Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 360

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 355←Archive 358Archive 359Archive 360Archive 361Archive 362→Archive 365

Pëllumb Xhufi

Can the Albanian historian Pëllumb Xhufi be considered a reliable source for the purposes of the article Petros Lantzas? In that article, several users are insisting on using a paper by Xhufi as a source. I personally think he shouldn't be used, given that he has been criticized by multiple Albanian historians for falsifying sources, as can be seen in his bio on sq.wiki [1]. He is also on record saying the Tepelenë Internment Camp of the Hoxha regime was "not bad", despite the deaths of hundreds of people there. My impression is that such sources should not be used, but I would like the opinion of the community. Khirurg (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg is trying to remove a Xhufi (2016) paper published in Studime Historike, an important journal of the Academy of Sciences of Albania from Petros Lantzas[2][3][4] Pëllumb Xhufi has never been criticized for "falsifying sources". There is no paper by any Albanian historian which says such a thing or has such an accusation. The sq.wiki does not say such a thing at all. It has a comment by a political activist who says that the medieval Albanian ethnonym should not be translated from medieval documents with the modern ethnonym. Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper such an accusation? No, you cannot. You have misused WP:BLPTALK with spreading such found less accusations. And made it even worse with spreading rumors that an academic has said that internment camps were not bad. He has never said that: “Kampi funksionoi si kazermë ushtarake deri në vitet -60. Ai qe ndërtuar nga italianët, ishte ndërtesë solide me tulla. Në dokument [e CIA-s] shkruhet se kushtet ishin ‘no bad’ jo të mira,” shtoi ai ndërsa pranoi e Tepelena ishte në thelb një kamp pune të detyruar [The camp functioned as a military barracks until the 1960s. It was built by the Italians, it was a solid brick building. "[The CIA] document says the conditions were 'no bad'," he added, while acknowledging that Tepelena was essentially a forced labor camp] and Shqipëria ka pasur kampe edhe me te këqija dhe represive si ai i Spaçit apo Burrelit, shtoi Xhufi, dhe Tepelena nuk ka qene përfaqësuese. Albania has had worse and more repressive camps like that of Spac and Burrel, added Xhufi who said that that of Tepelena was not representative of the situation.[5] Khirurg distorted his comments in such a way to make it seem as if he was defending internment camps. This should be treated on grounds of BLPTALK. Khirurg is spreading rumors about a reputable academic and member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania in a content dispute that he wants to remove him as a source. In 2020 Xhufi became member[6] of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. The paper is WP:RS because it was published in a peer-reviewed reliable source (Studime Historike). Durraz0 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
[1] this is the latest paper Xhufi published internationally. It is about the Ottoman Balkans and was published in a new book by the University of Toulouse. Durraz0 (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Xhufi, Pëllumb (2020). Picard, Christophe (ed.). Rebelles et unionistes dans les Balkans ottomans: l'insurrection d'Epire de 1611. Presses universitaires du Midi. p. 287. ISBN 2810709912.

Xhufi has never justified or downplayed internment camps. His comment was against those who compare labor camps in Albania and elsewhere to Nazi death camps. ideatorët e projektit janë duke e propaganduar si “Aushvici shqiptar” dhe si “një kamp i shfarosjes në masë”. .. U mundova t’i këshilloj të heqin dorë nga marrëzia për ta propaganduar këtë kamp të shfarosjes në masë, sepse Auschwitz, Mathausen, Dachau apo Birkinau ku janë asgjësuar e djegur në furrat naziste miliona hebrej e antifashistë nga e gjithë bota, nuk e kanë shokun në asnjë vend të botës, e nuk e kanë as në Shqipëri interview Translation: the creators of the project are propagating it as "Albanian Auschwitz" and as "a mass extermination camp". I tried to advise them to give up absurdity to propagate this as a mass extermination camp, because Auschwitz, Mathausen, Dachau or Birkinau, where millions of Jews and anti-fascists from all over the world were annihilated and burned in Nazi kilns, have no comparison in no other country in the world, not even in Albania The people who try to do such comparisons in Albania are often tied with neofascists ideas. It's sad that this was brought to wikipedia in such a distorted way to make Xhufi seem like an apologist for labor camps. Ahmet Q. (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Seems like a reliable source. It looks like most of Xhufi's publications are in Albanian journals but that's expected since he is Albanian. (t · c) buidhe 00:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Italian genealogical website?

Appears to be an Italian genealogical royalty website.[7] The page linked, has no references or citations of any kind.

The main page Enciclopedia genealogica del Mediterraneo.

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source unless you can show it has reputation for fact checking, accuracy etc. (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Screenshot-media.com / Screen Shot / Screen Shot media / FairPlanet

Does anyone know the accuracy of Screen Shot (Screen Shot media) as a source? It appears to be a pop culture, technology, and politics news site, similar to sources like Vice or Mashable. I'm writing a draft and it looks like a promising source, but no results on this noticeboard or on WP:RS/PS and no article about the source makes me worry a bit. According to their about page, they're funded by an independent journalism organization called FairPlanet (which doesn't have an article either). wizzito | say hello! 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The editor in chief was an intern at Financial Times, and others interned at the Royal Academy of Arts. They seem to do their research when it comes to medical issues regarding diet fads and the like 1 2, so I'd assume they are equally as thorough in other areas. I'd say they seem reliable. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 15:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Nonetheless, until we can say for certain, I wouldn't use them as stand-alone sources or as authoritative opinions. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 15:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this opinion. While no offense is intended toward the publication or its writers, I don't see the reputation for accuracy we want with a reliable source. This could very well be simply a symptom of youth. Still, I would err on the side of caution as Santacruz has suggested. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The links above go to Linkedin profiles, for those of us who need to know. JBchrch talk 16:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Additional considerations apply/Wait and see. They do not identify outside contributions and have not published—as far as I can tell—any editorial guidelines about op-eds. Case in point: Debunking the ‘wokeism’ debates behind the inclusion of gender neutral pronouns in dictionaries is written by Louis Shankar, who is not on the payroll and works at UCL, but this is not indicated anywhere in this article. Another strange example is articles written by Alex Harris, who is not on the payroll either and for whom we have no description at all. Also, I don't see any publicly available editorial guideline for the staff itself (compare with the FT, the NYT, Vice and Vox.) JBchrch talk 16:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life

Hi all

I'm exploring doing a fairly large outreach project with Encyclopedia of Life and I wanted to know if there has been any discussion about it being a reliable source? I can't find anything in the archive. Currently EOL is used 7,764 times on English Wikipedia as a reference.

For reference EOL is run by taxonomists in the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, it collates data from many large biodiversity databases e.g Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), Barcode of Life (BOLD), Catalogue of Life (COL), Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), a full list of imports is available here.

Thanks very much

. John Cummings (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't find any previous discussions about EOL in specific either, but the list of participating institutions does look promising. Based on a very cursory look, I'd view it as reliable but WP:TERTIARY. The level of citation such as on this page is impressive. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be spearheaded by the Smithsonian Institution, which I would consider any work by them to be reliable in this field. This looks like a rock-solid source in terms of trustworthiness. This is not an amateur passion project, this is a professional, well-managed, trustworthy site run by a highly respected educational and research institution. No issues at all. --Jayron32 13:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much, this is helpful, if there's any questions I can ask them which would be helpful to understand the reliability better please let me know. My main question I have so far is how up to date the information is. John Cummings (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a "contact us" information page here. Someone there can probably answer your questions. --Jayron32 13:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I already have a meeting scheduled with them, I'm just trying to get as much information as I can about Wikipedia guidelines especially about species as I can before I meet with them. John Cummings (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's main project covering taxonomy and living things is Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. I'm not all that familiar with it, but it appears to be a very active project; you may try to post some questions there if you still have some. --Jayron32 17:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I found this discussion shortly after removing EOL as a source from Poa cita because EOL's info seemed plainly wrong. I documented this at Talk:Poa cita#Encyclopedia of Life as a source. I see that @CycoMa: asked about EOL's reliability two weeks ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Encyclopedia of Life and Talk:Baccharis articulata#reliability of EOL. Some food for thought at those discussions. Nurg (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has EOL not been functioning very well for some time? Like ½ the time i just get a blank page instead of the information I want. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Awkwafaba I've not experienced any issues with accessing EOL before and I've been using it quite a lot recently. John Cummings (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks like it is constructed by experts to select and curate trusted databases, and update its information through expert intermediation, and fully cited. Also, FYI, in case you have not read it, before your meeting, you may want to get your hands on at what appears to be a published 'proof of concept' article: Parr, C. S., N. Wilson, P. Leary, K. S. Schulz, K. Lans, L. Walley, J. A. Hammock, A. Goddard, J. Rice, M. Studer, J. T. G. Holmes, and R. J. Corrigan, Jr. 2014. "The Encyclopedia of Life v2: Providing Global Access to Knowledge About Life on Earth." Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1079, doi:10.3897/BDJ.2.e1079. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If the above recent objections are related to the fact that it calls itself "collaborative", that appears to just be a recognition that multiple well-respected organizations are contributing to it, not that it is an "open editing" free-for-all like Wikipedia. They appear to have editorial oversight and the site is well curated. Also, I will note that reliable is not a synonym for "perfect" or "errorless". The most reliable sources available in the world still have errors, and if you have found that one of their entries is in error, don't use that one entry (i.e. if other also reliable sources clearly disagree with EOL, use those instead). But on the balance, excepting individual demonstrated errors, I would trust the site. --Jayron32 14:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I did a test search (https://eol.org/pages/4500224/articles); One concern I have in this example is that if you click on "articles" much of the information is pulled from Wikipedia itself. I have seen third party sites citing Wikipedia create citation loops in the past where something is asserted without evidence on Wikipedia, another site uses the Wikipedia article as the source, and then Wikipedia cites the third party site that was itself citing Wikipedia, and there was never actually a source to begin with.Connorlong90 (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Once upon a time, EOL scraped Wikipedia's articles for scientific names. Kalanchoe rhimbopilosa is a misspelling of Kalanchoe rhombopilosa that originated on Wikipedia, and EOL had a record for the misspelling in 2013. Searching EOL for the misspelling now no longer returns any results. Presumably an EOL admin could determine the history of that record. If EOL still has any records for scientific names sourced only to Wikipedia (or other unreliable sites), I wouldn't consider EOL reliable. (please note, what I'm talking about is different from EOL serving up Wikipedia CONTENT that is clearly labelled as being sourced from Wikipedia; that practice continues to this day, and I don't object to it). Plantdrew (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Looking at EOL's treatment of Kalanchoe again, I'm noticing another problem. There are a whole bunch of synonymized species names that are listed as alternative names for the genus Kalanchoe, rather than than the accepted species.
E.g., Cotyledon deficiens Forssk. shouldn't be listed as a synonym of the genus Kalanchoe but should be listed in the synonymy of Kalanchoe deficiens (Forskål) Asch. & Schweinf. (EOL page for K. deficiens) I suspect the problem in this particular case is that an algorithm is supposed to match up homotypic synonyms based on authority strings, but the algorithm doesn't recognize that "Forssk." (the standard author abbreviation) and "Forskål", are the same person, Peter Forsskål.
In light of this, I would say EOL is not reliable for anything that's generated algorithmically (scraping names from unreliable sources, matching synonyms to accepted names). EOL means well, and the institutions behind it are reputable. If there are elements of EOL that are generated by humans (not algorithms), I'd still assume they are reliable unless somebody demonstrates otherwise (but I'm not sure which, if any, elements are human generated). Plantdrew (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Plantdrew thanks very much, they have a core set of human generated data and then some data from text mining, Wikipedia etc. Because EOL is a collation of many sources maybe one approach would be to assess its sources... Although that's probably a lot of work... John Cummings (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
However well managed, the EOL isn't always up-to-date: e. g. Pagodula carduelis ([8]), while the accepted name has become Enixotrophon carduelis since 2015 ([9]). There are many examples like this. This is not meant as criticism because taxonomy changes so rapidly that it is almost impossible to remain up-to-date. Therefore it is always better to check twice. JoJan (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Top 100 sources

Cleaning up some old edit filters. 554 prohibits the use of certain "top 100" websites (domains: "top100 *.blog", "*charly1300*", "*mickeycharts*", "atrl.net/forums", "hot100brasil.com" -- asterisk means any characters). I can't quite tell the history of how this filter came to be but I'm not sure referencing certain sites should be disallowed by the software unless either: (a) community consensus has been found to deprecate them (in which case they're added to 869); or (b) they've went through the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist process.

So... how should these sites be dealt with? Should they be added to spam blacklist, RfCs started for deprecation, or allow them entirely? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

ProtoThema

Proto Thema is not a reliable source in my opinion. It can be found 205 times across en.WP [10] There is sensationalism, lack of accuracy and their fact are not regularly checked.

  • A report for European Commission, posted by prof Anna Triandafyllidou (see also here) is devastating for ProtoThema. You can download the report from here
  • Media Bias Fact Check has a small essay on protothema.gr that supports the above view. [11]
  • Fact checking site Ellinika hoaxes has 188 entries on protothema.gr. [12] Ellinika Hoaxes is the sole Greek fact-checking org listed on WP:IFCN's signatories list
  • Another report (on greek media coverage of covid pandemic) shows the inadequate verifiability of protothema articles (see page 9 and esp page 14 use of links [13])

Worth noting that Protothema ranks among the biggest news portals in Greece in terms of articles posted per day and traffic. (see discussion here [14])

Poor fact checking plus sensationalism means does not stand against WP criteria for RS. I think it should be included at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with the indication "Generally unreliable" Cinadon36 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Is quebrada.net a reliable source?

