurate) Encyclopedia.

Of course, I imagine WP:EXPERTSPS is particularly useful to some editors in some instances; suffice to say the example raised above does not seem to be one where WP:PARITY applies. Rotary Engine ^talk 08:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

RS does not imply turning off your brain, and wp:expertsps is explicit in saying this: Exercise caution when using such sources. The policy is fine. If you are having problems conveying to an editor what is WP:DUE and not, what accords to an accurate portrayal of modern historical assessment per WP:HISTRS, then that's outside the scope of this noticeboard. On the article Talk page, you may want to ask 3rd opinions from the wikiprojects WT:JAPAN and/or WT:HISTORY, and perhaps an RfC if there's a suitable question to be resolved. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's reliable in this context. This is an opening statement of of the course, which obviously will cover the details in more detail and context. The source is being used to define Geji only as only as performing artists, the source only says that the appeal of Geji wasn't primarily their sexual services not that those services weren't part of what they did. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

www.phoronix.com

Latest comment: 3 months ago20 comments8 people in discussion

I would like to suggest the addition of www.phoronix.com as an unreliable source

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Phoronix

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#cppreference.com Wiktorpyk (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason or dispute? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Mainly just got pissed when I saw wrong info on an article that was quoting an article on that website that was wronng to be honest and I also got comfirmation from a GNOME developer that the source is not reliable. I have provided two disputes confirming that too. Wiktorpyk (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide the specific article (the WP article and the citation in question)? Phoronix newsblog posts are not generally a RS per existing guidelines, but I don't think anyone has posted an example of it being factually incorrect yet.

The guidelines are clear enough to disqualify it as an RS at a glance, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. I dunno if AWB scripts can just put bsn tags on it if bot editors won't otherwise bother to check for the original source material of the blog, though, given that's what it's being generally cited for. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adwaita_%28design_language%29&diff=1245507291&oldid=1232781085 Wiktorpyk (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that Libadwaita was meant to be released in 41 but it was delayed to 42. Wiktorpyk (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For this particular claim, the easiest policy-compliant solution is to use "Heaps of tweaks and improvements incoming with GNOME 42" by The Register (RSP entry), which I have just added to the article in Special:Diff/1245895832. — Newslinger talk 19:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe that recognized subject matter experts can be counted as reliable sources, and that includes blogs that are widely used as reliable in reliable sources. It is wide ranging but not always accurate but I think acceptable for what it does. Any expert will find holes in practically every article anywhere on what they're an expert on! NadVolum (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Is Phoronix any more reliable than any other blog? No, not really. It's a blog, just a technical blog, essentially WP:SELFPUB. It doesn't have any kind public editorial standards or fact-checking board. The reason why WP:NEWSORGs are presumed reliable is that they have some kind of oversight. That being said, is anyone actually citing Phoronix and what articles? I mean, they are, because I just checked and people are citing it a lot for open source press releases, of exactly the kind that this user is bringing up. However, I think we need more than one example of a problem before we can downgrade the source, and it needs to be documented in writing in some amount of rigor. Andre🚐 09:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Self-published. Phoronix is a blog solely authored by Michael Larabel, the lead developer of the Phoronix Test Suite. While I have a favorable impression of Phoronix's content quality and consider Larabel a Linux expert, he does not meet the subject-matter expert criterion in WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." A web search shows that Larabel only publishes articles on Phoronix, which makes Phoronix generally unreliable as a self-published blog that does not qualify for the subject-matter expert exception. — Newslinger talk 18:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Andre🚐 21:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep a self published source without the requirements in WP:SPS. If it's being used for press releases they can be found elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I've removed "RFC on" from the section title, as this request is not a formal request for comment. — Newslinger talk 18:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
It is just a blog, we shouldn't consider it reliable. But that doesn't mean it is unreliable. I suppose it depends the claim and article it is used on. I know nothing about SW, so take my comments with a grain of salt please. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger and Andrevan: Phoronix is regularly cited by The Register [38] and Ars Technica [39]---both of which are WP:GREL. The intent of the WP:EXPERTSPS policy is that "expertise" must be evaluated by reliable sources, not by individual editors, and I believe when reliable sources base their reporting on a Phoronix post, that means Larabel is considered an expert by them.

Treating Phoronix as an WP:EXPERTSPS means we can easily remove the source when its claims are disputed by the subject while still using the source to fill in the details. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a good argument, but it doesn't exactly fall into the letter of the existing SPS policy exception as Newslinger notes. Andre🚐 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Being cited by other reliable sources for factual claims is one indicator that a source is reliable (per the WP:UBO guideline), but it does not override the expectation that reliable sources should have editorial oversight. The WP:QS policy states that sources with "no editorial oversight", which include Phoronix, are generally considered questionable. If Larabel starts publishing articles in reliable sources independent of Phoronix, he would begin to qualify for the WP:EXPERTSPS exception and I would support treating Phoronix as a marginally reliable source along the lines of Stephen Barrett's articles on Quackwatch (RSP entry) and Anthony Fantano's reviews for The Needle Drop (RSP entry). However, because Larabel doesn't yet qualify for the exception as it is written in policy, I can't support this reassessment at this time. — Newslinger talk 01:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:Ignore all rules is also a policy exemption. Phoronix has caused very little problems as a source. It generally reports the truth. The source is regarded as reliable by other sources. In fact, those sources base entire articles on what Larabel wrote.

