Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352

The last RS post on Dexerto was from two years ago so I thought it'd be worth for their reliability to be reassessed now.

The article in question is PewDiePie and his pescetarian diet. PewDiePie has repeatedly mentioned his pescetarianism in videos before, but linking his videos mentioning it wasn't deemed reliable, so I got the only article explicitly mentioning his pescetarian diet from Dexerto: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/pew-die-pie-marzia-have-first-post-marriage-fight-minecraft-934791/. Even though the last consensus concluded that Dexerto was unreliable, I think that for a small trivial piece of information of something that has been confirmed by the person in question themselves, the Dexerto article is a reliable source, at least in the context of PewDiePie's diet.

edit: I'm not sure if this helps, but Yahoo Finance also mentioned them in an article earlier this year as an 'industry leading site (in) award-winning esports, gaming and influencer coverage, including news, interviews, reviews, opinions, guides and tournament coverage' here: ^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeFan10025 (talk • contribs)

• Note – There is currently a discussion on this topic at WT:VGRS#Dexerto (part 2 - electric boogaloo). — Pbrks (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Previously considered unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262#Dexerto. That their new partner fawns over them in a press release doesn't really change much. FDW777 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the following a reliable source on the topic of Armenian terrorist organizations in 1970s-1980s?

Gunn, Christopher. Secret Armies and Revolutionary Federations: The Rise and Fall of Armenian Political Violence, 1973-1993.

I would appreciate third party opinions. We've had a discussion with fellow editors here: Outsider opinions would be really helpful. Thank you. Grandmaster 11:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

How does it meet our criteria? Google Scholar gives 2 hits, one a dissertation and the other seems to be a collection of conference papers but I can't read the language and have no idea in what context it's mentioned. Where is it mentioned in scholarly books? What makes Gunn an expert? I think WP:UNDUE covers this, it isn't a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say no, it really has to be a notably exceptional thesis to be used and I’m not finding anyone talking about it or referencing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used." I note the author is now an associate professor at Coastal Carolina University. But as with any source, the situation matters. TFD (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That is not where the period falls in that particular sentence, pretty sure its "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources.” Which isn’t exactly saying the same thing now is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• His research, from what I could see, exhibits pro-Turkish bias (this sentence says it all: It is significant that the first attack of a terrorist group allegedly dedicated to extracting an admission of guilt from the Turkish government for alleged crimes against the Armenian people would be directed towards the World Council of Churches in January 1975 - see paper), and, as he admits in his paper (p. 103-115), the interpretation he proposes on that specific phenomenon is not mainstream, as he tries to pinpoint (p. 110) what he sees as flaws in the dominant narrative about ASALA and the Justice Commandos (A re-evaluation of the accepted origins of these Armenian groups exposes inconsistencies in the standard narrative and invites an investigation into the “deeper roots” of Armenian terrorism suggested by earlier scholars.). His endorsement, sort of, by the Turkish MFA to discuss 1915 also makes me wary of him. Mention with attribution, conserving appropriate WP:WEIGHT (that is, the pro-Turkish standpoint). Please also find other sources mentioning the murder, which Gunn does not mention but whose interpretation is more prevalent. If you can't do that, better not cite it at all because of NPOV concerns. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Christopher Gunn is an Assistant Professor of History who focuses on Middle Eastern Studies and political violence. And @Szmenderowiecki:: having an alleged bias does not necessarily make someone unreliable if they are an expert, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. It would be better to use formally published articles that stem from the dissertation work (individual chapters are often published as separate journal articles), such as perhaps this, this or this. Otherwise the dissertation could be probably used sparingly, so long as it is not used to verify outlandish claims, nor lend undue weight to any subject or opinion. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  WP:BIASEDSOURCES does not cover the cases when said sources, explicitly or implicitly, engage in denialism. That's going more into WP:FRINGE territory, which is not covered by BIASEDSOURCES. Btw, since we strive to get the best sources available, "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements"; I cannot vouch for this source's impartiality. The article, however, does not strictly discuss the events of the genocide, but rather one of the episodes inspired by the Turkish denial thereof, so yes, the paper is OK, but no, I can't allow it alone, because this view is, by author's admission, minoritarian.

  Strictly on the question of reliability of Gunn, I'd say: with reservations due to strong bias, therefore, attribution seems best. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  I do not intend to use Gunn on the topic of Armenian genocide. But he does use the term "Armenian genocide" as well, for example in the sentence: "The literature in English on the organizations this research will analyze, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and the armed wing of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), alternatively named the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG) and the Armenian Revolutionary Army (ARA), and their violent campaign against Turkey to achieve the recognition of the Armenian genocide..." But I'm looking for more sources to discuss individual terrorist acts, and in particular Assassination of Galip Ozmen. We know now that the assassination was perpetrated by Monte Melkonian. But his version, presented by his brother, is obviously aimed to present himself in a better light, i.e. he claims that he shot children by accident. This version is presented in the article. Gunn provides also a different view. Basically, there are 2 versions. Quote from Gunn: Melkonian claimed that he was unable to see who was in the car because of its tinted windows. The State Department report, based on eyewitness accounts, stated that assassin waited in front of Özmen’s home, watched the family get into the car, and then attacked. I cannot verify State Department report, entitled “Turkish Diplomat Assassinated in Athens; Armenian Secret Army Claims Responsibility,” ATHENS 08453, Aug. 1, 1980. If someone could, it would be really helpful. Alternatively, I wanted to attribute the claim to Gunn, but some editors objected. Which is why I decided to ask the community for their opinion. Grandmaster 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  This report is neither available to me, but if you want to cite the State Dept report via Gunn, I see no problems with doing that (but you might probably look for some AP reports, for example, as they might include some of the information). It is just I'm afraid that this source might be easily misused, as I outlined earlier.

  There must be more resources expanding on that murder - citing Melkonian's brother is OK but it would be better to supplement it with third-party scholars who analyse Melkonian's actions; and by that I don't mean Gunn only. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  The problem is that Armenian terrorism is a very little researched topic. There are books like Francis P. Hyland. "Armenian Terrorism: The Past, The Present, The Prospects", 1991, or “Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People”: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, by Michael M. Gunter, 1986, but Gunn's is the most recent research, which takes into account new information that emerged since 1990s, such as declassified CIA and FBI files, memoirs, etc. I cited AP and UPI reports, but they don't go into much detail. I think best would be to cite State Department with attribution to Gunn. Grandmaster 18:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  That wouldn't appear to be the case as Gunn talks about "the standard narrative", "earlier scholars" etc., which would imply that the topic is well-researched but that the author thinks the guys were wrong in the cause for the terrorist attacks. In any case, there's some more info on the murder: , , ,

  The topic is researched quite extensively in Turkish, but I don't speak it, and Turkish sources IMHO should be dealt with extra care due to the official position of Turkey of genocide denial, which tangentially influences how they speak of i.a. the activities of Armenian terrorist groups (i.e. terrorist attacks due to the will to revenge for Armenian genocide vs. terrorist attacks for claimed repressions and mass murders against Armenians in 1910s that never were, the latter of which seems to be Gunn's position). But for simple factual assertions, including for quoting the State Department documents, I see no reasons not to cite him. It's just any conclusions about the intent, or causes, that we should be careful about. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'm familiar with those sources too. They do not add anything new, because de Waal and Kiesling simply quote Melkonian's book, and Hyland is from 1991, and Feigl from 1986, and since then a lot of new information became available. As I said above, there were only 2 dedicated scholarly researches on the topic, and Gunn's work is the latest one. Others, like de Waal, only touch upon the terrorism in the context of general Armenian-Turkish relations. But I agree with you Gunn could be used to state facts about particular terrorist acts, and terrorists organizations. To me, the work appears to be very well researched, and peer reviewed too. Grandmaster 08:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment As an involved editor in the discussion started here, I don't see a clear consensus that Gunn is even reliable or not to begin with, and OP is "thinking" that we should cite State Department with attribution to him? Gunn claims he quotes from the state department, if Grandmaster can cite those State department papers, go ahead and add please. Other than that, my opinion is that Gunn isn't a reliable source attributed or not, especially on contentious topics related to Armenia and Turkey: per this discussion, and per fellow editors in here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• 'Comment The alleged bias in the source seems to be that it categorizes the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian Revolutionary Army as terrorists rather than freedom fighters. These groups killed scores of Turkish diplomats and their family members as well as bystanders. They are universally referred to as terrorist groups in mainstream literature.