  1. Source: https://www.quebrada.net/ A website focusing on reportage of Japanese Pro Wrestling and MMA events.
  2. Article: Unsure if has been applied yet. I'm considering utilizing this as a source for entries related 90s Pro Wrestling and MMA in Japan. Currently main target is Shoot Wrestler Volk Han.
  3. Content: I am considering using https://www.quebrada.net/matches/volkhanhalloftalent.html as citation for Volk Han regarding his Pro Wrestling and MMA career. Professional English language sources on this person are quite limited and details of his career is quite protected in Japanese-language works.
Um, is this the correct place to talk about this, here in wikipedia? -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a fine place to ask, but there are probably not many wikipedians who are both familiar with professional wrestling related sources and continuously watch this noticeboard. As a general observation, the website appears to be a self-published source, which has an very important consequence for use in biographies of living people: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see WP:BLPSPS). –Ljleppan (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Got it. Man, writing about "secretly influential" stuff is hard. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep; while the policies are in place for a good reasons, they can be frustrating. I searched Google Books for a bit and there were a few books about Japanese Pro Wrestling, but they too seemed to be self-published. Perhaps there are magazines that would be useful? -Ljleppan (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Possibly? I've used Volk Han's name's Japanese rendition to scour Amazon JP and there appear to a few magazines. Problem is that I can't read Japanese that well and the content of those magazines is out my hand. Good idea though.
Also there is possibly a Russian interview Магомедов, М. Волк-Хан: борьба продолжается. — М.: МГУК Тип. "Новости", 1998. — 143 с. which I am unable to find. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Independent Catholic News

https://www.indcatholicnews.com seems to be used across many pages.[15] I found it while cleaning up WP:PROMO issues on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign page. This quote, in itself, isn't particularly problematic:

"PSC was part of 2007's ENOUGH coalition to oppose the Israeli occupation of territories controlled since the 1967 Six-Day War."

However, looking at the "article"[16] Independent Catholic News seems to have re-posted a press release from activist orgs in their own voice in their news section. As such, it seems this entire source should be probably be declared unreliable.

I also did a search in here and it doesn't seem this website has been discussed before.

--Bob drobbs (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Not secondary source but could be used as convince link for primary sources when its WP:due Shrike (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
It should be avoided in my opinion. I have checked the first few articles that appear in their webpage. Articles do not have links to help verify claims, author of article is not always named, and when there is a name, there is no link to any bio details. Cinadon36 06:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

In WP:NEWSBLOG does the "opinion piece" link to WP:PRIMARY mean it is a primary source and should follow what's said there rather than say a secondary or tertiary source? Thanks. NadVolum (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It would depend on how it is used, but a newsblog containing opinion would usually be a primary source, since WP:RSOPINION sources are only usable as a WP:PRIMARY source for what the author thinks, never for statements of fact. We cannot cite an opinion in a way that implies that what they believe is true in the article voice. Keep in mind, however, that it can get a bit hazy because you can use an opinion piece to establish that someone believes something that would otherwise be secondary (ie. their personal interpretation or analysis), when that opinion is relevant; it's just that without the fact-checking that non-opinion sources get, we can only frame that as their opinion. The wording of NEWSBLOG also implies that there are some non-opinion uses for newsblogs (generally expert ones where there is reason to assume they get the fact-checking opinion pieces do not), but if it is being cited to establish its author's opinions, or if it is plainly written as commentary rather than reporting, then it is always primary. --Aquillion (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, yes that helped. NadVolum (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe that this query relates to an issue that recently arose at Julian Assange in which a Washington Post op-ed by two political scientists stated an opinion about Wikileaks' action in the 2016 US presidential election. If so, I believe that the question is not about the meaning of "opinion piece" but rather about whether and how such sources can be used. While in the context of that article, the content in question may be UNDUE and/or redundant, the issue raised on the talk page was whether it was permissable to cite that op-ed as a source for the authors' opiions, with attribution. I have no view as to whether this content or reference is DUE for the article, but for the avoidance of doubt, does anyone disagree that an op-ed in an RS publication can be used as a valid primary source, with attribution, fior the authors' opinions. The link to PRIMARY appears to me to relate to the use of such a reference for sourcing of fact in Wiki-voice, whcih is a different matter. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven, NadVolum, and Aquillion: fyi. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The talk page there goes on and on and is filled with incredible arguments. I wouldn't wish it onto this page. But if you want to check up on what led to this querey have a look at Talk:Julian_Assange#Baum,_Gussin_and_Podesta_speculations, and there is an RfC to remove a couple of statements involving this at Talk:Julian_Assange#RfC_Should_two_statements_in_the_2016_U.S._presidential_election_section_be_removed. NadVolum (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
As long as we attribute it, and make it clear it is just that writers' opinion is can be used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven, SPECIFICO, and Aquillion: Well I see Aquillion has been around since 2005 and you started in 2007 and and SPECIFICO in 2012 and you obviously disagree about whether one should take note of the link to WP:PRIMARY. So how exactly are disputes like this resolved? NadVolum (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we really disagree in an important way. The key point of my response is Keep in mind, however, that it can get a bit hazy because you can use an opinion piece to establish that someone believes something that would otherwise be secondary (ie. their personal interpretation or analysis), when that opinion is relevant; it's just that without the fact-checking that non-opinion sources get, we can only frame that as their opinion. Say, for instance, we have an opinion piece or NEWSBLOG column written by Professor Reliablepants, world's greatest academic expert on fascism; he says that in his expert opinion, such-and-such a thing is comparable to fascism. This piece would be a primary source for his opinions, but it's the kind of thing we're intended to use opinion pieces for. We could not use that source to say, in the article voice, "X is fascist", but we could us it to say "Professor Reliablepants, world's greatest academic expert on fascism, compared X to fascism" because then we're just reporting what he said - the fact that he said that is a straightforward fact citeable to a primary source. A newsblog by an established expert is clearly a decent source for opinion - it's in a venue that is otherwise reliable and it's someone whose opinion matters. At that point it becomes a question of WP:DUE weight rather than WP:RS - not everyone's opinions are as important as Professor Reliablepants, (and even Professor Reliablepants' opinions might not always be relevant) so the question is whether it's an opinion worth including at all, which is often harder to answer. I think newblogs are primary sources in most regards, but so are all other opinion pieces; it clearly doesn't make sense to omit opinion pieces purely because they're published as a newsblog (since that's, generally speaking, going to be high-quality as sources for opinions go), and it doesn't make sense to bar opinion pieces from being used to report someone else's interpretation and analysis as long as it's being clearly attributed to them and is otherwise WP:DUE - we just have to avoid treating it as fact in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
What is in the article is "Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls."
"Why it's entirely predictable that Hillary Clinton's emails are back in the news". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 November 2016.
I objected to it that the actual releases did not seem to do that at all. But that was objected to "No, it means they said it, not that it's true. And wp:OR cant be used to analyze and dismiss RS (they are wp:rs because they are assumed to do researches before they publish). What you do not seem to understand is our policies."
So I looked through and found #3 in WP:PRIMARY "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." And no one has found a secondary sourtce tha refers to what they said or says what they said. Does this bit of PRIMARY not apply once one puts in an attribution? NadVolum (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
What the article says is "But perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks, strategically releasing hacked emails, and thereby demanding media attention, whenever Clinton’s lead expands." This was in a note at the end of an aricle where they did actually check the correlation between newspaper articles and her standing in the polls, but they just gave one instance of where this conjecture held and it doesn't seem to apply in any other case. NadVolum (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC).
"Person X believes Y" is a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact that anyone with access to the source can determine. We cannot imply that their beliefs are correct based solely on a primary citation to an opinion piece, and must be careful to confine ourselves to attributing what they actually say; but we can say that it is their opinion. The question then becomes "is this person's opinion relevant and noteworthy", which is a matter of due weight (related to things like their expertise, their reputation, whether they're someone whose opinion on the topic is manifestly relevant, etc.) I broadly agree that opinion pieces are sometimes overused with the intent to make an argument rather than to illustrate an opinion and that it's important to be cautious - there is a risk of editors dropping in opinions simply because they like what they say or for WP:FALSEBALANCE reasons - but obviously, as an abstract question, we can cite an opinion piece for things that would normally require a secondary source if stated in the article voice sometimes, otherwise there would be no real use for opinion pieces at all. Likewise, "I think they're wrong" (which amounts to "I disagree with this opinion") isn't enough of an argument to remove an opinion, but "I think we're summarizing them wrong" is obviously a reasonable argument, since we do have to be very cautious when summarizing opinions. Similarly, if you're right and they are wrong, then "I think this is undue, these people have no expertise so their opinions don't matter, and / or the opinion they're expressing is fringe-y or at least too weird or obscure for us to cover" is often going to be a reasonable argument that follows from that (in the sense that eg. talking heads with no qualifications or other bad sources for WP:RSOPINION are often wrong); but that requires looking at both their expertise and where they're published in order to discuss the weight due to them - if Professor Reliablepants writes an opinion-piece in his area of expertise in a top-tier source then it's hard to ignore it. The further you get from there, the hazier it becomes. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
NadVolum, the three of us do not disagree. I believe it is just a situation in whcih you have not accepted what the three of us have said (first at the article talk page and now here.) Again, the content may be UNDUE, but it should not be rejected out of hand as a primary source for fact in Wiki-voice when it is attributed.That kind of reference (appropriately used) is quite common including in many BLPs. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not see how WP:DUE can be used. There is just that one article saying that. There is no article I can see that gives any opinion on how Assange chose the dates of releases besides what he said himself about timing a release for the Democratic National Convention and Podesta's speculation about the Hollywood Tapes. Slatersteven said "You need an RS saying their facts are wrong." NadVolum (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The other part of PRIMARY I pointed to was point 1 "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" saying it was an exceptional claim because it seemed to be wrong, but they said just attributing was good enough. SPECIFICO said "Their opinion is attributed. That is fully in accord with what's written at all of the links you've cited. REDFLAG is not applicable. A reliably published opinion is a valid primary source for that opinion, and that's all anyone has ever said here". 23:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven, SPECIFICO, and Aquillion: NadVolum (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I've set up WT:V#NEWSBLOG_reference_to_opinion_piece saying the link at opinion piece should be removed as there's no requirement for PRIMARY to be followed when it comes from a reliable source and is attributed like it says there. NadVolum (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

World Air Force directory published by Magazine Flight Global (user generated) is this a reliable source

I would like to validate what the value or status is of the annual World Air Force directory published (free of charge) by Flight Global magazine as it is often referred to as source on Wikipedia prevailing over other sources or even official sources such a Ministeries of Defence, Aircraft manufacturers or National Air Forces. Please have a look at the Belgian Air Component and Netherlands Air Force pages on Wikipedia (updates/revert/undo discussions).

Hope you can be of help

The annual World Air Force directory published by Flight Global is not user generated, despite what the OP says in the heading, and is a good and reliable source - note that it is only published once a year, so won't include changes after its publication date, and it has exclusions (i.e. it normally doesn't include VIP aircraft and General Aviation types, and when listing in service numbers, it only includes aircraft that the are recorded as being in use (i.e. not including aircraft that are in long term storage or under maintenance, modification or repair).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The directory has been published once a year for many decades in print as part of the Flight International magazine, a highly respected publication since 1909. In later times the directory is made available online the same as the printed version. I am not sure how anybody can mistake the editorial team of Flight International as "user generated". As already been said like all such annual reviews it is not 100% accurate after the date of publishing but for wikipedia purposes it is a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Flight is one of the great names in aviation publishing and you will not find a more reliable or authoritative source. Its annual directory can of course differ from other reliable sources where its inclusion criteria or date of compilation differ, that is something article editors need to be on top of and check their facts and figures carefully. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A bit of help is needed in determining the reliability of the listed sources. Some of them are fairly obvious cases, but I'd still like to document them here to avoid misuse in the future.

beatportal.com

For series of articles on history of music genres like [17] or [18]. It has come up here before, but the results have not been too clear-cut. While the listed articles seem objective enough to be referenced on wikipedia. The authors' names can also be found on google - it's often freelance writers/musicians who also write for other major publications such as djmag.com. Solidest (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

masterclass.com

For hundreds of articles about music genres like [19] or [20]. It is probably obviously unreliable but it would be best to write about it here, as this source is already used on wikipedia in many articles. Solidest (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

otaquest.com

For articles like [21] or [22]. Solidest (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

stereofox.com

For articles on music genres like [23] or [24]. Solidest (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

world.lovinkproject.com

For articles like [25]. Solidest (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

theprospectordaily.com

For articles like [26]. Solidest (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

zizacious.com

For articles like [27]. Solidest (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Boomer magazine

It can be found here[28]. Is this a reliable source. An IP edited into the this article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Short answer, no! --SVTCobra 06:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I 'd say it is best to avoid. Cinadon36 20:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not the best source, but the article does cite its own sources; it is clearly paraphrasing the actor's own memoir. Sources that tell you where they get their information from is itself a hallmark of reliability. It's a fairly light source, but I don't find it problematic. The copyvio, which cribbed the sentence word-for-word from the source, is a problem, but I am not entirely bothered by this citation. I would put this particular article in the "not great, but probably okay here" camp. I wouldn't try to use it for a lot of things, but this usage seems okay. Even better would be to get a copy of the memoir and cite it directly, but barring that, I'm not all that bothered here. --Jayron32 02:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

sozcu.com.tr

I've noticed that @Keivan.f has been adding strange-looking sources to Draft:Yurdaer Okur, such as: [29], [30], [31].