Does a literal reading of the policy benefit the encyclopedia here? Treating Phoronix as a marginally reliable source would address the issues brought up the original poster of this thread. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey I gotta point out that in the diff you provided (and the fact correction you explain), phoronix was not actually incorrect. It is the WP article's fault for misrepresenting and misusing the source. Note the phoronix blog post is March 2021, discussing a feature added in 41 for its planned autumn release. I'd say this is completely expected to post a feature update on a planned release, and two seasons beforehand, to not yet raise a fuss that it cannot release on schedule (not sure when the blog may have started doing that, but it's irrelevant). The Wikipedia article meanwhile took a blog talking about a planned release date, and used it as a source to verify the actual now-past released date. That's the WP editor's fault, not phoronix's.

So the question remains whether phoronix has been factually inaccurate or sloppy, as you claim. I agree it's not a good source by any means, but for straightforward verifiable facts on niche topics we often do tolerate those SPS blogs that the greater reporting community has accepted (per wp:usebyothers RS noted above). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Police Website Media Release as a Source

Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I've had an individual remove a paragraph from a Wikipedia page suggesting that https://www.peterboroughpolice.com/en/news/media-release-for-thursday-july-25-2024.aspx per the paragraph is not allowed as a reliable source. I believe this source I have used reliable as it's literally the law enforcement of Peterborough, Ontario putting this out.

"Assault Suspects Sought

Peterborough Police are investigating after an incident early Thursday morning.

At approximately 12:16am on July 25, 2024, officers were called to the Hunter Street East and Mark Street area about a disturbance. Upon arrival, officers learned that a man had been walking home when he passed a group of four young people. As he passed them, one spat at him and then when he confronted them another knocked his turban off his head and stepped on it. Another male tried to intervene and both men were struck in the head with pop cans. The initial victim was treated at the scene by EMS.

It’s also believed the group of young people is connected to the theft of soft drinks reported at a nearby convenience store (Hunter Street East and Burnham Street) about 11:50pm on Wednesday, July 24, 2024.

The suspects are described as four males wearing dark clothing.

This incident is being classified as a hate crime.

Anyone with information is asked to call Peterborough Police at 705-876-1122 x555 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477 or online at www.stopcrimehere.ca"

Jattlife121 (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/news/crime/police-investigating-alleged-hate-crime-in-east-city/article_a16db3cf-13cc-5862-b347-5a1327c388c3.html - There is also this noting the stress on "hate crime" Jattlife121 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a context for where it's being used? It may not be usable for BLP details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No its based on an article for Anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada regarding a hate crime. However there are 3 sources for this. https://w.wiki/BEXz

https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/news/crime/police-investigating-alleged-hate-crime-in-east-city/article_a16db3cf-13cc-5862-b347-5a1327c388c3.html (this is the newspaper for Peterborough, Ontario)

https://www.peterboroughpolice.com/en/news/media-release-for-thursday-july-25-2024.aspx (this is the official police department for Peterborough)

https://pressprogress.ca/canadas-far-right-is-targeting-south-asian-and-sikh-canadians-to-incite-anti-immigrant-hate/ (This is another media company also reporting on this) Jattlife121 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely this is more than enough to be used a source per a paragraph stating the details of events that took place specifically as police have stated themselves they have "classified this as a hate crime" Jattlife121 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Although the article isn't a BLP, the details about living people in the artcile are still covered by BLP policy. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY you should use secondary sources rather than the police report. Also unless the names of the individuals involved have been widely reported they should be left out (WP:BLPNAME). The secondary sources appear reliable for any details they have reported. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks got it. I have used the news articles instead now, much appreciated. Jattlife121 (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

CBC Radio

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am currently working on a draft and I would like to know if CBC Radio is a reliable source as I was planning to add this article as a reference. Outlined Sandbox 2 (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be ok it's certainly better than most sources covering YouTubers, but just out of care as this is a living person what is the context? What content do you want to support with the Tapestry article? Also if you can try to avoid AMP pages, so for this article use this link instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The draft I am working on is Draft:MrBeast videography. I have found BBC News article for the thing I was looking for a reliable source on now though thank you for answering my question. Outlined Sandbox 2 (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

CBC Radio is reliable yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

checkyourfact.com being tagged as deprecated (unreliable) source

Latest comment: 3 months ago13 comments8 people in discussion

Hi all!

https://checkyourfact.com is being tagged as a "deprecated (unreliable) source" whenever it is used as a citation. How can this be when it is a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter (which has very stringent requirements for its signatories).