They had three demands: recognition by Turkey of the genocide, compensation and Armenian independence. The fact that these were laudable goals or extensive support from the Armenian diaspora does not mean that one cannot question their methods or write about their activities. This is no different from writing about the IRA, PLO or Kurdish groups that engaged in terrorist acts.

The thesis is a reliable source, per policy, not because of who wrote it but because it was vetted by experts. That makes it more reliable than say an article by a reporter with a journalism degree.

When the author referred to alleged crimes, he was referring to a 1975 article in the New York Times that presumably used the term or similar wording. At that time the genocide had far less recognition than today. But he uses the term crimes without qualification in the Historiography section on p. 10.

TFD (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see your argument here. At least from my standpoint, they were terrorists for all intents and purposes. But the source he quotes in the paragraph in the research paper on the very similar topic, which I quoted and added emphasis to, says "Ibid., 12. See also Department of State Telegram, GENEVA 6267, USMISSION GENEVA to SECSTATE WASHDC 5186, and August 11, 1975" (ibid. refers to "Popular Movement for the ASALA, ASALA Interviews (Great Britain, April 1982)"). NYT does appear in the following paragraph but only to cite the number of Armenians emigrating from USSR, not to echo the tone of coverage at the time. Nor does the usage of word "crime" in the sentence was the successful transfer of responsibility for the crimes of 1915 to the entire, collective population of modern Turkey imply he recognises it, as the sentence sums up the few pages where he describes the efforts of Armenian diaspora to shift the genocide blame from the Ottoman govt to Turkey and the Turks (or that's what he writes). He does not say "yeah, the genocide happened, but the guys were evil and terrorists and so on".

I also don't agree with the argument below as it does not really answer the question about reliability for events in 1970s-80s, not 1915. Nevertheless, some quite evident bias is seen throughout his scholarship and not the one that could be justified by reasonable differences of interpretation of sources. He frequently cites Michael Gunter, who also holds non-orthodox views on the Armenian question (essentially, bothsideism), even as he is the go-to scholar for the Kurdish question. I don't believe Gunn's dissertation to be totally out of whack, however, at least not to the degree that would warrant its dismissal. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Even for the research paper's topic, Gunn shouldn't be considered a reliable source. Gunn's writing is very sensationalist and more closely resembles yellow journalism than a research paper. Examples: "these death sentences came to be expected, and would extend even to the spouses and children of Turkish civil servants" (65), "it is now clear that Armenian activists cared very little about whether or not their targets were men, women or children, let alone whether or not possessed the capacity to defend themselves" (83), "the diaspora would now support the assassination of any Turk and that carrying out these death sentences made one an instant hero, whether or not the victim was a diplomat, spouse or even a child" (108), "Melkonian proved that the hate instilled by Armenian propaganda campaign was enough to justify the murder of Turkish children" (122), "including the targeting of children" (277), "death sentences for Turks came to be expected, and would extend even to the spouses and children of Turkish civil servants" (321).

For how much he tries to champion them, Gunn seems to have no problem residing in and accepting money from a country founded on the murders of millions of civilians, women and children included. But I digress. Unlike Turkey, ASALA never ordered the deaths of spouses or children, and Gunn provides no citations for any of these. He should also be aware of this if he's reading the sources he cites.

Gunn also blames the invasion of Cyprus entirely on Greeks and makes no mention of Turkish imperial ambitions. Ironically, Gunn even mocks someone for mentioning Turkish troops shooting women and children: "One Greek-American constituent of Rep. Mario Biaggi (NY) lamented the “’heroic’ exploits of the Turkish paratroopers, who upon landing in Cyprus opened their automatic weapons upon helpless women and children”" (123).

For someone like Stanford J. Shaw, who is universally discredited as a historian and openly known to have had connections to many Turkish institutions, Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative". Yet Gunn calls George E. Danielson a "staunch, faithful and solid ally of Armenian nationalists" (122). When does a biased source cross the line to an unreliable one?

Gunn writes that Gourgen Yanikian was "deranged" (321) and makes no mention of him being a genocide denier who lost 26 family members. Gunn implies his motive was "adulation and glory" (321). This goes far beyond bias, it is outright falsification. His dissertation contains too much lies, bias, and distortions to be considered of any value even for 1973-1993. --Steverci (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm familiar with your opinion, which you expressed on talk. But none of the quotes above show any bias. It is quite obvious that ASALA resorted to indiscriminate violence, and would kill anyone who stood in their way. There cannot be any argument about that, it is enough to see terrorist acts like 1983 Orly Airport attack or Ankara Esenboğa Airport attack, the sole purpose of which was to kill as many civilians as possible, including children (who actually died in Orly). If someone plants a bomb at the airport or fires at passengers with machine guns, it is quite obvious that the perpetrators do not care who they kill, the only purpose is to kill as many people as possible. Yanikian being deranged is supported by official sources that Gunn quoted, which also show that his story is very dubious. I see no evidence that Gunn took money from the Turkish government. And you have no problem with citing Gunn selectively, like here: You say you have no access to this source, but because Gunn quotes it is Ok to use. But when Gunn quotes the US State Department, he is unacceptable to you. How is that possible? The source is either reliable, or it is not, it cannot be used selectively to support only one narrative. Grandmaster 10:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not the same thing as intentionally targeting children the same way as politicians were, as Gunn dramatically claims multiple times without evidence. I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously if you're going to claim the "sole purpose" of the bombs was to "as many civilians as possible" for the fun of it, never mind any Turkish crimes against humanity. Even Gunn doesn't make lies that outrageous. The example you linked is not comparable because we have an Armenian source (Melkonian) and Turkish source (Gunn) confirming he was a spy. This is why biased unreliable sources can still be useful in certain context. Just look at Gunn's Linkedin page to see who is paying Gunn. There is not a single reliable source making the "deranged" claim, which is exclusive to Gunn and possibly other Turkish sources, and there are more reliable sources saying otherwise. Officially, the court ruled that though he would permit evidence of "impairment of his mentality ... going to show a diminished capacity," he would not permit "any evidence of straight insanity". Further proving Gunn intentionally censored information that would hurt his Turkish jingoist narrative, further proving his unreliability. --Steverci (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how any crimes against humanity could justify planting bombs in airports and indiscriminately killing civilians, including children. And yes, that was intentional targeting of children by ASALA, because terrorists knew very well that there were children among passengers. I see nothing on Gunn's Linkedin that would indicate that he is being paid by Turkish government. And Yanikian being deranged is information taken from FBI files. He was clearly a sick individual, who killed innocent people. Grandmaster 07:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Provide a source that ASALA hoped the bombs would killed children, or it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Gunn admits he spent years in Ankara and Antyla and was supported by Turkish "academics" and politicians. All claims of insanity are obviously just Turkish slander in an attempt to 'delegitimize' genocide victims. The only sick individuals are the ones Yanikian shot. Quote the FBI files or it's just more of Gunn's propaganda. --Steverci (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not include in any article that ASALA hoped to kill children, it is just a fact that they killed many children. For example, in Orly they killed 2 French children, Melkonian shot Turkish diplomat's daughter, etc. Facts speak for themselves. When indiscriminate bombing and shooting is used, it is quite obvious that they deliberately endangered lives of children. There is no point in arguing about that. Studying Turkey requires traveling to Turkey, it is logical, and it does not mean that the researcher is not independent. And you can do your own research and check the files that Gunn quotes. You have no problem using him as a source when it supports your narrative. Grandmaster 08:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The subject wasn't those killed in bombings though, it was assassinations of diplomats and other politicians who were specifically targeted. Gunn uses sensationalist language to imply children were targeted too, when they weren't. If Gunn wants to use undue sources, then he should be treated as an undue source. Simple as that. Narrative has nothing to do with it. As Animalparty suggested, Gunn's only possible use could be for non-outlandish claims, if that. --Steverci (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable I wanted to point out that Gunn using the term "genocide" does not make him any less of a genocide denier and a negationist in the slightest. Gunn cites various well-known genocide deniers such as Justin McCarthy, Heath W. Lowry, and Stanford J. Shaw. On Shaw, Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative" which should leave no doubt Gunn is, like these predecessors of his, just another Turkish-funded propagandist pretending to be a scholar. Turkish historiography has become more sneaky in recent years, often trying to sneak in genocide denial more subtly, and feigning an innocent guise of "neutrality" when called out. From the words of a historian:

Again, after decades of being exposed for their lies, Turkish institutions made the decision to be more deceitful instead of being more truthful. Turkish sources that show the slightest hint of historical negationism should be immediately disqualified as reliable. --Steverci (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the source is not about genocide, it is about Armenian terrorism, and it is intended for use only in the articles dedicated to this particular topic. I haven't seen any real argument that could question the reliability of this source in connection with terrorism. Grandmaster 07:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please summarize/close this discussion? Do I get it right that the general consensus among uninvolved editors was Mention with attribution? Grandmaster 21:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be that Gunn is a very biased source promoting almost entirely undue claims, and that the only way he could be cited is for things he wrote that aren't universally disputed, for which in most cases there are better sources that should be used instead anyway. --Steverci (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It would good if someone uninvolved closed this. Grandmaster 21:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the reliability status of The Illuminerdi? Their content includes interviews, reviews, and "exclusive" content (which is generally casting information from their "sources"). I have noticed that a lot of their content has been correct. For example, they revealed the casting of Jameela Jamil in She-Hulk hours before it was confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter. I wanted to know if it was reliable before citing it because its name seems a bit iffy. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MCURS states the site is not reliable. Not sure if there was a formal discussion somewhere, but that's probably the best place to look further. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned about newsblaze.com, a website that is being used in an article. It seemed harmless at first, but when I went to its home page, today's headline stopped me cold: "Biden Administration Kills 10 Afghan Civilians Including 6 Children." Describing itself, the website writes "NewsBlaze is the alternative business and world news newspaper..." Regardless of one's politics (I have no political party affiliation), I find the content on this website truly biased. In a story on global warming, the website states "Sadly, Global Warming proponents have control over (America's) education system..." The website comments on religious issues, as well, saying American Jews are not like pre-Holocaust European Jews whom the website described as "defenseless and a prey to inculpable hate." It continues, "The Shield of David is the protector of the House of David. It is also fundamental to Judeo-Christian culture, embraced by the Founding Fathers, a part of Americanism." And, "Today, the Jewish kids are influenced by social media. They face BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction Israel) activists and anti-Semitic professors while others say nothing. To the people who founded Shield of David 'Never Again means Taking Action Now!' They are out to instil <sic> Jewish values of pride ... To share Judeo-Christian values. To come together under one big tent, one that the Biblical Jewish Patriarch Abraham personified and would be proud of." The website also had an article touting the voter fraud disinformation perpetuated in the U.S. presidential election. All of the quotes were taken from news stories, not opinions. Not every story is obviously biased, but it permeates through the site. I hope this is enough information to get you started on determining whether this source should be green-lighted, yellow-lighted or red-lighted. It does not bill itself as a right-wing or left-wing site, but claims to be a balanced news source, and that is only one of the reasons it causes me concern. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• We shouldn’t be using NewsBlaze.com for anything besides about self etc, they would be a solid red light on that scale. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• 360 uses in article space, that's a terrible site we shouldn't be using for anything. I find I can't read it in a web browser, it keeps auto-reloading the page - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• This paper classifies it as misinformational. It shouldn't be used as a source at all and ought to be depreciated if there's serious dispute over that fact. --Aquillion (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC below - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

AFK Gaming, the website that provides eSports news, seems pretty reliable to me. Please provide clarification.

I propose it to be added as a reliable source for Video games, i.e to the:

WP:VG/S > Sources > Esports
or maybe
WP:VG/S > Sources > General gaming

Website URL: https://afkgaming.com/

VG/S is a WikiProject construction, so best to post on the WT project talk to update that page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am writing a section to add to an article and have been asked by an admin to test here for an assessment of the reliability of the Latin American left progressive news site Resumen Latinamericano, which has no Wiki entry and has not yet been tested for reliability. My query is not to determine whether this source has strong points of view, but whether, regardless of its perspective, it puts forward reliable facts and statements.

Resumen Latinamericano (English), at https://resumen-english.org , is an online Latin American news and opinion source which publishes reports and critiques on news and political figures. How should we assess its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Columbia University tunnels is fraught with non-RS, but the one I'm concerned with at the moment is untapped new york. Should UNY be considered a RS? We have a bunch of articles that cite it on various topics, so I'm interested in the general case. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• It has the reliability of a city guide/travel operator. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what that means. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    • It means that while it could be adequate for non-contentious claims about landmarks, anything it says about their history or the history of the city should be treated as hearsay until proven otherwise (using RS). M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

      OK, thanks. I'm going to take this as not RS. Digging deeper into the untapped article, it seems to be largely based on a Columbia University wiki, which in turn cites Wikipedia as its source. So citogenesis for sure. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain ? tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. It is WP:RECENTISM because, the govenrnment had to backed down their decision as it back fired on them. Now chemical fertilizers can be used again. There is political opposition to that decision, therefore it might change when the goverment changes. Furthermore, theprint.in don't seems like a reliable source or a maintream media. The Hindu only briefly mentions the chemical fertilizer ban, nothing on biological agriculture policy. And Why a subsection needed for such small topic?--Chanaka L (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chanakal: "Sri Lanka walks back fertiliser ban over political fallout fears". France 24. 5 August 2021. Retrieved 6 September 2021. says the walk back is only partial: urea remains banned as fertilizer.

ThePrint is an online newspaper, that does not mean it is dodgy journalism. I do not know RSN precedents for it, I will search for them later. The Hindu is in green at WP:RSP.

About ThePrint I found this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248:

*Established and edited by reputed journalists, passes WP:RS per WP:NEWSORG.

• Quite a lot of opinion pieces but objective reporting is equally abundant.
• I note a clear distinguishing between opinion-pieces and objective-reporting.
• Left-biased but as long as you avoid the opinion pieces, quite-well-enough to be used as a RS for meeting WP:V.If the opinion pieces are used, please abide by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.∯WBG^converse 11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Also reported at Jayasinghe, Amal (1 September 2021). "Sri Lanka organic revolution threatens tea disaster". Phys.org. Retrieved 6 September 2021. © 2021 AFP

Drawing the line: ThePrint, The Hindu, and AFP are 3 (three) mainstream news sources. Are we on the same page? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, this is primarily a content dispute about WP:due weight, and not about the reliability of the sources to support the information, as can be seen from User:Chanakal's edit summary and reply here. This should be discussed in the article's talk page first. –Austronesier (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ozroads

Please evaluate the following resources in the following manner:

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

I believe the 12-13 year old sports and Esports news website Sportskeeda, should be included as a reliable source to WP:VG/S. The website is immensely reliable. I propose it to be added to