It's odd that three different Turkish publishers seem to have almost the exact same text. It's suggestive that all three may have been plagiarised from trwiki or some common source, at some time in the past.

In a comment on my talk page this user mentioned that the sources he used for our English language article may have been lifted from the Turkish Wikipedia article about this subject.

I've noticed that the publications used in this draft that lifted Turkish Wikipedia articles have been used extensively on English Wikipedia:

The fact that these sources simply copy Wikipedia articles a common source without giving credit gives me cause for concern about this source. Perhaps these publications should be flagged as potentially problematic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Keivan.f replied here User:Salimfadhley/spam, it seems that
I misunderstood. The article in enwiki was translated (including sources) from trwiki. The trwiki article was just sourced badly. I'm still concerned about these sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Salimfadhley: Just to clarify so that the users can understand what happened, I thought we were able to use secondary sources, specifically national newspapers whether they be English or not, as long as they were not listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Though it seems that in this case Sözcü, Akşam and Habertürk had identical content, which I didn't pay attention to and cannot really understand why. I even added CNN Türk as a reference, though I haven't checked to see if it has the same content or not. In any case, I merely translated the article from Turkish Wikipedia and checked the translated info with the sources. I don't think I'm at fault here, since I haven't broken any specific rules. I have merely used these sources because they appeared to be reliable based on their status (note that they are not tabloids). So if User:Salimfadhley or other users are concerned about these sources, then the right course of action would be to put them up for discussion. That will save me and other users the confusion of whether we can use them or not. Keivan.fTalk 20:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Keivan.f, first of all I was wrong to accuse you of being a spammer. Please accept my apologies. I understand that you were simply translating an article from Turkish into English.
I do remain concerned about all three sources: They all have pretty much the same text which seems quite similar (but not the same) as the article about this subject on trwiki. The fact that they are national newspapers who are widely cited on Wikipedia only makes me more concerned about their editorial policy. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Salimfadhley: I totally understand your concerns. In fact, I should have been more careful and compared the content of these sources to each other (which I will probably have to do in the future). I guess they can be considered reliable when reporting on actual news or events, but I think their bio pages for politicians and celebrities need to be double checked. It seems that they either copy from Turkish Wikipedia or from each other based on what you just explained. I think I will take the matter to the admins of Turkish Wikipedia as well. My personal opinion is that it would be best to list them as partially reliable, similar to a number of sources listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Keivan.fTalk 20:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It is always delightful to see wikipedians discussing in such civil manner. In any case, what do we know of the reputation of each media? Are there any RS or fact checking sites that might be of any help? Cinadon36 20:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, edit warring and fighting is never the solution in my opinion, so I'm glad we were able to discuss it without an issue. Regarding the subject, I am not an expert when it comes to using computer tools, but just to clarify what I meant by partially reliable I felt the need to point out that Sözcü has been used a couple of times in the article on Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. So when it comes to news reporting I guess they publish their own original content. I also went back to the CNN Türk reference that I listed in that draft and compared its text to the others in Google Translate and I noticed that it also contains info that is very close to what we have on the Turkish page (though it would be better if someone double checked). Now obviously CNN Türk is a reputable source, so it makes me wonder if it's a problem with the editorial policy of the Turkish media in general when it comes to publishing biographies. Or maybe they can simply copy info from Wikipedia due to our own policy of free content, but in that case they cannot be used as sources. Keivan.fTalk 20:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Unless someone provides a RS claiming that any of these sites are at least decent, I would be hesitant to use them. Site traffic and large circulation are not indicators of reliability (maybe the contrary applies) Cinadon36 07:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
If they just straight up copy WP they are not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

id.loc.gov

Is [32] a BLP-good source for Heather Wolfe's year of birth and names? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe we can trust the Library of Congress for plain data. Cinadon36 07:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Unless the DOB of a BLP is widely covered in reliable secondary sources, we should leave it out of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish YOB, not DOB, see WP:DOB. My reading is that YOB doesn't need "widely covered." That said, I also have a "matching" WSJ-article for "she was this old when we wrote the article." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, sorry I misread. Should be fine for confirming the year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Commentary video of a specific film by director, released through company

Well, is Warner Bros. Entertainment youtube channel's commentary video reliable only if it is used in Joker (2019 film)? Reiro (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I lean towards no. It is primary work, by a non-independent source. Better to avoid. Cinadon36 06:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cinadon36: Thanks for your answer. Then, how about this way? In Vanity Fair video, Philips state on vfx work, erasing skylines of Gotham city intentionally. Vanity Fair is surely independent source. So, could I use Vanity Fair video as reference, and Warner Bros video as Fair Use image? They says same vfx contents. Reiro (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
You are confusing me a bit, Reiro. What is it you want to use from these sources? I am quite confident that images will not be fair use. What are you trying to do? Isolate a frame of of something? --SVTCobra 07:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Vanity fair seems much better source and you can use it. See Wikipedia:VANITYFAIR. Anyway, since it is an interview I would advice not to overuse it, or use it at controversial points, since interviews are primary sources. Now on Fair Use, I cannot advice since I do not have any experience on that field. I hope another fellow wikipedian will jump in and say a few words.Cinadon36 08:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I needed to additional explain to you. I would like to shows a scene of Gotham city inJoker, before vfx work's and after in this way; I think it is surely helpful to describe intention of directer.I inspired this idea from Black Widow (2021 film), also having a frame which shows two different version before/after vfx work.
@Cinadon36 and SVTCobra: Thank you for your advice.--Reiro (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Age of a history book. How old is considered too old to be cited?

A few days ago an editor reverted my edits stating that the source is too old. A couple of days later another editor reverted my edit stating that there is no policy that prohibits citing older sources. Now I am confused. How old is considered too old to be cited? Especially in historical articles? Akshaypatill (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no bright line rule, see WP:AGE MATTERS. Basically it says that the scholarly consensus may change and in that case we follow modern sources. Age itself is not a good enough reason for removing sourced info. Alaexis¿question? 08:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no line, I agree with the comment above, but can you provide us with more info, if you ld like a more specific reply? Cinadon36 09:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Akshaypatill, good question, but I don't know an easy general answer, some guidance at WP:AGE MATTERS.
Context matters and reasonable people may disagree. A historical work with good reputation can have a long shelf life. IMO, 20th and even 19th century works can be ok on subjects like, say, Shakespeare or some religion topics. If you try to use Josephus or Herodotus without a "middle-man" I probably won't like it. I recently added a cite to a 1577 book, but that was more as a primary "bonus" cite, I had a newer work quoting it as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
See for example this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_61#100_years_is_the_limit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Concurr with the above. However, if the topic in question concerns history of India (I see your edits on the Tipu Sultan article), even more caution is needed (nationalistic POV-pushing was the norm in this area even in the Raj era, especially in the Raj era). Best to use modern high quality sources for any contentious topic (eg. religious policy). Pavlor (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Right, if it's about India WP:RAJ can be relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Pavlor This is a general question. I prefer using the books that are already cited in the article. However, I have encountered quite a few incidents where an editor comes and reverts my edits stating that the source is too old, though the source is already being used in the article. Akshaypatill (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This is indeed awkward but there could be a reasonable explanation. An old book might be fine to back a plain fact or a non-controversial opinion but it might not be such a good source for grounding an extraordinary claim or provide analysis. Cinadon36 10:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Akshaypatill: The fact that a source is already used in an article is not a good criterion. The source might be used in a different context and properly flagged as historical (e.g. "according to XXX", and further supported/assessed by a modern secondary source), or it simply has evaded earlier scrutiny. –Austronesier (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no limit. There is only context. As sources age, they can often become less relevant for current contemporary consensus, however they are certainly useable (and would expect to be used) to demonstrate the historical view/analysis or even primary accounts of events, but you would expect them to be accompanied by a newer source giving context. Newer sources are preferred for analysis and there are not that many topics on which the research literature has not changed or evolved, or at a minimum had an update saying 'yep' in the last 100 years. This is generally why this noticeboard needs a diff so people can see the context in which a source is used. Even for particularly problematic areas like the Raj era in India, there are historical sources which are valuable *given sufficient explanatory context*. Almost all of our Raj source problems are with people using Raj sources without context, or to deliberately skew something to a historical viewpoint which we know is no longer the case due to more recent research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, OID. Succinctly said. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

goodwordnews.com

Goodwordnews.com is a consolidator site which does machine translation of other sites, notably Russia Today. Bad MT, I should add. See for example, Zemmour tances BHL during a debate, a comically bad translation from the French RT article «Vous êtes le porte-parole parfait de l'Etat profond américain» : Zemmour tance BHL lors d'un débat. (Have a look at the GWN link; you don't need to know a word of French to see what a joke it is.) This site is currently being used at Eric Zemmour.

Since RT itself is already rated 'generally unreliable' (here), and this site is so, so much worse, I was hoping we could rate GWN as "double secret unreliable" for posterity. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently not RS. (Gen Unreliable). Removed, added {{cn}}. [33]. Cinadon36 08:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Super (and fast); thanks! Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Obviously unreliable. Already had to remove some of its mentions at Eric Zemmour in the past. Endorse double secret unreliable. JBchrch talk 00:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is Crunchbase News (not the Crunchbase database) a reliable news source?

Crunchbase News (https://news.crunchbase.com) has its own editorial and has a disclosure on how their newsroom is independent from the Crunchbase public / user-generated database. Here is their explanation: https://news.crunchbase.com/about-news/ I know that Crunchbase itself is not a reliable source because it is a user-generated database per WP:CRUNCHBASE, but what about the Crunchbase News? Is it reliable for the purpose of verifiability? Z22 (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

How should we list it on WP:RSP?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Additional considerations apply. For example, do not used to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability, only for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Check author is Crunchbase News staff (not a guest author). Check content if it is just pulling a press release.
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

I think Option 2 is reasonable. If caution is given, certain contents can be useful knowledge. For example, here is an example that shows a certain level of analysis of Crunchbase News by comparing and contrasting two approaches in attracting companies to New Jersey. We should not just deprecate Crunchbase News in a broad brush. Z22 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Crunchbase News)

This was previously discussed here. It's a business boosterism source. This is similar to its original parent, TechCrunch, which is not regarded as generally reliable either - per WP:RSP, "Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability." That is, it's business boosterism spam and not a Reliable Source. It may not lie as such, but that doesn't make it WP:DUE, and it has already-noted issues in that regard.
In my experience, Crunchbase at all is an absolutely reliable way to find spam and advert-like editing, whose article subject should often be deleted, and Crunchbase News is no better. If you write an article dependent upon either, you should find actual RSes.
I see absolutely nothing that Wikipedia would have to gain from putting in a special carve-out for the questionably-reliable section of a deprecated source - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Crunchbase and TechCrunch have been separate since 2015. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Clarified to "its original parent" - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Removed "RFC" tag - you're conspicuously not bringing up a case you have in mind - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have been an editor for quite some time but still new to initiating an RfC process. Please let me know if I still miss something. Thank you. Z22 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Literally per the top of WP:RSN: Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source. - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Here's a good example. Crunchbase News was used to simply source the headquarters and employee count for a company. Pretty uncontroversial stuff, that can easily be verified using other sources, yet the info was removed along with the Crunchbase News source. [[34]] I restored the missing info, and started a discussion on the editor's talk page, with a request to not remove further Crunchbase News sources and accompanying info until consensus is reached. Despite this, the editor removed the info again. [[35]] He also replied that he felt he could ignore consensus, citing WP:BUREAUCRACY. [[36]]. Not wanting to edit war, I moved on. This discussion and its limited participation shows that the community does not unilaterally agree that Crunchbase News sources should be removed. And stating that this isn't a big deal because Crunchbase News isn't used that much ignores the fact that the sources have been removed. Unless we go through the editors' edit history, there's no way to know how many of them were Crunchbase and how many were Crunchbase News. As this mass erasure continues, I'm still waiting to see even a few examples of how even Crunchbase is incorrect. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Crunchbase News)