It's being tagged as an unreliable source, when I can't find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Can some people look into this? I think Checkyourfact is a reliable source.

Here's its IFCN review entry: https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/profile/check-your-fact

Thanks!

-Object404 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... apparently it is affiliated with The Daily Caller. The About -> Staff section shows MEET OUR STAFF AND CONTRIBUTORS -> Geoff Ingersoll: Editor-in-Chief, The Daily Caller.

-Object404 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Not just affiliated, per their About us page: Check Your Fact is a for-profit subsidiary wholly owned by The Daily Caller, Inc. The majority owner of The Daily Caller, Inc. is co-founder and publisher Neil Patel. Schazjmd (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG, Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. Checkyourfacts.com is a fact-checking source, attested to by the IFCN certification. Its Corrections policy is here. It clearly discloses its ownership (potential conflict of interest) on its About us page. Its Methodology is here. Its staff and editorial board is here. Check Your Fact was awarded a grant in June of this year from the Poynter Institute's IFCN. From casual googling it appears to regularly align with fact-checks by USA Today Politifact and Reuters, [40][41][42][43] Predictably, Wikipedians who distrust/dislike The Daily Caller will be skeptical of this source, but can anyone point to an instance of a failed fact check from Checkyourfacts, rather than infer guilt by association? Let's check the facts, and stow our feelings. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is mostly about the Daily Caller itself, but also discusses a couple of specific fact checks. The issue does not appear to be "failed" fact checks as much as skewed or misleading ones. Sunrise (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there potential for bias in fact-checking? Sure! This should be common knowledge, easily understood. There are potential biases in which claims get checked (or ignored), the person getting fact-checked, the persons(s) writing the fact-check, how edge cases are handled ("false" versus "partly false" versus "true, but..."), etc. As psychologists Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams wrote in Scientific American: "Research underscores that fact-checkers' personal biases influence both their choice of which statements to analyze and their determination of accuracy." Completely unbiased media simply does not exist, whether it leans left, right, or centrist. But bias does not equate to unreliability. Per WP:BIASED: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but those are general statements that don't address the reliability of this specific fact-checker. Simply saying "all sources have bias" doesn't help us in that respect. Sunrise (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Heavens forbid a source be associated with the company that publishes that source. I don't believe cleaving any unfavourable context from an evaluation is supported by the reliable sources guideline. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is apparently the issue based on other discussions: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Talk:Burisma. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm dubious about using any 'fact checking' site as a source. The articles could as easily be posted as news stories, but being published as 'fact checks' gives them an additional veneer of respectability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems to come down to how editorially independent CheckYourFact is. Looking at the details in the IFCN assessments[44] it seems clear at least at first they were closely tied to The Daily Caller and not fully independent, but as each yearly assessment goes on they appear to be asserting more independence. For instance in the 2017 assessment CYF says Check Your Fact is managed by The Daily Caller's Editor-in-Chief Geoff Ingersoll, which shows that there was no independent editorial control. By 2024 you can see Decisions about what we fact check and our conclusions for our fact checks are guided solely by Check Your Fact editors and journalists. Check Your Fact exercises editorial independence over the creation of fact check content. and they list a dedicated staff.

So I can certainly understand the opinion that they at least started as nothing more than Daily Caller publishing under a different web address, because that's all they were. How they operate now and how reliable they are is more complicated. It would certainly be helpful to have more articles like the science.org[45], which casts doubt on some of their fact-checking, or other reliable sources citing them in a positive way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Object404: Can a you point to specific articles (preferably with diffs) where checkyourfact is being tagged as an unreliable reference? --Animalparty! (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

All fact checks should be treated as a type of opinion, especially the overall rating. While some claims are truly false (the moon landing was a government conspiracy), many are going to fall into a gray zone. A fact check that, like a good lawyer, tries to present the best case for and against the claim could be useful. However, too often fact check sites try to argue to a conclusion rather than for the range of conclusions that could be supported by the facts at hand. For example, a politician says crime went up. Is that true or false? If violent crime went down but property crime went up a good fact check would say both then say this is something in the middle. A bad check would emphasize either the stat that agrees or disagrees then say the check is T/F depending on the bias of the source. Those are the sort of fact checkers we should avoid at least as far as repeating their overall assessments. Springee (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

[1] Henry Laurens, La question de Palestine, Vol. 3. 1947-1967, l'accomplissement des prophéties (2007)

[FOOTNOTEGrossmanLencki2024-2] Grossman & Lencki 2024.

[3] "Vedic Hindu Cultural Society of BC's president apologizes after causing needless communal controversy". Indo Canadian Voice. 12 September 2024. Satish Kumar, President of Vedic Hindu Cultural Society of BC that manages Surrey's Shri Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, apologized to the community after a letter he wrote on September 4 to the Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre objecting to the visit of his Sikh MPs to the temple on the occasion of a Hindu festival got leaked out.

[1]

[1]

[1]