WP:VG/S > Sources > General gaming, or
WP:VG/S > Sources > Esports

Website URL: https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports

• I'm going to say this isn't a particularly reliable source. Given that they have an "FAQs for writers" page, I think much of their content comes from independent contributors with no clear credentials or authority, making it at best no better than something like Forbes contributors. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for swift reply. Aaditya.abh (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No further arguments or discussions from my side. Aaditya.abh (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Sportskeeda has been deemed generally unreliable in prior discussions. See [1]. IceWelder [✉] 09:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I am currently editing Draft:List_of_Genshin_Impact_characters, but finding reliable sources has been a challenge. I resorted to using the "Wiki" section of IGN, as IGN is listed in the list of generally reliable sources for content relating to video games. However, I am not sure how much of IGN is considered reliable, and whether IGN's Wiki section is a reliable part of IGN or not. --KingErikII (Talk page) 15:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

its a wiki, so no it is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that's unfortunate. --KingErikII (Talk page) 15:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't you use something like this? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! The website does look good and provides factually correct information, however I am not sure if "Androidcentral" is considered a generally reliable source here. --KingErikII (Talk page) 19:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe it is. It is listed as reliable here, and the publication has a full editorial oversight staff. Feel free to use. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Good to know that! Thanks for your input. :) --KingErikII (Talk page) 09:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Would github be considered a reliable source? My guess would be no because github is mainly user-generated content, but I just wanna make sure as someone requested a source to be added and the source was for github. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Github itself isn't a source, it's just a place for people to create accounts and upload code and other stuff. All content is entirely user generated. If it's GitHub documentation itself about Github as an entity or service, maybe, but otherwise no. The only reason I can think of is X provides the source code for Y on GitHub. Maybe A code does B, but I think that would be better to have a third party reliable source make the statement about what the code does rather than the, possibly, original research of reading the code and making the claim. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Does "someone" have a name and is it possible to say what the suggestion was? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

They don't have a name (as far as I know) because they're an IP. THe suggestion is on Talk:Genshin Impact Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that suggests there is some modifications being made by that code, makes a suggestion that there is a security concern but it's not evidence that one exists. Would need a reliable third party source, not someone's code on GitHub about a problem that may or may not be confirmed to exist. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright cool. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: pinging Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends on a given WP:RSCONTEXT. I would generally discourage its use unless you want to make very specific statements verifiable. I would also strongly recommend to read previous discussions concerning Github: AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It definitely depends on a given WP:CONTEXT and also the other criteria of RS, one can ignore the venue. I would suggest that some repos might have a good reputation within their technology niche or show the RS criteria of ‘editorial’ control and third party reputation - perhaps the MS Azure docs, or the Google flutter, or Redhat Ansible. Otherwise something might be a suitable RS dependent on the reputation of the author, or by third parties referring to it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for stating that some software exists, or a specific version was released on some date, or a change happened. It's not a RS to confer notability on software, or a coder. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I agree with my fellow @Walter Görlitz. The Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG) should be shown by sources of more higher quality in order to avoid violating WP:OR. At best, they shouldn't be first-hand reports. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Think this is confusing the question of whether something deserves an article WP:GNG with the question here of if something on GitHub is usable as WP:RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• GitHub is user-generated content repository, and most of its contents are "primary sources". It is sometimes a good source to add a reference to the release date of the latest stable version, for example. MarioGom (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I read of some interesting non-software uses, such as data visualization, legal postings and other documents, e.g. Obama campaign documents. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd treat it similarly to blogs and social network posts - reliability depends on the author, and assume WP:SPS. Useful for WP:ABOUTSELF and some other uses, but with care. François Robere (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a RfC on two sources as per discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valknut_(software)_(2nd_nomination) The first source is https://www.linuxexpres.cz/ , with Gtranslate it claims that it is a magazine, but I would like your input. I used it for this verifiability.

The second source I support being a reliable source but would obviouly want your RfC, Ubunu Wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com . It is only edited by people at Ubuntu and not open to general public. It is meant as an authorative guide for Ubuntu users and a guide for anything related. --Greatder (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• 1) Ubunu Wiki is not RS since it's a wiki that is is open to all to edit. 2) So called "online magazines" line linuxexpres.cz are a dime a dozen and usually not RS. In this case, the article in question is a blog. M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I didn't realize ubuntu wiki was openly editable, so I undid that edit. But could you guide me how you knew the other link was a blog(personal record) and not a news entry(it is not the directory name I assume). --Greatder (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder: The directory structure is what led me to their blog portal (please read the third paragraph of its lead section). M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a blog (ISSN 1801-3996). "The blog on our portal is not intended for those interested in blogging ... [It] is the way in which editors and authors communicate with readers, or inform them about what is happening around the portal." That is, the blog is a house organ which isn't subject to editorial oversight as are the articles; para. 3 explains the differences. The mag is looking for new authors ; it's a paid gig if you know a little Czech. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait, that was hasty. Linux Expres isn't a blog but it does include a blog, and Greatder is linking a blog post, not an article. The clue is "Blog" in the breadcrumbs (I assume that's what was meant by "directory structure"). Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention ADOS at all. Nor does it say "Enslaved African women were required by law to cover their hair as this feature was considered sexually provocative", instead it says that "In 1786, the governor of Louisiana proclaimed that all free Black women must wear tignon to make them different from white women." so it appears that that the editor who added this, User:ADOS Pride, has also misrepresented the source. The source is the New York Historical Society.

What's more confusing is that the source is talking about a Tignon for which we already have an article. Until the same editor made theses changes (which I've reverted because the removal of it being similar to a Head tie isn't explained and the addition of text that confines its use to ADOS women isn't sourced.

@Praxidicae, Smartse, and M.Bitton: you may have comments on this as ADOS pride has been editwarring with you. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: The source does not support the statement that the editor is attributing to it, therefore, its reliability (in this instance) is irrelevant. I have reverted ADOS Pride's last edit since they are clearly confusing Head tie with Tignon and adding content that isn't covered in the article's body to the lead section. Adding a section about the African-American head tie is probably a good idea, but it has to be done properly, using RS such as "Dress and Ethnicity: Change Across Space and Time" (which is used by others and has a chapter about the origin of the African-American head wrap). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• You don't seem to understand what ADOS means. American Descendants of chattel slavery is a term that refers to people whose ancestors were brought from the continent of Africa and enslaved in the United States. That would include women whose ancestors were raped by Europeans and, therefore, had mixed African and European heritage. Those are the "women of color" to which one article refers. That also includes creole and mulatto women. Enslaved women already wore tignon, for the purpose of work. "Free women" means that they were Black/ADOS/African American because otherwise no one would have to reference their status as being free. All of these details can be found in the various articles of read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ADOS Pride (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Jaxsta , or Jaxsta is a source for detailed music credits information, along the lines of an IMDb for music. Not sure how to treat its reliability, however. On the plus side, the credits aren't user-submitted, since the company is "getting direct feeds of metadata from the three major labels, the Merlin network of independent music companies and unions including the American Federation of Musicians and SAG-AFTRA," (Variety story on the company here) which would speak to the reliability of the data. On the negative side, subjects (or their reps) can sign up for a Pro account and "claim" their pages, allowing them to "customize each profile by adding a bio, image, contact details and links to social media/websites" and "Control how the world sees [their] work by prioritizing the order in which those credits appear on [their] profile". Doesn't sound like the artist/rep can add or change the credits, however. Any thoughts on whether this looks reliable enough to be a source for song credits for a musician or producer? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I wish I remembered exactly what the details were, but last year I was looking at Jaxsta credits as compared to other published credits, and I remember coming to the conclusion that Jaxsta was either incomplete or not getting all the info. Another source of credits fed by metadata is the streaming service Tidal; the credits version is available for desktop app users. I think these are similar.