  • No carveout for the news outlet. Churnalism is only a slight laundering of straight-up press releases, presented to readers as being actual journalism rather than a promotional imitation of journalism, and is a net negative to Wikipedia that should not be enabled or encouraged. The content of Crunchbase News is barely-churned press releases (e.g., examples previously used as supposed sources on Wikipedia: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]) with a bit of the sort of "analysis" that's indistinguishable from boosterism (e.g., [42]). You'd have to be really stretching to consider this in any way comparable to independent third-party journalism on the companies. Even if we declare that the "news" site isn't technically deprecated, it's the sort of stuff that's at best a slightly worse version of the primary sources it's based on. If you want verifiability, use the original press releases. Unusable for notability - it's precisely the sort of promotional boosterism that leads to funding rounds having been considered not usable for notability or WP:CORPDEPTH - and barely usable for facts. Even in non-spam articles, Crunchbase or Crunchbase News adds information primarily of interest to the company's boardroom. As far as Wikipedia goes, Crunchbase is in practice a trashy source largely used for puffery, and looking for Crunchbase links is a good way to track down promotional editing. Wikipedia will gain nothing from a special carveout only useful to promotional editors - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No carveout for the "News" site per the above. It's churnalism/boosterism; if anything they say is worth saying, someone else will say it. The one argument in the prior discussion that I could in principle find persuasive was that they had been linked to by Forbes (and in a staff-written item, not a "contributor" one). But I'd need to see a sustained pattern of multiple reliable sources treating it as reliable and using content from it in a serious, in-depth way, rather than merely giving a link to back up a number. Reliable sources link all the time to things we wouldn't call RS: press releases, social-media statements, etc. We can't just assume that reliability is transitive. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - generally reliable. While the regular Crunchbase site itself is sometimes user contributed, similar to IMDB, there's no indication that it's any more or less accurate that professionally curated databases such as Bloomberg. It is a handy way for different corporate funding announcements to be consolidated to see a company's total funding to date. If any info is incorrect, it can be easily fixed. I encourage anyone writing it off to point to data errors. For the source under question here, Crunchbase News is a separate editorial entity, and while some of its corporate coverage is seeded by press releases, the writers usually provide additional background and info, including interviews. I also encourage those in opposition to the news organization to come up with 2-3 instances of Crunchbase News reporting that has been shown to be inaccurate. As XOR'easter pointed out, there's an example (which I identified) where a Forbes journalist references Crunchbase News' reporting. See the blue link on [[43]]. If it's good enough for a major news organization, volunteer amateur editors striving for accuracy should be afforded the same opportunity. If concrete examples of inaccuracy don't exist to justify removing good information en masse, isn't this just at best WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and at worst disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia? Is it better for editors of company articles to source Crunchbase for a total funding number, or have to hunt down sometimes up to 6 or 7 different funding announcements in sources besides Crunchbase, and source them all, and then do WP:SYNTH to get the total? Over the past year, I've seen many Crunchbase sources removed from the articles I've written or contributed to, and not one has been inaccurate. So in conclusion, we need examples of inaccurate info before either Crunchbase or Crunchbase News can be deprecated. Pinging @David Gerard: as a courtesy, even though I know he'll see this anyway. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or do not list at al1 - go ahead and use it, per prior discussions in Archive 350 and 321 etcetera. This is a different animal than Crunchbase or blog and was noted as having RS qualities. But I have to point out also this seems Option 1 if listed as there seems no reason to ask this question or have any RSP listing let alone restrict it in any way as there seems not to be specific disputes let alone “perennial” questions here, and WP does not have much usage of the news.crunchbase.com to have a discussion *about*. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 They appear to have editorial staff and publish good content. LondonIP (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 as a publication written by professsional staff. General caveats for corporate coverage apply: reliability is not the same as notability (either in the WP:N sense of whether a topic should have a standalone article, or in the sense of whether a piece of information is worth mentioning in an article). feminist (+) 10:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 news sites do not provide material that is reliable to encyclopedic standards. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Think tank source being cited to contradict reliable sources

In the Pushbacks in Greece article, an editor is attempting to shoehorn in criticism of Turkey from a think tank article credited to "Middle East Research Intern". This article claims that in early 2020 Turkey engaged in "coercive engineered migration". Other sources such as such as New York Times reporting or a peer-reviewed academic article do not support that widespread coercion was used by Turkey. Can we get more eyes on this? (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC) s

Pardon my scepticism, but is Crete, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Majorca, Rhodes, or Cyprus involved here? Friedman on the lifeboat (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
There are many other sources which describe the behaviour of Turkey in the same or similar words [44], [45], [46]. Alaexis¿question? 12:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Alaexis, I checked the sources you provided and none of these say that Turkey is forcing refugees to go to Greece. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I see it in the very first paragraph of The Hill article
Alaexis¿question? 21:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
First of all, it's an opinion piece so it wouldn't be considered a reliable source for factual claims. Second, it's not disputed that Turkey encouraged people to cross the border, at least for a brief period of time, but there's no evidence that widespread force or coercion was used. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
They didnt need to use any coercion or force, they just told all the refugees the border to Europe was open and watched them run into Greek guns. When you have fled somewhere like Syria, you dont need any more encouragement than "Hey guys, Europe's that way!" Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Here's an excerpt from an article in Washington Post Weaponizing refugees and migrants has become a political strategy for countries at Europe’s periphery... In some cases, this strategy works. In 2016, Turkey negotiated an unprecedented $7 billion in foreign aid and other concessions in return for keeping Syrian refugees within Turkey’s borders. And this is from the NYT Friday’s events were widely seen as his attempt to weaponize both the desperation of migrants and the xenophobia of Europe.It was the ninth time, in fact, that the Turkish president has promised to send a new surge of refugees Europe’s way. Whether Mr. Erdogan was merely dangling the threat again, or will unleash a full-blown crisis remains to be seen.. Alaexis¿question? 20:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(unindent) Here's another reliable source (Vice News) that basically states that the 2020 border crisis was engineered [47], i.e., backs what BiC says. And the NYT article linked above begins with The country is winding down an aggressive two-week operation to move tens of thousands of migrants to its frontiers. But relations with Greece and Europe have suffered.. "The country" here refers to Turkey. Khirurg (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the "engineered" part has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Regarding the existence of coercion, I think that if there is only one think tank which says it it should be mentioned according to WP:DUE. Alaexis¿question? 20:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I took a look at this "Brussels International Center" and couldn't find much. It's sometimes used as a source by a website called The Libya Observer but that's more or less it, unless I missed something. Based on this, it just looks like any other obscure think tank; if the use of coercion can't be sourced to other sources, this is certainly not due nor does it appear to have any verifiable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, interns publishing reports is not something in their favor. Also, the term "coercive engineered migration" appears to be invented by the report, which is undue for reasons that should be obvious. By the way, the actual discussion on the article's content should be moved to the article's talk page. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The center or the article have literally zero clout. I tried to look up the author of this 'policy brief', a certain Arthur Jennequin, but there are no mentions of him anywhere else apart from the BIC. The report itself doesn't bother mentioning his credentials. Here we can see that he was a research intern. As Tayi Arajakate pointed out, publishing reports written entirely by interns is poor practice and reflects very badly on their reliability. The center itself does not seem to have received any significant attention in literature, their reports aren't exactly well-cited. I can see no evidence that this think-tank has proper fact-checking mechanisms in place. The center and this specific report cannot be considered RS for anything remotely contentious. --GGT (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Newspapers should not be treated as reliable sources for political articles. Do any academic sources refer to Turkey's actions? Because otherwise Wikipedia can just not comment on the issue until reliable sources become available. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

OffGuardian

I think that this website ([48]) has been regarded unreliable by most editors, yet I still think that some editors might use this source to write articles in good faith (not knowing that it publishes misinformation that has never been accepted by MSM on earth), so I beg that this website be deprecated, since it claims that Natural News is reliable (How Google and Wikipedia Brainwash You – OffGuardian (off-guardian.org)), despite the fact that Natural News is a fake news website (Google delists Mike Adams’ Natural News website. Was it because of fake news? | Science-Based Medicine), and it downplays the COVID-19 pandemic.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. From their "about" sections, it seems that their contributors or top-editors, hadn't had any training at journalism. They were commenters in The-Guardian. I checked an article,[49] and first noticed that the author is named but not details on his bio are given. After making the case of a conspiracy theory, it closes with "It has been pointed out that “Omicron” is an anagram of “moronic” One wonders if that’s deliberate and they’re making fun of us." Deprecated. Cinadon36 07:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Currently used in five articles (although I'll look at and edit them shortly!). It is on a level with GlobalResearch or InfoWars: it is a pure conspiracy theory site that should not be used here, which is particularly dangerous in the context of the pandemic, which has become their major topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Just going through some of the uses and noticed one where the editor appears to have thought the citation was The Guardian because of Off-Guardian's visual brand mimics it, which seems to me a potential reason to deprecate rather than simply designate as unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree. It shows all the signs of being unreliable. Autarch (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. The OP supplied zero examples of misuse and a prior commenter supplied a link which currently points only to talk pages, except for one article: Piers Robinson. And that's a cite of a book review by Piers Robinson. Taking this suggestion seriously would strengthen my case that the "definition" of deprecation is erroneous, see discussion at Deprecated sources section of WP:RS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Re Peter Gulutzan- I removed the other uses; there were previously five. All were obviously undue even if the site wouldn't be considered unreliable. I'll give some examples of their not only bad but dangerous reporting in a moment. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Factcheck organisation Health Feedback has found them to be promoting health disinformation numerous times, e.g. on PCR tests, on COVID facticles, at least twice, and on COVID mortality rates (this last is particularly striking: ion July 2020 OffGuardian claimed nobody had died from COVID!). Polifact has debunked their Covid claims. Dutch daily NU.nl has debunked their COVID claims a few times: This English-language website regularly spreads untruths about the coronavirus. In the OffGuardian piece , it was said during a WHO meeting that, based on estimates, 10 percent of the world's population has been infected with the corona virus. According to OffGuardian , the WHO admits that COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the flu... OffGuardian makes a wrong assumption.[50] no one has died from COVID-19. This claim appeared online on May 13 on the website of the Bulgarian Pathologists Association. This message was only distributed outside Bulgaria on July 2 by the English-language website OffGuardian. This website is known for its conspiracy theories.[51] Austrian fact-checkers Mimikama cover the same story, reaching the same conclusions,[52] and so does Indonesia's Tirto.[53] German public service broadcaster [Bayerischer Rundfunk|BR] mentions it as a source for fake news in a debunking of a Swiss medical disinfo site.[54] Romanian daily Adevărul reported an interview with noted misinformation purveyor Sucharit Bhakdi was published on the marginal English-language Off-Guardian fake news site (a kind of off-journalism journalism) and framed in a text with quotes from other benevolent "teachers" spreading in unison various "pseudo-theories" about coronavirus... The offGuardian site was created in 2015 and contains misinformation stories pro-Kremlin. Many of the articles published in the past were anti-Ukrainian. The site itself is part of the category of portals that systematically distribute conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific narratives.
Moving on to less robust but still useful sources, StopFake described their launch: "Among the various English-language promoters of Russian propaganda, a website called OffGuardian drew attention to itself recently by praising a visit to occupied Crimea by Symphonic Brass Wales... Among the various English-language promoters of Russian propaganda, a website called OffGuardian drew attention to itself recently by praising a visit to occupied Crimea by Symphonic Brass Wales... As its name suggests, OffGuardian was allegedly created by people who were tired of being censored by the moderators of the Guardian’s comments section, so many of its articles attempt to pull apart articles in the Guardian and other “MSM” outlets. In line with the Kremlin’s goals, OffGuardian seeks to undermine trust in “mainstream media”." Media Bias, although itself not reliable, rates it "conspiracy-psuedoscience" and says OffGuardian also frequently promotes conspiracy theories regarding GMOs such as Post-Brexit Farming, Glyphosate, and GMOs. Although this story utilizes some credible sources, it also cites Mercola, a website promoting quackery-level pseudoscience. They also promote 9/11 conspiracies such as The Fakest Fake News: The U.S. Government’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. They frequently cover False Flags and the US Deep State conspiracy as well as anti-vaccination propaganda, linking to examples. The Jewish Chronicle notes that it was the source for an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Enough? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley: Polifact should be PolitiFact.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley:: Enough to indicate there should be no deprecation. Your references are to sites that aren't about what the top of this page asks for ("Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.") and that means Wikipedia examples -- which you still didn't supply, but after considerable effort I managed to find three of your edits: on Everybody Loves a Good Drought (Notthebestusername thought it was The Guardian), on Banking Nature (a film review which was in external links not a cite), and on Army column incident in Tuzla (a cite for "33 wounded"). Incidentally I think your edit on that last one was odd, the item "33 wounded" was clearly tagged "unreliable source" but you removed the tag along with the source, so "33 wounded" is still there without a warning. Anyway, I see you didn't touch Piers Robinson, and am assuming you realized that cite was okay. So what's left? Where is the evidence that there's been disruption caused by the existence of off-guardian? The effect would be suppression of a heretic-opinion site because an OP thinks -- actual quote -- editors "might use" it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks RekishiEJ. Re Peter Gulutzan I guess I misunderstood your point; I misread you as asking for examples of its unreliablity not it's misuse here. You are arguing that there is no need to deprecate as it is not used, rather than that it is not bad enough to deprecate? Maybe that's right (although the confusion with the real Guardian might be a reason), but I hope we can establish a consensus that it is not just generally unreliable but actively deceptive. You're right too about the 33 wounded; I thought I deleted that claim too, and have now. I wasn't sure if the usage in the Piers Robinson article was OK, as it seemed noteworthy, but there is a secondary source present so should probably also go to. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I did say "examples of misuse". I don't think that a strange mistake about the name should qualify as a deprecation argument, surely there have been times when The Times has been confused with some paper in New York. For the cite of Piers Robinson I have brought the matter up on what I regard as the appropriate discussion board, the talk page for Piers Robinson. Notice that, if there was deprecation, even this innocent post on a talk page would probably result in a filter warning and could even be blocked. 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Impressive work @BobFromBrockley:, the argument for deprecation stands stronger now, as I see it. Cinadon36 19:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of WP:RS explanation of "deprecation"

This hasn't had much notice here - there's discussion of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources_section_of_WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

president.az

Is [55] a reliable source for Hayat Abdullayeva? Note that the source is used to support the claim that "Over the years of her creative activity, H. Abdullayeva has also created a number of major works, including the sculpture of Maxim Gorky, installed on the pediment of the National Library named after M. F. Akhundov, the bronze sculptures of the famous actor Huseyngulu Sarabsky, of the statesman and poet Shah Ismail Khatai, the monument-busts of Khurshidbanu Natavan and the one of the poet Vagif in the city of Shusha", none of which is mentioned in the source. Vexations (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks reasonably reliable for what it says, although I believe it is unreliable for words not contained in the source, as are most sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
If the source does not mention the text that it is supposed to be citing, you should remove the text from Wikipedia. This is not a reliability issue, this is a WP:V issue. Sources have to actually contain the information that is being used to write Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 12:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
There are two issues; a) can it be used to support a specific claim (obviously not) and b) can it be used to say anything at all about the subject of the article? (Context: It is a press release from the office of a dictator.) Vexations (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

SSCD

Four sources I found refer to Garad Jama Garad Ali as by the abbreviation "garad of SSCD", namely [56], [57], [58], [59]. Are those sources sufficient to place this abbreviation in the body of the article? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The Diplomat

Currently, The Diplomat (thediplomat.com) is listed at WP:RSP as "generally reliable" with the summary: "There is consensus that The Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics."