I am holding the original 1986 CD in my hand of Steve Winwood's Back in the High Life, comparing it to Jaxsta, and the Jaxsta credits look legit. Both the CD liner notes and Jaxsta incorrectly credit Jason Corsaro as engineer on every track along with Tom Lord-Alge—the truth is that Corsaro left the project and the last song to be recorded, track 7 "Split Decision", has zero contributions from him. In this case Jaxsta matches the liner notes so that both are the same amount wrong. But Jaxsta misspells the name of Chaka Khan's brother Mark Stevens who was a backing vocalist, spelling it Mark Stephens. The liner notes spell it correctly. Everything else looks good for this album. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Reason.com generally reliable? The piece in question is which is a critique on other media organisations’ covering of a specific event related to Ivermectin. At a skim of the piece my own alarm bells aren’t ringing but just wanted to make sure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A previous discussion from April 2020: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reason Magazine and reason.com. Consensus then appears to be that it is generally reliable. — Goszei (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Its an editorial (almost everything Reason published is either an editorial or opinion piece) so anything sourced from it should be attributed and it isn’t necessarily due on its own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I wonder if there is a picture of Robby Soave on a dart board in the Rolling Stone offices? Reason is mostly opinion and analysis with very little original reporting. They would be a good source for the University of Virginia hoax and the Covington Kids articles, but only after looking back at some distance from the events. How could this article be used on WP? Offhand it doesn't seem important enough for content in Rolling Stone. fiveby(zero) 02:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the context you want to use this article for? Because so far what I essentially see is the criticism that MSM attributed the quote said on KFOR, which itself, according to the author, made a lousy-quality story around the quote with a clickbait headline. But such attribution is quite often done by the media, and I think Reason is no exception to that. Because I can hardly imagine a usage of the article, apart from "Criticism of the mainstream media" article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think reliable for undisputable facts (who/what/when/where), but opinions (which may constitute a large portion of its content) should be cited to it and never presented in WP's own voice. In the Jacobin Magazine RfC , Jr8825 offered an adroit explanation of our approach in these cases which informs my position here. Chetsford (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecation Reason.com is a partisan and faulty source. It has a sharp conflict of interest as the Reason foundation (the parent of the Reason.com) has received more than millions (approximately $2,000,000 I believe) from the Koch Family Foundations and the Koch Family Foundation and the Reason Foundation remain with tight financial and ideological ties. Reason.com has fought against vaccine mandating (an absurd and dangerous position),^[1] has pushed misleading and sensationalist titles like "Medicare is about to run out" while the article itself says that would be in 5 years^[2] and again has agitated against "bureaucrats" based on unfounded logic and misrepresentations^[3] when what they were fighting for was a label of a grotesque silhouette of a naked man.^[4] In summary, the Reason.com and its parent foundation the Reason Foundation are polemic, liberatarian extremist projects to advance the interests of their grandparent Koch Family Foundations. This is not applicable for Wikipedia except for uncontroversial self-descriptions etc. and it must be deprecated. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Reason, while it clearly has a libertarian streak, it's also a news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I've seen the Wall Street Journal take quotes from Reason interviews, the editorial page of the Washington Post seems to acknowledge that even Reason's critical reporting on WaPo has merit, the newsroom of Washington Post has taken quotes from Reason interviews, and it's got a competent editorial board that exerts editorial control and ensures fact-checking.

The reasons provided above for deprecation... plainly aren't reasons for deprecation and provide for a sloppy argument altogether. Its report on widely reported figures on the Medicare trust (see also: The Hill or the actual report that provides this timeline) doesn't appear to err on that fact, so I'm surprised that this was included. The criticism for its report on Biden's vaccine mandate is a naked government policy analysis rather than addressing the substance of the reporting itself (which actually appears to fully check out). The Alcohol Beverage Control board is plainly part of North Carolina's bureaucracy, and the story itself appears to be solidly sourced. The implication that it was attempting to obscure the content is rather silly; it even includes the image of the beer can design in the article! If the concern is political orientation, I'd suggest that the editor read WP:BIASED, which states that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That WSJ used the fact Paul was interviewed by Reason is not an endorsement of Reason as a reliable source; your claim there doesn't connect in that way. I'm not seeing the cite to Reason in your Hill link either. You're not backing your claims of its newsorgish value. Using quotes from interviews doesn't make Reason an RS, any more than RSes using quotes from the Daily Mail (which they do) makes the DM an RS. You seem to be grasping at straws - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair point; the above wasn't a good affirmative justification. However, what is a good affirmative case involves WP:USEBYOTHERS considered more broadly. It is substantially used by fact-checkers such as PolitiFact as a source for facts (1 2 3 4), though articles in the Volokh subsection of the site tend to be attributed to the particular law professor writing them. USA Today has cited Reason as a source in its election-related fact checks, cited full-length interviews and leaked audio made public by Reason in news reporting, and cited it for non-quote facts in news reporting, as has CNN, Fox News, and ABC News. The Atlantic has given them credit for being the first to break a story and has used Reason-made analyses in its articles. I'm also seeing relatively broad use by a variety of academic disciplines. It's got a pretty wide use by others, which, in my mind, contributes significantly towards its general reliability.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Reason is an obvious "Option 2" source: Considerations apply. Like Jacobin, they mostly aren't liars about checkable facts. However, it is a partisan source, funded to push partisan talking points - it is not at all a WP:NEWSORG. You could use Reason for facts, but it's entirely unclear that there's any fact you could use from Reason that you shouldn't find a much more solid source for. It doesn't fabricate to the point of deprecation, but the commenter suggesting deprecation sets out a list of excellent citations as to why it should at most be "considerations apply" - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Since Jacobin is rated as "Additional considerations apply", in the same way, so should be Reason. It's just two publications with opposite ideologies but essentially the same type of reporting, i.e., opinion-based, with little-to-none news input. There's no good reason to say Reason is more, or less reasonable than Jacobin, when we turn off ideology. That said, as with Jacobin, which I said is particularly valuable for socialist coverage, so is the case with Reason for libertarian POV coverage, so this should not be neglected. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Szmenderowiecki: Part of the reason for the Jacobin close was dubious sourcing from sources like The Grayzone, The Raw Story, and AlterNet for facts in articles. When we turn off ideology, I doubt that Reason cites from... The Grayzone. It wasn't simply that it was opinion-laden that got Jacobin an WP:MREL consensus in its RfC. If you can demonstrate similar sourcing issues, then I'd perhaps agree with you, but it looks to me like Reason does a lot more original reporting than Jacobin and isn't as dependent on lower-quality publications for its reporting. I'd personally be very comfortable using Reason interviews in a biography of a living person, and there were specific issues brought up about how Jacobin reports on living people. I understand that there's a parallel at a shallow level, but this is surely more complicated than Jacobin-is-WP:MREL-so-Reason-should-be-too. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Additional considerations apply e.g. it should be attributed wherever possible. Because it is difficult to distinguish Reason's factual reporting (of which I believe there is little) from its opinion/editorial pieces (of which there are many). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Reason is a generally good source but it's largely commentary, not straight reporting. I think their commentary is often good and worth including with attribution. Several have compared it to Jacobin. Yes, they are both heavy on commentary but it's worth reviewing Ad Fontes's media bias chart. Both sources are within what Ad Fontes calls "Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". However, Reason's is reliability score is 37 vs 31 and more significantly, Reason's bias score of 8 is between "balanced" and "skews right". Jacobin's 22 is bumping into hyper-partisan left. Springee (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 as per shibbolethink's rationale. Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Generally reliable. It's mostly opinion based anyway. Its opinions and interviews have been cited in multiple RS so they can often be used with attribution. Loganmac (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: For those of you citing an option, this isn't an RfC with options. I'm seeing some people see "Option 2" as generally reliable, while others are using "Option 2" to mean additional considerations apply. Since there aren't actually defined options at the top of this discussion, could we try to affirmatively state what we mean by "Option 2" rather than to assume we mean "Option 2" of the the perennial 4-option RfC? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think we should use it for anything about Ivermectin at this time but it's generally comparable to other sources that we use (with attribution). I wouldn't mind deprecation but I just don't see it happening.Spudlace (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Detrick, Ben (May 15, 2013). "Bossa Nova Civic Club". The New York Times.

I am considering using this for an AfC draft (Draft:Bossa Nova Civic Club) that I rejected because of its inadequate references to meet GNG. Is this article reliable? It is a fashion/popular culture review and appears more like a review for potential visitors than a journalistic article. The writing style is informal compared to the usual standard of the NYT. I am unaware of if these types of articles have editorial review. wikinights _talk 19:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This is from Boîte, their bar/club reviews section. All of the articles are available in print, and include photographs by professionals marked "for The New York Times", so everything points towards this falling under their standard editorial process. Think of it as equivalent to a music or restaurant review. Looking through the authors, they don't appear to be NYT staff, but they're all professionals as well. This author, Ben Detrick, has bylines at the NYT, The Ringer, GQ, The Village Voice, etc. I'd say that's it's an adequate source for claims about this club and to contribute to meeting GNG. Woodroar (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Some time ago I was instrumental in the creation of the page on Mary Ann Mansel. Without going into too much boring detail, she was a secretive woman who went to great pains to cover her tracks (even hiding the truth in her will). Her secrets and lies have been exposed by the results of a DNA test done in May this year. Would the following entry be acceptable as a "Note" on her Wikipedia page? Dean Crowley is a cousin of mine, with whom I have communicated for the past two decades. He is as keen as I am for this matter to be proved beyond doubt.