However, I'm wondering if this should perhaps be reevaluated, with an added disclaimer similar to Forbes, which not only distinguishes between it's print magazine and it's website, but especially (in this case) makes a further distinction regarding its various authors (Staff writers vs. Contributors):

RSP entry for Forbes magazine

Forbes magazine is listed at RSP as "generally reliable" with the summary: "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors."

RSP entry for Forbes.com website

Meanwhile, Forbes.com, the website, is listed as "generally unreliable" with the summary: "Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". See also: Forbes.

As for the Diplomat, I've noted there can be a difference among contributing authors. Here are two examples;

  1. Franz-Stefan Gady: "Franz-Stefan Gady is a Research Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) focused on future conflict and the future of war. Follow him on Twitter.

    Franz-Stefan Gady is a Fellow with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London and a columnist for The Diplomat. He is the author of a number of monographs and book chapters on Asian and European security issues.

    Franz-Stefan was a Senior Editor with The Diplomat. He has also reported from a wide range of countries and conflict zones including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. His writing and photos have appeared in The International New York Times, BBC News, Foreign Affairs Magazine, Foreign Policy, The Christian Science Monitor, and Slate among other publications.

    His analysis has been featured in The Financial Times and The Wallstreet Journal [sic], and on Al Jazeera and PBS, among others.

    Follow him on Twitter.

    "
  2. Rick Joe: "Rick Joe is a longtime follower of Chinese military developments, with a focus on air and naval platforms.

    His content and write ups are derived from cross examination of open source rumors and information. He is active on Reddit and can be found on Twitter.

    "

Example #1 is likely to be a reliable author, whereas example #2... maybe not so much. I'm thinking that if something to the effect of: "Each contributing author should be evaluated not only on their content, but the information provided about them in their individual bios." was added to the summary for The Diplomat at RSP, this could be beneficial. Thoughts? - wolf 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I am in support of User:Thewolfchild's cogent proposal. In general the source is reliable but please check the author creds. I have seen everything in the Diplomat from outright gems to trash, typically correlating with the credentials of author. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That's already how it's supposed to work. WP:RS makes clear that you should evaluate each "source" AKA news article in this case, not only by the outlet but also by the author. A reliable outlet can occasionally publish an article by the guy who builds antigravity lawnmowers in his garage down the street, and it would be an unreliable source. Unless this happens so often that we are forced to reevaluate the editorial judgment of the publisher, it doesn't really affect the reliability of the outlet. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

References

  1. ^ "Summary, Academic reviews of Srimad-Bhagavatam". www.krishna.com. Retrieved 31 May 2008.

Bhaktivedanta cult is also known as "Hare Krishna" group aka ISKCON.

In this edit User:Dāsānudāsa has restored praises about books by the subject. (The above quoted content was removed by me) Can a Bhaktivedanta site be used to source praises about books related to Bhaktivedanta founder? Can such a source be used to add such WP:NPOV violating content?

In my view, this is obvious promotion, and my removal was justified but I have been reverted repeatedly. If I remove again, I am sure I will be reverted again. The user had been warned by the admin for edit warring here. I have a suspicion that people/ supporters from the Bhaktivedanta/ ISKCON cult are active on this page and reverting improvements on this page. Venkat TL (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, source is not RS and does verify the sentence. [60]. Krisna.com is not a secondary RS, imo. Cinadon36 11:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well as they are not third party no.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely not. These are not third party independent reliable sources. They are, so to speak, "in-universe." They should not be used for reporting anything that is disputed outside of the cult's sources, and should be attributed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Crunchbase Research Report

I know Crunchbase is not a valid source but I thought a report from them would be different. What do people think of https://about.crunchbase.com/cybersecurity-research-report-2021/ as a source? MaskedSinger (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It comes up with a chatbox asking if I need any help, in the manner of a consultancy attempting to sell its services. This would at absolute best only be as trustworthy a source as any such report from a consultancy attempting to sell its services - as the front page of about.crunchbase.com says, "Search Less. Close More. Grow your team with all-in-one prospecting solutions powered by the leader in private-company data." So not very suitable as a source. What was the article you were hoping to use it on? - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Thanks for getting back to me. I'm not quite sure what one has got to do with the other. For instance, one of the key report insights at the top of the report is The U.S. recorded 76% of all global cybersecurity funding in 2020, at $5.9 billion. You're saying this couldn't be added to Wikipedia with this report as a source because the chatbox wants to sell its services? It taints the facts cited in the report? I'm not trying to argue with you - just understand. MaskedSinger (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I thought my reply was quite clear as to the trustworthiness of a piece of marketing copy. You have also conspicuously failed to state which article you were thinking in terms of using this in.
More broadly, approximately 100% of usages of Crunchbase are commercial spam, and so far you're not giving any evidence this is any exception - David Gerard (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@David Gerard: I thought you knew which article I was talking about. It was the one where you went and removed the deprecated source mentioning a Crunchbase report...MaskedSinger (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Playing coy like this is unlikely to convince anyone of your bona fides. Did the company suggest that link to you? - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Me coy? I would have answered you except you very clearly knew the page in question. When you asked again I wasn't sure if you were serious or not. I knew the page in question, I knew you knew the page in question and you probably knew I knew so what was there to gain by asking again? As for your question about the company suggesting I link to it - I'm not going to dignify that with a response. You're a much more established editor by a power of a million and I respect that, but this doesn't give you the right to be obnoxious. I found the link by doing research. Research I was doing when working out if there was enough material for a page. I was looking at List of unicorn startup companies - made a list of companies that don't have a page which I was going to create and I started with this one. The goal wasn't to be an all-encompassing definitive page. I just wanted to do enough to get accepted and then let anyone out there edit it as they saw fit. There needs to be a Wikipedia version of Poe's law where I deliberately didn't want the page to read as advertising/promotional and so this is what I was accused of. All I wanted was enough sources to establish its notability writing as little as possible. I have no problem with the review process for new pages being strict and for people being skeptical of my intentions. This is what every page should go through and if it's notable enough and the page is written well enough it should get by. FWIW, this Crunchbase reference doesn't matter one way or another. I've researched more and found other sources for the page but for the future, if you're going to be a source-czar try to keep an open-mind especially when the ban pertains to user-generated content and the source in question is not user generated content. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

In the news (itnshow)?

I really tried searching for prior discussion but "in the news" is a hopeless search term.

My question is: everything about the site suggests it is untrustworthy, but I wanted a second opinion - it is not listed at RS/P.

Looking to potentially update the Sabrina De Sousa article (which has no information more recent than 2019) I came across this link.

So what is this site? Is it worth sitting through the video for information re de Sousa's recent activities (obvs her opinions on Gen Hayden are irrelevant)?

Feel free to link to prior discussion if there's nothing new to say. I just couldn't find anything and I would appreciate the simplicity of a RS/P red entry. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say you can quote her with attribution (as long as you cite the video with time stamps). If you are too lazy to even watch the video to find out if she did talk about her own 'recent activities', I don't think it is fair to ask other people to do so on your behalf. If she did, that would be WP:PRIMARY and that would have to be attributed, too. --SVTCobra 09:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Why assume bad faith on my part?! I wasn't asking you to watch the video for me. I am asking for general opinions on the itnshow.com web site's reliability. CapnZapp (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
It is not reliable as a source for facts, but as with all interviews, it is reliable for the opinions of the person being interviewed. We can hear and see them speak in their own words. --SVTCobra 19:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay so we have one user (Cobra) who feels the site is Generally Unreliable (to use the RS/P) categories. CapnZapp (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone 2021 book

On page 90 of the 2021 book Consequences of Capitalism, Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone claim that the US has an "unusually violent labor history, going well into the 20th century." I used this as the primary source for this edit to the lead of the article Labor history of the United States. It was subsequently reverted with the claim that "the chomsky is not a reliable source" (nothing said about the other author, a professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, and nevermind that Chomsky is considered by many to be one of the top public intellectuals in the US). To my knowledge, that the US has a labor history more violent than other Western nations is widely understood and hardly controversial, like the sky being blue and grass being green. In fact, on the page Union violence in the United States, the second paragraph of the lead says "According to a study in 1969, the United States has had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world". So I included this source as well (unfortunately, no page number was provided). I think the material and sources are WP:DUE for this article. I can add attribution if necessary so it's not in Wikipedia's voice, if that would help.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Chomsky quote should be attributed, I think. It's one person's view on a big topic. If it is the general consensus, then find a couple of other sources and put them all on the page and then you can use wikivoice. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Not Reliable Noam Chomsky is not specialist on the topic he is linguist and Marv Waterstone is Marxist geographer. The book is not academy publisher so its not WP:RS and clearly WP:UNDUE. And if its so clear there is no problem to find an academic source to source such facts Shrike (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Not generally reliable. In general, Chomsky's political writings are WP:BIASED and not scholarly (as opposed to his work on linguistics). They can at best be used as RSes for Chomsky's opinions, but not for factual claims. This specific book is not published by an academic press (per Shrike), and I don't see that the co-author—who speaks of himself as Marxist geographer (BIASED, once again)—has any expertise in labour history. So at best reliable for the author's opinions, provided that they are WP:DUE. JBchrch talk 17:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
While I probably agree that this should only be used for attributed opinion, suggesting a Marxist academic is biased merely because they are Marxist is entirely incorrect. All writers have political biases, right, left or centre. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I suggested at all. I do not think that Waterstone's writings were unreliable because he was a Marxist. What I said is that his scholarly work has an admitted Marxist perspective, per his own self-description. That is enough to designate it as WP:BIASED. And for the record, I would say the same of an economist who claims to be associated with the Austrian school, for example. JBchrch talk 20:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Is that opinion based on reading Chomsky? ~ cygnis insignis 23:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Not sure what you're saying but Manufacturing Consent, A Companion to Chomsky, the Minimalist Program and Knowledge of Language are all within 10 feet of this keyboard. JBchrch talk 01:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
It is a question inquiring what that personal opinion of Chomsky was based on, which so far is proximity to some titles. ~ cygnis insignis 02:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Let me know how many words and the deadline, professor. JBchrch talk 02:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Fifty, short answer form, but excluding the extraordinary amount of citations needed to support the assertion "Not generally reliable. In general, Chomsky's political writings are WP:BIASED and not scholarly". No deadline, there would be a lot of careful reading involved. ~ cygnis insignis 02:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Lol. JBchrch talk 02:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Just a note that Marxist geography is different from being a Marxist per se, and for all that not uncommon in the field. Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
OK if attributed. Chomsky is one of the most cited authors in the world. The definition of an unreliable source is not "I don't agree with what it says". Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
...which no one is arguing. JBchrch talk 21:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Of course they aren't. Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Please clarify what exactly you are implying here. JBchrch talk 01:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment It's important to note that Chomsky is simply stating what has been: a) widely repeated in RS since it was reported by the presidential commission on the cause and prevention of violence in America, and b) affirmed by other scholars since then. Here's a direct link to page 221 of the second source. M.Bitton (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
All the more reason to circumvent Consequences of Capitalism. At least Philip Taft was a labor historian. --SVTCobra 22:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Attribute According to this review it consists mainly of lectures they gave to their students in a course called "What Is Politics? (still doing it, apparently) so there is a standard of a sort there.Selfstudier (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
What is interesting is that the language is far stronger in the Philip Taft source (thanks for the link, M.Bitton) than the Chomsky/Waterstone source, which some here consider more biased. Nevertheless, so far it looks like a consensus is forming around attribute. I'm thinking something like this might work:

[1][2]

This is reasonable, no?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Works for me. Just noting—for the ideological profilers at home—that I would support a more assertive language if the Taft text was more recent. JBchrch talk 05:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Chomsky, Noam; Waterstone, Marv (2021). Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance. Haymarket Books. p. 90. ISBN 978-1642592634.
  2. ^ Philip Taft and Philip Ross, "American Labor Violence: Its Causes, Character, and Outcome," The History of Violence in America: A Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, ed. Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, 1969. p. 221

The Chomsky and Waterstone book is not a reliable source. This is an empirical claim which has presumably been assessed by scholars across relevant disciplines (e.g. history, political science, sociology, economics), so there's no need to use low-quality sources. Here is a better source:[61] Adding quotes by Chomsky to the first paragraph in the lead of Labor history of the United States is not OK. It makes Wikipedia look bad when a partisan non-expert is flagged at the top of Wikipedia articles as if he were the main authority on the subject (imagine if Victor Davis Hanson or Jordan Peterson were cited like this in the lead on articles unrelated to their expertise). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a strong source. I would not object to swapping the Chomsky source for this one, and modify the language a bit to something like this: "According to labor historians, the U.S. has the most violent labor history of any industrialized nation". I think the Taft source should remain.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Reliable. It is standard to challenge Chomsky almost automatically because of his dour reading of history. No one doubts that in his works and interviews he customarily commands at his fingertips a detailed familiarity with the relevant historical literature. This particular remark is not an unusual claim, in any case.

‘From approximately 1873, the date which marks the peak of the post-Civil War revival of the American labor movement, until 1937, when the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Wagner Act, American labor suffered government repression that was probably as severe or more severe than that suffered by any labor movement in any other Western industrialized democracy. According to the foremost historians of American labor violence, the U.S. has had the “bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world.” An admittedly grossly underestimated tabulation of the number of casualties in labor disputes indicates over seven hundred deaths and thousands of serious injuries, almost all of which occurred in the 1973-1937 period.’(Robert Justin Goldstein Political Repression in Modern America, Shenkman (1978) Indiana University Press 2001 ISBN 978-0-252-06964-2 p.3 and for details pp.6-104, 195-208.(there’s a wiki stub on this, I see. Political Repression in Modern America).

Labor violence consisted predominantly of attacks on property; business and government violence consisted mostly of assaults on (striking) individuals by local police, state militia and federal troops. In comparative terms globally , the American labor movement figures as one of the least ‘ideologically militant’ in the developed world. So the ‘unusually ‘is fair in global perspective:

‘according to a leading historian of the American federation of Labor, with the possible exception of the metal and machines trades in France, employees in no other country “have so persistently, vigorously, at such costs and with such conviction of serving a cause, fought trade unions as the American employing class” and in no other Western democracy “have employees been so much aided in their opposition to unions by the civil authorities, the armed forces of government and their courts.’ (Goldstein p.4)

Indeed Michael Mann, in volume 2 of his magisterial The Sources of Social Power, Cambridge University Press 1993 p.407 (not linked. I have the work), citing the work of Goldstein and several others, states that, after repressing Indians on the frontier, and winning the Civil War, the United States army thereafter focused on ‘breaking up strikes and urban riots’.
It is rather annoying to see constantly how, every time Chomsky's work is cited, objections are raised as if he were a pariah, and, if a source is found saying identical things, that is promoted as a substitute. He writes history, in an analytical framework, and respectably so since, for example his Peace in the Middle East?, 1974. He like anyone else in the field, can make mistakes, but generally he writes with a thorough familiarity with the relevant historical literature. It's just that he is not a starry-eyed optimistic reader of the historical record. One should therefore cite a source like Goldstein, with Chomsky, and even Mann. 'According to' is not appropriate if the remark is, itself, not unique to that writer but relatively commonplace.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources. I will add the Goldstein source to the article and then will remove "according to labor historians", as three citations should be sufficient enough for it to be presented as a statement of fact. I concur with your statements on the Chomsky/Waterstone source, but given that the consensus here is forming around attribution, I can see future edit conflicts arise with name-dropping Chomsky in the lead paragraph. I think it could be a good source for future additions to the body, however.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Because of how the above is worded, I feel compelled to point out that these sources involve authors writing in their credentialed field of expertise and with academic presses. JBchrch talk 19:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Well strictly speaking, Mann is a sociologist, who history, just as Chomsky is a linguist who writes historical analyses.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Strictly strickly speaking, Mann does historical sociology. This is touched upon in the preface to Vol. 1 (2012 ed.), especially at pages viii-xii. There are some secondary sources on this as well. Again, the comparison does not hold. JBchrch talk 21:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Chomsky is a smart guy and an expert in his field. Just being smart does not make one an expert on all issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Not reliable If professional historians support a statement by a pop-historian then we should cite the professionals, if professional historians don't support a statement by a pop-historian then it shouldn't be included. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable The argument that Waterstone is "a Marxist geographer" as an argument against the subject being an academic expert in this subject shows a remarkable failure to understand Geography as a social science. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I understand the arguments perfectly. But they're very tedious and basically boil down to "commies can't be trusted" so I'm treating them with an appropriate level of disdain. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable with attribution Chomsky is enough of a polarizing figure that his conclusions should be attributed, but he is also generally high profile enough that his conclusions are worth mentioning. --Jayron32 19:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

SFGate and Blake Treinen: Cause for concern?

I hope that I am in the right place, and I am not brewing a tempest in a teapot over this edit made a few months ago, but…

In October, an editor (Muboshgu, whom I have pinged) briefly added (Special:Diff/1049668090/next) claims that Blake Treinen (the Dodgers pitcher) "has promoted the views of a far-right crank who claims to be a "prophet of God," that Obama was secretly removed as President in 2010, that Trump is the true President, and that Jesus Christ has woken him up at night to tell him things - that he cannot share at this time, due to national security reasons", citing an SFGate article (not an opinion piece) as their source. The edit was quickly reverted by the editor themselves, who discussed the matter in the article's talk page.

While the talk page discussion has long subsided, I am wondering whether we can count this incident against SFGate's reliability as a Wikipedia source. In my opinion, the piece sounds like a smear campaign against Treinen, with him only mentioned marginally, and I only found some of its content true (although it could simply be because I don't want to go into political pages like the ones SFGate linked).

If this matter wasted your time, I apologise. Otherwise, thank you.

NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. The reason why I did not raise the issue immediately is because I was on Wikibreak at that time.

I did not add that content. Ac94133 did, an IP deleted it, and I reflexively reverted the IP. After the revert, I decided that the IP wasn't necessarily engaging in blanking/deletion of content, but challenging BLP content, so I self-reverted. There is nothing about SFGate that isn't reliable. Discussion at Talk:Blake Treinen#Prophet of God article petered out without any conclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • SFGate is the online outlet for the San Francisco Chronicle. An old newspaper and an old online news source. You will need some pretty strong evidence to suggest this is not reliable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you have a specific reason to think that they're wrong / unreliable in this case? These are plainly WP:BLP-sensitive claims and would require high-quality sourcing. And while SFGate is reasonably high-quality, you could argue that if only one source has covered it then it is WP:UNDUE. But that wouldn't change the underlying reliability of SFGate, it would just affect our decision about whether to include or exclude this specific material - a source making the decision to cover something that other sources don't doesn't inherently make them less reliable as long as what they're covering is true and accurate. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    Exactly. And just adding that being woken up by figures happens in the sane, but can be misinterpreted as something else, or just be a false claim... —PaleoNeonate – 13:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC is the Bristolian a reliable source for Wikipedia?

The Bristolian’s slogan is “Smiter of the high and mighty”. It’s about page describes them as, “The Bristolian is a scandal sheet covering all sorts of shenanigans in the fine British city of Bristol.”

Our entry about the paper portrays a radical publication with strong left-wing partisanship. While I admire their commitment to free speech and holding the rich and powerful accountable, I have doubts over its general reliability as a source, particularly for contentious material in BLP articles.

Here’s my request for comment.

Is the current incarnation of The Bristolian (newspaper) a reliable source?

I have come up with the following options starting with what I think is the unlikeliest option.

  • We grant the source full reliable source status at WP:RSP meaning editors can use it to satisfy notability, verifyability and contentious material.
  • Full deprecation.
  • We reach no consensus. We evaluate each use of the source on a case by case basis i.e the source might be ok for some Bristol related content but editors should use it with caution and find a better source for contentious material. The source cannot be used to demonstrate notability.
  • Like similar publications such as The Canary (website) we treat the source as generally unreliable due to it’s hyperpartisanship.

I think the latter is the most sensible option but I look forward hearing everyone’s views.Ch1p the chop (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any concrete examples of how it has been used, is currently being used, or someone wants to use it in articles? Has it been previously discussed on WP:RSN? As the name implies, WP:RSP is for sources that keep being brought up in discussions, so there's very little point in listing something there "preemptively". –Ljleppan (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Biogs.com

Should https://www.biogs.com be considered a reliable source for biography articles? I've seen it used to cite dates of birth and early-life details here on Wikipedia, and it's presently linked from around 50 biographies. biogs.com looks like it's written by one person writing short summary biographies without giving many (if any) checkable sources for where that information was taken from. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look particularly reliable, especially for BLPs. The about us page doesn't inspire much confidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism

The Black Book of Communism which is an unreliable source. For instance, the book pens the total death toll in the gulags to be around three million while an analysis by J Arch Getty, Gabor T Rittersporn and Viktor N Zemskov shows a death toll of slightly over a third of that amount and inflating the death toll of the Cultural Revolution. Thus it should be deprecated. Elishop (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh good. We were missing out on more Mass killings under communist regimes drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree with SFR - we don't need this garbage. The Black Book of Communism is a key source in the Mass killings article (but there are half a dozen others). It's been brought here about 9 times (as far as I can tell without any success in getting it deleted). It's a fundamental study in its academic area. Various editions published by top notch publishers (Harvard University Press, and Éditions Robert Laffont in the original French). Top scholars. The argument against it seems to be that the authors of the chapters don't completely agree (what else is new?) Elishop just decided to delete all the text in the Mass killings article related to this book. I reverted him and told him he should take his criticisms here. (Sorry) Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Without any opinion on the book, it seems slightly misleading to not note the considerable debate about the gulag death toll, with the study you linked being superseded by more recent sources that posit a higher death toll, with three million being around the top end of what is consider reasonable when deaths among those released early on medical grounds is included. BilledMammal (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The book is almost 25 years old now, but the basic framework has not been refuted. Exact numbers in this situation are impossible. But the case you cite is not the reason people want to get rid of it on Wikipedia. You want to say that a subset of the data should be bigger than recognized in the book. The folks who want to get rid of the book dislike it because they think the overall numbers are too high. This is really not the question here though. The real question is:Is this a respected academic source. Look at the authors and the publishers, the extensive reviews. It obviously is a reliable source. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It was always a terrible source (regardless of the recent article drama). It is extremely biased and has a clear POV that the authorship isn't even trying to hide in that regard. It is certainly not a high quality source for historical article encyclopedia writing. I don't know if outright deprecation is needed, but it should absolutely be removed anywhere it is being used on-wiki and replaced with actual high quality historiography. SilverserenC 02:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable to give my actual vote, as the chapters of the book are almost never cited on-wiki. It is always just the Introduction, which is a known biased and unreliable part of the book written by someone with an agenda to cherrypick other sources to suit a claim they want to meet. And that person doing that is the reason why so many of the academics who wrote chapters in the book have disavowed their involvement and relation to that person. Since they care about their neutrality and in the scientific/historical research process and nothing about what that person wrote is actual academic writing in the slightest. SilverserenC 03:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It is plainly a WP:BIASED source which always requires attribution; it also doesn't have a particularly great reputation, so it might be best to cite it via secondary sources rather than directly. But it does have secondary coverage, so I feel mentioning it once in the article to represent Courtois' opinions is fine, with attribution and a characterization of the position it was written from sourced to the best secondary sources discussing it - that is to say, provided we also mention the extensive criticism the book has received. Citing it repeatedly the way we are now with no real indication of what sort of book it is is giving it inappropriately undue weight and misusing it as a source. Even putting aside the criticisms over its accuracy for the moment, sources with strident bias like that can be used, but they have to be used with extreme caution, especially when it comes to due weight and proper attribution (which includes making the perspective a biased source is written from clear.) The current citations make it sound like Courtois is an impartial academic stating things that are generally uncontested, all of which is glaringly untrue to the point of misusing it as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The 1993 Getty et al source is certainly superior to those pre-1991 sources that estimated deaths in the Gulag that were far too high (e.g., Solzhenitsyn, Conquest, Rummel, etc), however it is a bit outdated. More recent sources there note the tentative historical consensus is that around 1.7 million perished there, out of a population of 18 million who passed through the system, with some saying the death toll could be "somewhat higher". In a 1999 paper, historian S.G. Wheatcroft put it at about 1.6 million. So the BBoC estimate might be a little high, but not by much. The much ballyhooed Alexopoulos source, which elevates the death toll to something like 6 million and is thus widely cited by those who would like to see the pre-1991 higher death tolls restored, has been roundly criticized by other scholars and I would not consider it a real challenge to the emerging consensus. That being said, the biggest problem with the BBoC is the introduction, which was denounced by the main contributors to the book for the most significant chapters on the USSR and China. Although there is better scholarship out there, those two chapters are probably the strongest part of the BBoC. The smaller chapters on Cuba and other countries are pretty bad, and pull large numbers of executions out of thin air (I think it was like 20,000 for Cuba if memory serves) with no sourcing to back them up. Bottom line: I'm not in favor of deprecation, but the controversial introduction should never be cited without proper attribution to the author Courtois.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure everybody would appreciate it if you all address "What makes a book a WP:RS. It's not your opinion of the authors' bias. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:RS, what makes something a reliable source is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So if many well-established scholars say that the book's research and conclusions are dated or otherwise seriously flawed, that reduces its reliability; a source whose scholarship is heavily contested should be used with caution, which its current heavy use in the article certainly doesn't reflect. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