On 3 May 2021 Dean Crowley, a direct descendant of Robert Mansel (1802–1879), had an autosomal DNA result on Family Tree DNA which matched him to Anne Ammundsen, a direct descendant of Charles Childs (1816–1884), their common ancestor being Mary Ann Mansel.

The DNA website used was: where, I believe, anyone with access to their website (a sort of pay-to-view situation) would be able to search for the two people named to verify this submission. As an aside, I happen to know that there is someone who is keen to demolish Mary Ann's page, but this DNA result would stop them in their tracks. Anne (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are no articles on Dean Crowley, Robert Mansel, Anne Ammundsen or Charles Childs. So the unreliable referencing is only the first problem. FDW777 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Part of the subterfuge used was to refer to General Robert Manners, related to the Duke of Rutland, and equerry to King George III, as Robert Mansel. He was really General Robert Manners. All this is clear on the Mary Ann Mansel page. Anne (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure it would have to be noted by an actual source, as its been proposed this strikes me as WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

With such a complicated situation, it is very difficult to be brief. Mary Ann's story, with regard to her illegitimate Mansel children, and her illegitimate Asgill child, is so interwoven with lies and deceit, and so open to being challenged (as I happen to know it is), that all I wanted to do was to prove that there is a link, DNA-wise, between Mary Ann and her Mansel children unequivocally linking her to Charles Asgill's child too. That puts all the lies and secrecy to bed once and for all. Robert Mansel and Charles Childs are not notable, but both appear by name in the Mary Ann article. Anne (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Such DNA tests are dubious in reality. For Wikipedia they are totally out of the question. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing dubious about DNA, it is used by the likes of Professor Turi King to discover King Richard III in a car park, 400 years after his death. But if I am not allowed to use this reliable evidence, that is all I came here to ask, thank you. End of. Anne (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

What you appear to understand is that it is not a WP:RS and that being reliable evidence doesn’t make it WP:DUE. It may be true but understand that we aren’t an encyclopedia of all the true facts in the world. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing dubious about DNA, it is used by the likes of Professor Turi King to discover King Richard III in a car park Who is taking the role of Turi King in this case and in what reliable source has the result of the investigation been published? The answer to this question should hopefully clarify the major difference between the two scenarios (the WP:OR that is presented here vs Turi's results). M.Bitton (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Has a reliable secondary source discussed the purported DNA testing results? No? Then no. Were the evidence to be written up and published in a journal, then we would have that necessary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to the accusation that DNA is unreliable. I merely pointed out that Family Tree DNA (the company used to establish the unequivocal link between the children of Robert Manners and those of Charles Asgill was that company). It is used by Turi King in her investigations, and the police rely on DNA evidence all the time. Turi King has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, other than, were she here to do so, she would recommend FTDNA as a company to use. This discussion is, surely, over now isn't it? None of it matters anyway, because the article on Mary Ann has been nominated for deletion as a consequence of this perfectly polite query I raised! Anne (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends on who did the testing. The whole 'consumer accessible' DNA testing market is completely unregulated. Basically anything goes. If you cannot trace the provenance of the DNA test results, it should be assumed unreliable. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly DNA tests can prove or disprove relationships. However, we need to know that the samples were taken from the right people and that the lab is accurate. IOW we need an expert who can verify that the right people were sampled and that the lab is reliable, ie, someone like Professor Turi King. Then we need secondary sources to report the findings in order to establish weight. TFD (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

How do we consider the website officeholidays.com? I see about 174 articles using it in citations. — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Does CalArts (https://blog.calarts.edu/) qualify as a reliable source? For example on the recent deaths pages. I used it as a reference for Fran Bennett's passing but it was rejected with the motivation that blogs are not reliable sources. I consider this as a news blog though and not a self publicized blog and newsblogs/magazine blogs are allowed and it's from a respectable major university. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is reliable for that type of information. As a newsblog of the school, it is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, but once notability has been shown (GNG or NPROF), then using the blog to affirm the death of one of their faculty seems absolutely reasonable. --Masem (t) 19:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a dispute on the Immigration to Sweden page where the editor User:1Kwords is edit-warring to scrub RS content (including peer-reviewed studies in prominent criminology journals) because the editor claims a single source is superior to all the other sources and thus the other sources should be scrubbed. Is this consistent with Wikipedia's RS and NPOV guidelines? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Short answer, no; long answer - incorporate the govt report in the structure of the article, because it is indeed relevant and about the newest info available on the article's subject. It does not trump whatever has been published prior to the report, including the socio-economic analyses. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans accuses me of edit warring and threatens to block me when I am nowhere near the 3RR rule. My edit did indeed use the newest available info available on the subject, whereas conclusions presented in other sources are based on older information which wasn't available at the time of their publication. It can be questioned whether a publication from 2014 should take precedence if it uses data from 2005. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, you weren't breaching the 3RR rule, so that warning doesn't really seem warranted unless Snooganssnoogans decided to preempt a potential one, though I'm not sure if it can be done this way.