May I ask you two questions? What exactly each of you mean under "The Black Book of Communism"? What exact statement do you want to support using this source? These are not rhetoric question. I am asking because the Book is considered a very reliable sources mostly due to the Werth's chapter about Russia, but the part that is being cited in Wikipedia is an introduction by Courtois, the most controversial, most criticized, most politicized, and most provocative part of the book. A talk page of the recent AfD contains a representative sample of sources about the BB. They fully confirm my words. In other words, Courtois's introduction and the chapter are unreliable for figures. It is also unreliable for his generalizations, and, especially, for his attempts to link all crimes to some generic Communism. In contrast, the Werth's part, is a reliable source, as on author wrote, "a rock the whole book rests upon".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that his attempts to link crimes to the totalitarian ideology that undergirded communism as implemented by 20th century regimes is considered to be generally unreliable (Rudolph Rummel, who is well-respected, agrees with this sort of analysis). It's certainly provocative, but to say that this is generally unreliable is something that requires a good deal of evidence. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Frankly, the question is not what you think, but what arguments you have. I saw Rummel, who else? Did you see my list of sources? Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it had been agreed before that while chapters of the book had been written by experts that the introduction was unreliable. In fact, the main contributor to the book, Nicolas Werth, denounced the introduction as factually inxorrect. If this were any other topic, that would be enough to discredit it. TFD (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No longer reliable - I wouldn't go so far as to say it's been discredited, but I think scholarly opinion of it has moved in that direction in recent years:
    • Laure Neumayer (2019), The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351141765. Page 5: In this context, a publication aiming to record all the ‘victims of communism’ worldwide, The Black Book of Communism: crimes, terror, repression (Courtois et al., 1999), contributed directly to the rise of the totalitarian paradigm. This best-selling publication was the subject of violent controversy among historians specialising in communism, to the point that some of its co-authors distanced themselves from the introduction written by the French historian Stéphane Courtois. Its detractors criticised its lack of methodological rigour, its conception of historical work as ‘work of justice and memory’ and the ideological dimension of its approach (Dreyfus et al., 2000; Traverso, 2001; Morgan, 2010). In any event, by making criminality the very essence of communism, by explicitly equating the ‘race genocide’ of Nazism with the ‘class genocide’ of Communism in connection with the Ukrainian Great Famine of 1932–1933, the Black Book of Communism contributed to legitimating the equivalence of Nazi and Communist crimes.
    • The American Historical Review reviewing The Cambridge History of Communism (2017) doi:10.1093/ahr/rhz214: Unlike the cardboard cutouts of Communist leadership presented in ideologically charged studies like The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (1997), these essays are both nuanced and balanced, presenting Lenin and Stalin as human leaders driven as much by realpolitik and personal histories and events as by Communist ideology.
    • Engel-Di Mauro, Salvatore; et al. (4 May 2021). "Anti-Communism and the Hundreds of Millions of Victims of Capitalism". Capitalism Nature Socialism. 32 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/10455752.2021.1875603: A petulant upsurge in anti-communism is permeating the United States (US) and Canada, as well as countries in the European Union (EU). Its main truncheon is the simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim that communism caused 100 million victims, a catchy slogan sensationalised through a 1997 propaganda volume titled The Black Book of Communism (henceforth BBC).
    • More at The Black Book of Communism#Criticism. There is also a support section, and plenty of positive reviews as well.
Given the mixed reviews, I'd say it's too controversial (and frankly, for this subject, too old) to support statements in Wikivoice and should not be considered an RS. It should be listed yellow at RSP (use with caution, always attribute, not in wikivoice). Levivich 05:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: The piece in Capitalism Nature Socialism is written by a trained... geographer. The journal has an avowedly ecosocialist bent. I'm seriously doubtful of the peer review process there for that paper; the editor-in-chief is listed as "Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro", who appears to be the author of the piece you're citing. The managing editor is "Adi Forkasiewicz", whom the journal lists as an "independent scholar" and for whom a google scholar search doesn't actually appear to return anything published and whose name returns zero results in a search using The Wikipedia Library. The stretch to include Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro's piece in your analysis really should be struck; I'd almost rather cite Medieval English literature professor Grover Furr's denialist work on Katyn than give the Capitalism Nature Socialism source weight in any analysis. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Any assessment should look deeper than just his job title (his CV makes his qualifications clear), and being the eic of a journal doesn't make him less credible. Even if it's self-published, it'd be an WP:EXPERTSPS. Levivich 14:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Attribute when a claim is disputed There is a significant problem of accuracy. Two reviews I have looked, they claim:
  • Weiner, Amir. Review of The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 32, no. 3 (2002): 450-452. muse.jhu.edu/article/16325.: Although it adds little data that is new, the list is long, informative, and, for most part, indisputable. Even when the numbers of victims are questionable or obviously inflated, the brutality of communism in power is well established. Moreover, the fact that the atrocities consistently commenced with the seizure of power lends support to the argument for intentionality, particularly in the section on the Soviet Union by Werth, the most subtle and best-documented in the book. That said, this thick volume is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation. Although the authors argue that the [End Page 450] logic of communism entails the above atrocities, they go out of their way to salvage Marxist ideology.
  • Dallin, A. (2000). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. By Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, and Jean-Louis Margolin. Trans. Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999. xx, 858 pp. Notes. Index. Photographs. Maps. $37.50, hard bound. Slavic Review, 59(4), 882-883. doi:10.2307/2697429 "The chapters vary greatly in quality and reliability. Though often debatable, much the best ones are those by Nicolas Werth on the Soviet Union. Some of the others suffer from rather shrill rhetoric, and the whole enterprise of course leaves vast stretches of uncertainty; thus the attempt to establish the number of victims of communism (a futile effort that would depend greatly on definitions even if the statistics were more reliable) comes up with strikingly vast variations and vague totals (e.g., 65 million deaths for China, 20 million deaths for the USSR, and so forth). But then the moral, legal, or political judgment hardly depends on the number of victims. The authors make no attempt to differentiate between intended crimes-a la Auschwitz or the Moscow show trials-and policy choices that had (intended or unintended) consequences that were terrible..."
So, best way is to attribute when needed. Surely there is a reliability issue but I fell it does not deserves being deprecated. Cinadon36 05:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as a WP:RS
  • The book was a collaborative effort and not all contributors agreed with each other, which is normal with these sort of academic efforts (what would you say if all contributors marched in step-lock?). Werth was and remains free to disagree with his fellow contributors and with the editor, but his scholarly opinion... well, it is his scholarly opinion. It is absurd to say a scholarly book is not a reliable source because one scholar, or for that matter, a range of scholars, object to it.
  • The fact the book was translated and published by the world's top publishing houses, including
    Espasa-Calpe in Spain (1998),
    Arnoldo Mondadori Editore in Italy (1998),
    Éditions Robert Laffont in France (1997),
    Bertrand (pt:Grupo Editorial Record) in Brazil (1999),
    Harvard University Press in the U.S. (1999).
    Perhaps the German publisher arrived late and is not as prominent, Piper Verlag (2004), but the mere fact a German version was deemed necessary seven years after the French original goes to show the book is far from irrelevant and unserious. It is as solid a WP:RS as they come. As such, were Wikipedia to deprecate it, it would say more about current Wikipedia editors than about the book! XavierItzm (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Why do some always have to make it personal? We can't just have a disagreement without resorting to ad hominems on this website. Anyway, the 1990s were a long time ago, what about recently? Any positive reviews from the last few years by RS? If so, please link and quote. Levivich 05:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Books generally get reviews when new or revised editions come out. Whether positive or negative, reviews for the Brazilian edition, issued by Latin America's largest editorial, for example, came out in 1999. I hope this comment is informative for those unfamiliar with the nature of book reviews. XavierItzm (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
And yet Levivich gives examples of statements about the book in reviews (admittedly of other works) from the past few years. And they're all rather negative toward the long-term viability of the book and its relevance to modern history research. SilverserenC 06:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
And yet that's not what L asked for, is it? And what does WP:RS have to say about drive-by comments? Ahh, yes: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." XavierItzm (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Translation of a book to other languages is not an indicator of reliability. Also, red tagging is not a valid argument. Cinadon36 06:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Translation per se, obviously not. Edition by the world's most prominent editorial houses in their own languages, however, indicates the editorials are willing to stand behind the publication. XavierItzm (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Werth's chapter stands on its own merit and his other works, largely, as always with historians, for specific claims rather than the general vibe people all too often read into a historian's engagement. Courtois, as I have explicated in detail previously, hangs his chapters on "non-catholicism" as a causative category of communism and therefore murderousness. This is widely recognised to not be social science. It depends, as the ***great big header at the top of the page explains*** on which bit, is cited in what article, for which claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Use with attribution. It would be silly and glaringly lacking to cover this topic without reference to it. While it does have critics for sure (some but not all of which comes from blatantly ideological sources like Capitalism Nature Socialism), it also received positive reception, as noted at the article on the book. So, we simply in-text attribute the book's claims to the book, and then reliable sources that disagree can be presented as well. Crossroads -talk- 07:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It depends but generally green–yellowish, and use with attribution — most chapters are reliable, some of them more than other (Werth),2 but may be outdated1 — introduction and foreword are too controversial and disputed to be reliable but can be relied on for secondary coverage, such as the reactions of Le Monde and Le Figaro, and as primary sources for quotes. I do not understand this dismissal of Capitalism Nature Socialism as if it negates the criticism and controversy also reported by Neumayer and more centrist sources — that article is good as a tertiary source (to quote TFD, "Engel-De Mauro is merely reciting facts: that the 100 million figure has no support in reliable sources and was chosen for its propaganda value. He is not providing his own opinion. The advantage of a recent source is that the author would be aware of any changes in the academic literature."), and is absurd to compare it to Grover Furr when it was written in an academic journal published by the academic press (Routledge). And to quote from the RSN discussion, "[a]n academic journal that serves a particular community and thus embodies its biases does not sound very different from a news website with an editorial slant, as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES is concerned. I'd take a journal that wears its editorial mission on its sleeve ... over those that try to look staid while having no standards inside." Centrism is also an ideology, and left-wing books and articles published within the academic press remain reliable, whether we like it or not.
Notes
1. The Cambridge History of Communism seems to be a better, more recent, balanced, and nuanced picture of Communism than the Black Book.
2. Even Werth was not free from criticism, e.g. see Kenez 1999.
Davide King (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC) [Edited to add 2.] Davide King (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • In this context, attribute everything. As was made clear at the AfD discussion, the fundamental issue with the article, as far as many contributors are concerned, is that it presents the opinions and assessments of particular writers as objective fact, while discussing complex subject matter inherently requiring subjective judgement. Any move towards an article that actually satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality must begin by moving away from the idea that there are abstract 'reliable sources' involved, and instead present the debate as to whether 'mass killing' (however defined) and 'communist regimes' (ditto) are inherently linked in some manner as what it is - a debate. One with opinions that should be presented as such, rather than sorted into 'reliable' and 'unreliable' by Wikipedia contributors. The Black Book is clearly a part of this discourse, and must obviously be used. Appropriately, citing specific authors for what they add to the debate, and noting later critiques of such material, as and when it is pertinent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Use with attribution: As per Aquillon and others above, it is a biased, controversial source that is has been cited by some scholars and contested by others, so should only be used with clear attribution, and alongside contesting scholarly views where its claims are disputed by experts. Shouldn't be deprecated. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Never reliable well known trash-tier propaganda. It's inclusion on Wikipedia in articles surrounding socialism is a stain upon the integrity of the encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Use with attribution and caution It seems even its supporters agree it is controversial and even its detractors agree that it is mostly reliable. If we exclude a source simply because it is imperfect, we would have none at all and in the topic areas where this book is relevant, all sources are going to have problems. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No longer reliable. Certainly ideologically motivated, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is propaganda but the editor has been somewhat liberal with drawing conclusions and manipulating statistics. So much so that major contributors have distanced themselves from the conclusions drawn in the book as well as the deaths count, and that when a communist organisation allegedly contacted Harvard University Press, Harvard admitted that it contained "remedial maths error" (this is sourced from a communist organisation, so it may not be true). More recently, many of the statistics cited have been revised following the release of previously classified information, such as the death toll of Holodomor, now estimated to be around 3-3.5 million rather than the 7 million asserted in the book. Whether this was intentional or simply a higher end estimate based on available data at the time, its clear that many sections of the book have become unreliable, and I would advise against using it. Dark-World25 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Let me clarify it one more time
1. The Black book is normally used in Wikipedia as a source for a figure of 85+ or 100 million victims, and for the claim that they are linked to Communism and Marxism. For this claim, the BB is unreliable: it was criticized specifically for that, including the criticism by Nicolas Werth, a major contributor to the BB. The BB cannot be used as a source for that, unless that statement is supplemented with a due criticism and comments
2. With regard to other parts of this huge and non-homogeneous volume, each of them have different reliability, and some of them, especially the Werth's chapter, are pretty reliable. Unfortunatelly, main conclusions and observations made by him are rarely used in Wikipedia.
Does anybody has anything to add to this conclusion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, and use attribution for its introduction. There seems to be a scholarly consensus that it’s individual sections (particularly that in the Soviet Union) are legitimate scholarly works. The introduction is much more controversial among academics, which means that WikiVoice statements should be avoided when directly sourcing from it. But it’s certainly a work that carries weight in these sorts discussions given that so much has been written about it and that it has been historically influential. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    Also, to respond to others saying that the source is unreliable because they find it biased; WP:BIASED might be worth a good read. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    That is correct. Many reliable sources are biased. However, the BB's figures in the introduction, which is the most frequently cited information, are not only biased, they are unreliable. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • A spin on notability is not inherited, just because some scholars in the book can (and should) be cited, does not make the whole book reliable. Werth can stand on his own and the book is the source of his findings, but doesn't mean the rest of the book should be used freely as wiki voice fact. Slywriter (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely a reliable source, would need attribute anyway since a number authors have contributed to the book and so we need to distinguish who is saying what. Also in regard to numbers, one will never get an truly accurate estimate, even the total death toll of Nazi mass killings is not clear despite it being highly documented by Nazi bureaucrats. --Nug (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    You would deem the additions by the editor, which has been renounced by two of the book's contributors, to be reliable? Certain chapters are pretty reliable but the overall conclusion? Hardly. Dark-World25 (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Mostly Unreliable Has been subject to scathing criticism by other scholars. However, certain chapters are more liable than others and can go in, with attribution. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable, WP:DUE applies. It's a book written by scholars and published by a reputable academic press. If there are contradictory sources that exist, integrate them in the content of the article per WP:NPOV. In any case, the way the proposal is worded is borderline disruptive, as if specifically crafted to stir up more drama. JBchrch talk 05:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The issue, @JBchrch:, is that the section of the book almost exclusively used on Wikipedia is not any of the chapters written by said scholars, but the Introduction written by a known biased source trying to SYNTH together cherrypicked data to fit a desired claim and said author of the Introduction makes no attempt to hide that fact. To the point that many of those scholars that wrote chapters in the book have disavowed their involvement and any connection to the person who wrote the Introduction. So, in all regards, the part of the book that is actually cited on Wikipedia is not reliable. SilverserenC 03:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • User Silver seren !voted near the top of this thread to make the entire book an "unreliable source" but here says: "the part of the book that is actually cited on Wikipedia is not reliable." XavierItzm (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry Silver seren but Stéphane Courtois is a professional historian who has held the highest academic rank at one of the most prestigious research institutions in Europe and whose text is published by Harvard University Press. Definitely a reliable source, 100%. As a matter of DUE, once again, we can confront him with his critics. And SYNTH doesn't apply to sources. JBchrch talk 04:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Generally reliable, but subject to WP:DUE as we must accurately represent the prevalent perspectives in the topic area. But I would say generally reliable, given that the research chapters are still largely accepted in the field, reprinted, and cited often. However I would agree with some here including @Mhawk10 that the Introduction should be considered an WP:RSOPINION and attributed as such. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, my reason for attributing the lead was not because it was a Newspaper editorial (it isn’t), but because of WP:BIASED. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Use cautiously with attribution Academic disputes with the book are well documented and go beyond well beyond the introduction. What is presented in the book however was influential and, in many ways, represents a certain (and resurgent) interpretation of 20thC history in the West. So of course the book should not be fully deprecated. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I suggest adding an RFC tag to this discussion. We do it for other sources, let's get broader input. Levivich 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - no 25-year-old book counts as a recent reliable source, even if it has not been refuted by more recent scholarship (as many parts of this have, notably the Introduction) and even when the publication was not intended as an intervention in an ideological debate (as this one was). Simply not reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Just as novelty does not impart reliability, age does not impart lack thereof.XavierItzm (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Of course it does. A history book written 100 years ago is less reliable than one written last year (controlling for other variables). That's part of WP:RS at WP:AGE MATTERS. Levivich 14:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible you missed the may qualifier at WP:RSAGE? I will grant you that Communist regimes have continued the killing of people since 1997, (e.g. China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.), but unless the current Uyghur genocide in western China is currently being minimized as much as the Holomodor was by Walter Duranty and his associates at the time, then hopefully the numbers since are not yet large enough to render obsolete the previous research, which therefore remains valid.XavierItzm (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Eh, actually, the policy says With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, I don't think BBoC is so much closer to the events that it should be considered less likely to have errors, but on the other hand, it should not be penalized for age unless new documents have come to light. --SVTCobra 14:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The very next sentence is However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt., and later is says Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. This is such a case, with new developments in this field in the past ~25 years, plus we're further away from the events and thus newer sources are better at "remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt" which is why I and others have quoted from newer sources above. This situation is square-on what RSAGE is about: the 1990s is too close to the fall of Soviet communism; 21st-century scholarship is better. Levivich 17:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
That is very subjective. It is just as easy to argue that 21st-century scholarship has become worse to increasingly polarized political environments. Has the fall of the iron curtain led to previously unknown documentation to become available to scholars is a more objective standard. My main point with my above comment was that age is not the important factor for evaluating BBoC. --SVTCobra 18:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, but use attribution for introduction - most of the dispute concerning the book is about the introduction which should be used only with attribution, the rest should be regarded as any other generally reliable academic work.--Staberinde (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Intro generally unreliable, rest requires attribution The BBoC is a very contentious book, you could likely make an article that is just dedicated to "Responses to the Black Book of Communism". The intro is easily the most criticized portion, and it should be considered to be Courtois' opinion and only used for conveying such. As for the rest of the book comprised of actual analysis, it has widely been considered to be a biased or partisan piece of scholarship, and should be attributed in all cases per WP:BIASED. Doesn't mean it can't be used, but it should never be used as the sole source on a wikivoice statement. Also, this should really be given a neutral opening statement and be tagged as an RfC, we should really have some proper community consensus on the BBoC. Perhaps @Robert McClenon: could facilitate. BSMRD (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think, this collection of sources may be relevant. I collected scholarly sources as they appeared in the google.scholar results, without any cherry-picking, and analyzed one by one. Most authors who discuss Courtois (and his introduction) criticize him. In reality, the question about reliability of the Black Book is a question of reliability of Courtous/Malia statement that Communism killed 100 million. This is the most notable, the most controversial and most criticized statement. The rest is less controversial, but other parts of this huge volume are far less popular among Wikipedians. Therefore, I reiterate that the Black Book is unreliable as a source for its most famous claim, and is more reliable (or pretty reliable) as a source for events in separate Communist states.
Keeping in mind that this discussion is not the first (and, if I remember correctly, even not the second) RSN discussion of this source, I propose to include the BB into Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • As reliable as anyone in this area Mass murdering governments are not in the habit of announcing how many people they killed. Attempts to reconstruct this information are therefore fraught, and disagreements are to be expected. In the case of disagreeing sources, which is likely in this area, attributing both is a good idea. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Saving Country Music