My edit did indeed use the newest available info available on the subject, whereas conclusions presented in other sources are based on older information which wasn't available at the time of their publication That doesn't really matter and certainly it is not the reason to delete the rest of the research, because its findings might still have value as the information on crime is still relatively recent. I'm not really proficient in Swedish so I can't evaluate the way the government report has been integrated by EvergreenFir. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My edit changed only the summary of the Crime section to use the most up to date information. Using the visual editor, if the sources were used elsewhere in the article they should simply be moved. Therefore it is not correct to say that my edit "deleted the rest of the research" from the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans is not an admin so it's fairly unlikely they threatened to block you. They may have warned you may or will be blocked if you edit war, which is accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but adding verified material from WP:RS isn't edit warring, that's how Snooganssnoogan's warning on my talk page can be perceived as intimidating and my edit was also misrepresented. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing material cited to WP:RS and pertinent to the article's topic without compelling reasons to do so can also be seen as disruptive. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@1Kwords: you're seriously mistaken. I strongly suggest you re-read WP:Edit warring if you want to continue to edit without being blocked. Edit warring is when editors repeatedly revert someone else's good faith change. It doesn't matter whether you're adding material or removing material although from what I saw you were doing both in your edit anyway, as highlighted by Szmenderowiecki, nor who's changes are right or wrong, nor whether your changes are sourced, and whatever else. Note it's obvious from this that it generally takes two to edit war, this is a well accepted maxim. Neither party to an edit war is generally considered right, again no matter who's changes may be right. Although generally speaking, per WP:BRD when there is a dispute regardless of sources etc, we keep the stable version before the disputed change pending discussion and consensus. But separately per WP:1AM etc, if one editor keeps making a change and multiple other editors are reverting them, the one editor is more likely to get into trouble. Per our policy it's only in cases like vandalism (which isn't good faith anyway), enforcement of overriding policies like BLP and edits from blocked/banned editors where it would not be edit warring, and none of this applied here. Also you've proven by your response that Snooganssnoogan warning was fully justified as you apparently did not even after the warning understand what edit warring was about. It's unfortunate you still did not understand, I suggest you pay attention to what you're being told rather than automatically dismissing such warnings because you think they're unjustified. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've seen stuff related to this source before; it seems to be a constant source of issues. As a source from the Swedish government, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) is a primary source for anything related to Sweden and should be used cautiously. It is particularly important to avoid using it in a way that implies interpretation or analysis, which leads the reader to a non-trivial, controversial, or WP:EXCEPTIONAL conclusion, or to try and "refute" the interpretation and analysis of secondary sources, since doing so is WP:OR. It is absolutely not the best source in this context - in the context of a highly controversial and politicized discussion, its primary status means that we have to be extremely careful when using it and should not cite it excessively. If the interpretation that 1Kwords is taking from it is mainstream and widely-accepted, it should be easy to find secondary sources backing that up. --Aquillion (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: Publishing the report is the source of controversy and a politicized discussion, its publication has been delayed repeatedly. The facts and conclusions themselves aren't disputed and as such are uncontroversial. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, they are plainly controversial and a secondary source is unequivocally required in this case; if, as you claim, they are undisputed and uncontroversial, it should be easy to find a secondary source, but given the highly-contentious nature of the topic there is absolutely no circumstance under which you can cite Brå alone for any significant claims or conclusions regarding crime in Sweden - it should be removed on sight when used in that manner; using raw government statistics to argue a point is utterly inappropriate on Wikipedia. EDIT: Especially since, at a glance, some uses are clearly of the form "secondary source says X, BUT! An editor thinks that this line from the primary source refutes them!" That is blatant WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. Again, if you think the topic is uncontroversial, it should be easy for you to find secondary sources covering this. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the context I don’t think its possible to make the argument that "The facts and conclusions themselves aren't disputed and as such are uncontroversial.” with a straight face, you clearly appear aware that they are disputed and if you aren't aware consider yourself informed. Also I agree with Aquillion, there is no way to spin that in which it isn’t OR/SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@1Kwords: your claim makes no sense. Perhaps the pure crime statistics are uncontroversial. But what you were trying to add made the claim that these statistics cannot be accounted for by other factors. This goes beyond the realms of pure statistics into complicated analyses which inherently tend to be controversial and disputed since accounting for confounding factors is incredibly difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The diff posted in the original post above shows very clear cherry-picking/WP:SYNTH from the primary source, and it is misleading to say the least to claim that this is "uncontroversial". The sourced information removed by 1Kwords should stay, together with the sources. It is concerning how many of 1Kwords' edits seem to be within this subject area, and always creating an anti-immigrant spin on facts. --bonadea contributions talk 15:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• mmm 2021 government report versus 1974 paper.... User:Snooganssnoogans - this doesn’t seem a fair representation of the case or the cites involved. Your one edit being reverted is not suitable to call “edit warring” and come here, I suggest first try the article TALK page for discussion. Since User:1Kwords indicated in his edit comment that he views the WP:BESTSOURCES as the 2021 Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention report, please consider for the discussion whether your mentioned peer-reviewed papers small publication and age being 1974 and 2013 may put them as needing scrutiny whether they are still DUE for citation use. Perhaps if this something from forty-six years ago is still used in secondary sources, cite those and if not then drop that one  ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing is sourced to a 1974 paper. Please refrain from commenting on issues that you are incapable or unwilling to do the minimum diligence on. This is precisely the kind of disruptive and obnoxious behavior that got you topic banned indefinitely from post-1932 politics of the United States. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans Suggest you at least use the article TALK page and try to work it out, giving them a bit more credit because on just a brief look it doesn’t look like this deserves being called “edit war”, and looks like mostly cites are not “peer-review”, and the journal mentions are 2013 and maybe 1974 versus 2021 so looks like he has at least somewhat a case for BESTSOURCES. Just look at the facts ...

• The revert with comment “unclear why peer-reviewed studies are being removed” was answered in their repost reinstatement with comment “removed because Swedish Council for Crime Prevention has released their 2021 report, per WP:BESTSOURCES.”
• The cites seem mostly newspapers and France24, not entirely peer-review journals, but speaking to any sign of journal I see one, and two maybes. The first is May 2013 from the British Journal of Criminology. The second is July 2013 from the Journal of Race and Justice, maybe not a professional criminology venue. The third is an indirect reference in the last cite Krimilogen brief piece says “we have known this since 1974”, which seemed referring to older studies.
• Their 2021 piece - recent and authoritative - has some WEIGHT of secondary responses, and availability to reading, so competes well vs cites to 2013 or 1974. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Article under discussion: Happy Science.

Source under discussion: "Happy Science, a new cult offers celebrity guide to heaven", The Jakarta Post 22 July 2012. (archived version)

Statement to be supported: "Not only the domestic Japanese press, but also international media in the United States, Uganda, Indonesia, and Australia have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science." (The source in question is only meant to support the "Indonesia" bit.)

There have been repeated and extensive attempts from representatives of the group to whitewash the article and remove all references to it being known as a cult. The article talk page archive has a lot of sealioning by sockpuppets. In this instance, the argument for removing this particular source is that the op-ed is not signed so the opinion can't be attributed to a person. To my mind, it would not be appropriate to include any names of journalists since that would make it look like this is just the individual opinion of that person – however, it might be the case that this one source shouldn't be used, and if so, we'd simply need to remove the reference to Indonesia. --bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that this anonymous source is not reliable.

As User:Politanvm said, the source is an opinion piece, which isn’t reliable for statements of fact.

Even though it has nothing to do with this case, User:Bonadea mentions the "behavior" of representatives of Happy Science, so I am compelled to mention the issue of his neutrality as well.

He insisted on putting the hatnote "The Gay Science" for years.

He claimed that it was necessary to avoid confusion because one of the translations of "The Gay Science", "The Joyous Science", is very similar to "Happy Science".

But the fact is, according to [this source], "The Joyous Science" had only 25 views in the past, while "The Gay Science" had 846,086 views.

To add to that, when I deny his claim based on some evidence, he even deletes the text and evidence, which is not neutral at all. A series of logs can be found on the talk page, so you can judge for yourself.

bonadea is collecting unreliable sources of information in order to prove that this organization is a cult.

I believe that we should not ignore reliability just to fulfill bonadea's wish to complete the sentence "It is a cult". Thank you all for your justice and consciences. --Cadenza025 (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable: yes; due for mention: no. The statement is international media in the United States, Uganda, Indonesia, and Australia have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science (italics added). There are two ways to support this statement. The best one is to bring up a reliable secondary source which explicitly states right that (viz. Happy Science is called a cult in media). A more shaky way is to bring up actual attestations, which however easily slips into cherry-picking and undue weight (in Wiktionary, we need three attestations to support that a word even exists).

Here, the Jakarta Post is among the most reputable newspapers in Indonesia, and arguably ranks as No.1 among local English-language media. So there it is baseless to dismiss Jakarta Post out of hand as an unreliable source. But is this attestation sufficient, especially when apparently there are only two instances of Indonesian quality media applying the term "cult" (or its Indonesian equivalent sekte)? I could only dig up the Jakarta Post piece using "cult", and a report in Suara using "sekte". That's about it, for the simple reason that Happy Science does not get much coverage in Indonesia anyway. So, no the bumpy road of attestations does not lead to inclusion with due weight. –Austronesier (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This Washington Post article covers your first example. It reads: In Tokyo, Wednesday’s protest was backed by the Happy Science religion, which has been described in foreign media as a cult. It seems like it makes sense to remove this Jakarta Post citation, and add this WaPo reference. For context, I wasn’t asserting that the Jakarta Post isn’t reliable, but that the article is in the Opinion section, rather than their journalism, and we wouldn’t typically cite from opinion pieces even if published by a reliable news agency (WP:RSOPINION). Politanvm ^talk 21:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Politanvm: I have to admit that I hadn't looked into the discussion in Talk:Happy Science before answering. So I was only referring to simplistic statement "this anonymous source is not reliable" by Cadenza025 here. The Washington Post article is indeed perfect to support a less specific version (without listing countries) of the disputed text. I fully support your arguments further below in this discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The source is not Wikipedia but it's kind of circular reference: 'Source A says "Some source B says it's a cult"'. In this case, WaPo says "It's described in The NYT as a cult", in NYT, it says "Japan Times says it's a cult". The original statement is According to The Japan Times, "for many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult". Not only the domestic Japanese press, but also international media in the United States, Uganda, Indonesia, and Australia have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science. So, this statement is such like Not only Source C, Source A says 'Source B says "Source C says it's a cult". (WP:CIRC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadenza025 (talk • contribs)

WP:CIRCULAR is just about citing sources that themselves reference Wikipedia, so unless there’s reason to believe WaPo is referencing Wikipedia, it isn’t relevant here. There’s no need to overthink this. The WP article says that foreign media has described it as a cult, and we have a reliable source that says foreign media has described it as a cult. It’s a simple paraphrase of a reliable source. Politanvm ^talk 00:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the source is not Wikipedia, so I don't expect WP:CIRC to apply directly, but I do think this policy is helpful in thinking about sources. This is because, as you said, the statement we are focusing on now says "Not only the domestic Japanese press, foreign media has described it as a cult". In reality, however, the "foreign media" refers to "the domestic Japanese press". Despite the fact that there are only a few actual sources, the WP article misleads the reader into thinking that independent opinions are emanating from several different continents. It's not just a paraphrase. --Cadenza025 (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not following how "foreign media" would be read as "domestic Japanese press". It seems clear that it's talking about press outside Japan, and it certainly isn't misleading, since it is coming from multiple continents. Are you suggesting that media can't write independently about organizations in other countries?