I have seen Saving Country Music show up in a myriad of country music-related articles. According to the about page, it is written and published entirely by one person. This means that there is no editorial oversight or fact-checking involved. The content of such blog does lean a bit WP:POLEMIC at times with regards to the author's opinions on country music, not to mention the severe ego of the about page in such terms as "first journalist to discover Sturgill Simpson". By these standards, Saving Country Music is not a WP:RS.

In addition, most of the uses I've seen of it are for biographical information, peacocking a barely-notable artist, or unduly pushing the author's viewpoints. Given the nature of the site, it should clearly be at least deprecated, if not outright blacklisted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Lidar being used to find the ancient Mormon city of Zarahemla

See this article.[62] The narrative section of our article is a mess and even includes names of notable people. Looking at this I also found Book of Helaman - hardly NPOV. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

LOL, I misread it as Liedar.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It feels like the creation case for this article was a bit spurious in the first place. One religious text from the 1820s is hardly a reliable source for the existence of a clearly mythological city in the 4th century. "Ancient Mormon" is an oxymoronic adjectival pairing. I'm highly unconvinced that the article deserves to exist at all, and I'm now sorely tempted to raise an AfD about it. There are Biblical places with less space than this. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Help on Son of Dork page

Hi there, I'm currently engaged in an editing debate. I want to add on the Music Career section of Son of Dork a sentence which states that the lead-singer James Bourne has spoken about returning for a second album. My source is a post on his Twitter page (which is verified). This is the source: https://twitter.com/JamesBourne/status/1115431751848026112 There is also context for this addition as the previous few sentences speak about a possible Son of Dork reunion. The user reverting my changes stated:Rv... Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. Primary sources are only to fill in minor details. but I'm not sure what this means? Thanks for you help! 194.66.200.1 (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no issue with this (assuming it is his Twitter feed), its attributed and seems uncontroversial.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Per the above, WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF applies to someone's verified twitter account. This seems uncontroversial. --Jayron32 14:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you help and advice! 194.66.200.1 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I would also say that this IS a “minor detail”. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, but that then should have been an wp:undue argument and not "Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. Primary sources are only to fill in minor details" (which this is (ironically)).Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I use a self-published art reference book that is in libraries?

I want to use Artists in California, 1786–1940 for some details on Giuseppe Cadenasso. It's by Edan Milton Hughes and published by "Hughes Publishing Company". WorldCat Identities says 413 libraries have this book. I feel like it's OK to use? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Professional publication is one of a plethora of criteria for reliability, and it is not a deal-breaker if something is self-published, though that often means we have to work harder and make up that deficiency in other criteria in establishing that a self-published work is reliable. Is the author a widely-respected expert in the topic of the book? I see that his article asserts that he is, but that is only cited to a single article in a single local newspaper. It's not nothing, but it's also not a lot. Do we have other evidence that he is an expert in California artists? Do other art experts consider his work reliable? Is his work frequently cited or used by others? It's also important to note that reliability is on a scale, and not an "either/or" thing, so we need to decide what level of reliability would we expect for the content we're adding to Wikipedia? How likely is it that someone would find the claims being cited as unusual, exceptional, or controversial? I know I'm not providing easy answers, but these are the sorts of questions you're going to have to grapple with and have definitive answers for if you want to use a self-published source. --Jayron32 16:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor, Electronic Intifada, Palestine Chronicle and Twitter as sources in a BLP

Extra eyes would be helpful in the talk page discussion at David Miller (sociologist), with the above sources being used. If I am reading the archives correctly, we have no consensus on reliability of Middle East Monitor and have not discussed the reliability of Palestine Chronicle. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I read MEMO as "attribute". Jewish Voice for Labour has a download link for the report so there's that as well.Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Re MEMO: This 2021 discussion looks to me more like generally unreliable]; this 2019 discussion is somewhere between attribute and unreliable; and this 2012 discussion concluded unreliable but had few participants.
Views on the reliability of Jewish Voice for Labour as a source also welcomed. Other sources currently used in the article include The American Spectator, World Socialist Web Site, TrueRepublica, and the MintPress News YouTube channel. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This has turned into a bit of a laundry list, editors here can't be expected to write commentary on all of these. The most recent kerfuffle at the article has been about a leaked QC report and the sources currently being used, with attribution, for that are MEMO and the Jewish Voice for Labour, which I have reported to BLP board in response to your other post here so perhaps raise RSN discussion about these two sources specifically/what they are being cited for, if that's what you want to do? Raising the same points at two different boards is likely to cause confusion.Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, I am not asking for commentary here on all of these sources. I am mainly asking for additional eyes on the article in question, from editors with familiarity with RS issues and/or familiarity with these sources, as it seems a large number of potentially questionable sources are being used in it. (In addition, for those sources which haven't been discussed here already, I wouldn't mind views on whether they are usable or not.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

None of those are suitable for controversial BLP content and some aren't suitable for anything. You don't need an rsn thread if only one editor is advocating for inclusion though. Journalism and scholarship, not advocacy orgs. Levivich 13:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently, it is two editors but as can be seen from the talk page there are potentially others. Is the Jewish Chronicle suitable?Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. When I answered this same question at BLPN earlier today, I hadn't yet checked RSN and RSP. But now I see that it's listed as Green (with caveat about bias) at RSP, based on a March 2021 RFC at RSN. So, yes, it is what RSP says it is: reliable, but biased, use with attribution for certain topics. Anyone wanting to challenge that would need to start a new RFC and show that something changed since the last RFC. Levivich 15:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Things actually have changed considerably for the JC since 2020. nableezy - 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
And actually, that RFC appears to have suffered the defect of being overrun by socks of banned users. All on one side of the issue. Huh. nableezy - 16:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
"Overrun" is an exaggeration; plenty of editors in good standing participated in that discussion with a variety of views; socks don't make discussions defective (we can handle it, it's nothing new). But anyway, rerun the RfC if there is new info for the community to consider. Until then, RSP documents our current global consensus. Levivich 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
There are 2 Icewhiz socks (with them voting per the other), a Yaniv sock, and a NoCal100 sock in there lol. nableezy - 17:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
...and like 30 editors in good standing, so no, not "overrun". Lol. Levivich 18:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
And if you take out the socks of banned users, the balance of the discussion changes. Changes from 17 in support of option 1 to 13. Pretending like 30 editors supported the finding of the RFC is asinine. Would expect a more intellectually honest argument tbh. Especially given the finding on consensus on the topic under discussion here was already "weak" per the close. Lol. nableezy - 19:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Levivich but as Selfstudier already pointed out this thread is not a good place for extensive commentary and re-litigation of sources where there is already consensus; better to use it to get views on sources not previously discussed such as Palestine Chronicle, TrueRepublica and Jewish Voice for Labour, and clarifying unclear consensus re Middle East Monitor. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Shocking development, user whose view prevailed in a discussion disrupted by banned user does not want that view re-examined. nableezy - 19:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Why do some always have to make it personal? We can't just have a disagreement without resorting to ad hominems on this website. Levivich 19:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Somebody makes an argument that a discussion where the consensus very much shifts if you remove the ARBPIA violating contributions (2 at the time, both for option 1), and the socks of banned users (4, all for option 1) and the majority on just a raw count shows at the very least no consensus for the position they advocated, and says we should not discuss or relitigate because of that tainted "consensus". I find that to be an incorrect view, and would like to revisit that issue. nableezy - 19:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
But youre right, have struck the personal bit of this, and down below youll find why I feel that argument to be problematic. nableezy - 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
As I said in the other discussion, the extensive use of JC the article is definitely problematic but its been like that for a good while now and addressing the JC issue formally in due course is on the agenda. I don't think anyone is seriously pushing the Palestine Chronicle source so I wouldn't worry about that one. about TruePublica seems quite OK on the face of it but it is neither here nor there at the moment. Views about JVL which some would consider the polar opposite of JC and MEMO as well, those two would seem the most pertinent to the immediate situation, specifically any evidence of hoax or falsehood, failure to fact correct, that sort of thing, we can stipulate that they are biased.Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not Reliable The EJ already have an RSP entry so that one clear while reading our article about MEMO especially descriptions by BBC as "pro-Hamas" organization gives us clear view that the source cannot be trusted Shrike (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, Shrike, if you are right about MEMO (and the BBC chap writing in 2011), then since the outfit is based in London and the UK has designated both Hamas wings as terrorist, there should have been some arrests by now.Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
We dont disqualify sources for being "pro-Israel" do we? nableezy - 16:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
We now have Bristol Post, a balanced, up to date report (finally). Anyone who wants a summary of what all this has been about can read it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No, nay, never! This shouldn't even be a discussion! C'mon people! ENCYCLOPEDIA remember? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Non ecp editor, Arbpia restrictions apply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360&oldid=1144594556"