Or is the issue that we need to rephrase how the Wikipedia article talks about media describing Happy Science as a cult? We have an abundance of sources that either describe it a cult directly or talk about other media describing it as a cult, so it's certainly WP:DUE, but I suppose we could discuss how to phrase it more closely to what the sources say. If you're saying it's necessarily unreliable for a news source to say X is described by some media as Y, there's no Wikipedia guideline or policy to back that up. Basically, we just paraphrase what the reliable sources say, and a discussion about how we know better than reliable sources is creeping into original research. Politanvm ^talk 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with the opinion that citing from The Jakarta Post is not appropriate. And, to avoid confusion, I will only focus on US sources here. Then,

In the above,

1. In the context of "cult", WaPo cites JT (requotation from NYT / or something we never know / includes The Jakarta Post) and do not cover it themselves.

2. In the context of "cult", NYT cites JT and do not cover it themselves.

3. JT is not in the WP:RSP.

4. JT is not an international media.

Regardless of what these may conclude, let me first see if we can agree on these 4 facts. Because there's no Wikipedia guideline or policy about this, there is still room for discussion. Thank you. --Cadenza025 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Continue to focus on US sources here.

1. JT says HS as a cult, NYT and WaPo say "JT says HS as a cult".

2. Thus, Not only the domestic Japanese press, but also international media in the US have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science is not much appropriate.

My suggestion is below.

1. Because these three sources point to the same one source, this is enough:

According to The Japan Times, "for many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult".[JT][NYT][WaPo]

2. Or simply exclude WaPo from this because its source is unclear:

According to The Japan Times, "for many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult".[JT][NYT]

--Cadenza025 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Austronesier has already responded with a simple clarification below, but to put a final bow on my thoughts, I believe you are over-complicating this and doing original research. There is no reason to assume WaPo is only referencing NYT just because they gave one link with further information. I understand your analysis, but your facts and outcomes are not correct.

1. WaPo is a generally reliable source with editorial standards. We don’t expect them to post citations for all of their research because we can generally trust that they’re not writing nonsense. Wikipedia is a summary of what reliable sources say.
2. There’s no reason to believe WaPo is only talking about the NYT article that quotes JT. Other non-Japanese media have described Happy Science as a cult in their own words, including Vice and The Daily Beast among the others already cited in the Wikipedia article.
3. Whether or not all of these other sources or reliable isn’t too important. The claim is that international media describes Happy Science as a cult. This claim is unambiguously true, and stated simply by WaPo. Whether or not it is a cult isn’t the question, just that it’s described as one.

In summary, it is clear that multiple non-Japanese media have described Happy Science as a cult, and we have a reliable source to back it up. I’m open to rephrasing the laundry list of countries, but it is an unambiguous fact that “international media have described Happy Science as a cult”. I support Austronesier’s proposal below. Politanvm ^talk 14:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Since the subject this time is the reliability of The Jakarta Post's opinion piece, would you accept to drop Indonesia from the list of countries? Also, I will continue to suggest other sources if there is any doubt about them. Since the aggregation of these individual sources will affect the results, let's leave "international media have described Happy Science as a cult" for another discussion. Thank you for your patience. --Cadenza025 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see a couple of inadequate readings above:

• In reality, however, the "foreign media" refers to "the domestic Japanese press". This has already been clarified by Politanvm. The WaPo article is a report about an event in Japan, and takes the geographical perspective of Japan: "local" is used to refer to Tokyo ("The support reflected controversial local movements, too. In Tokyo, Wednesday’s protest was backed by the Happy Science religion"), and consequently "foreign" refers to media outside of Japan.
• WaPo cites JT (requotation from NYT [...]). No, WaPo does not–directly or indirectly—quote JT or NYT. Where do you read this? It says "the Happy Science religion, which has been described in foreign media as a cult"; the media are not specified, which is not necessary in this context. I would put this statement into reasonable doubt if we weren't able to find any non-Japanese media that use the label "cult". But even a lazy search proves that doubt wrong.

Solely to attribute the label "cult" to JT and citations of JT completely ignores actual instances of usage in international quality media (cf. The Age, Jakarta Post, The Independent). My suggestion is only to use WaPo as source, and add an {{efn}} listing selected media (just to counter doubts that WaPo might have made up a baseless statement). –Austronesier (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be mentioned because it needs to be supplemented. As you can see in the table above, I am of course aware of the possibility that media is unknown, because WaPo does not specify the media as you say.　There are two main possibilities for the media that WaPo is targeting. One is the NYT, and the other is everything but the NYT (which means it is unknown as you say).

The reason I mention the NYT possibility is that immediately after the sentence in WaPo, there is a reference to a NYT article, so it is perfectly natural to assume that the first sentence is referring to a NYT article. In fact, it is hard to imagine that the WaPo editor did not anticipate that not a few readers would think that way. However, since it is not stated, it is impossible to prove. But if that is the case, then it becomes necessary to focus on the relationship between NYT, JT and WaPo. As Politanvm says, maybe I'm overthinking this, but I think it's an important point. This is not the subject of this article, so I would like to discuss it at another time. Thank you. --Cadenza025 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's speculation, so you invite to discuss something which is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. I won't enter into such a discussion. And note that your speculations will not unexist the attestations in The Age, Jakarta Post, The Independent, Vice, The Daily Beast. Bottomline: we have multiple attestations of international media calling Happy Science a cult, and we have a reliable secondary source which states that Happy Science has been called a cult in international media. –Austronesier (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is unverifiable part in this WaPo article. I'm sure there are more than a few readers who associate the NYT with the context. I would like to hear the opinions of several experts in this area. I am not doubting the reliability of such medias as The Age, Jakarta Post, The Independent, Vice, The Daily Beast, etc., but if I have doubts about the content and think it is not appropriate in the context, I would like to clarify it. Thank you for your consideration. --Cadenza025 (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The WaPo article is verifiable. We can see plainly with our own eyes that WaPo’s claim that “foreign media have described Happy Science as a cult” is true, by virtue of all the sources listed above.

I think we’ve settled all that need to be said on RS/N: The Jakarta Post opinion piece alone isn’t sufficient for that claim, but the Washington Post is. I agree with Austronesier’s proposal to cite WaPo and provide a footnote that lists the other individual sources. @Bonadea, if that sounds right to you, I can make those edits to the article. If not, this discussion should probably continue at Talk:Happy Science. Politanvm ^talk 18:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

No. If the conclusion is that The Jakarta Post opinion piece isn’t an appropriate source, we should not use it. And the sentence on which the article is based should also be excluded. --Cadenza025 (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

What was said above is that the Washington Post is a reliable source for the claim. You expressed concern that WaPo was incorrect, so Austronesier proposed adding a footnote showing the multiple foreign sources describing Happy Science as a cult. There is no reason to remove the sentence altogether because we have a reliable source for it. Politanvm ^talk 13:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

[Proposition] By the Washington Post article, it can be drawn to the conclusion "foreign media describe the Happy Science as a cult".

[Facts] f1: WaPo's claim is "foreign media describe the Happy Science as a cult." f2: Immediately after the claim, it mentions the contents of the NYT article and links to the NYT article. f3: The NYT cites JT. f4: JT is not in the WP:RSP. f5: JT is not an international media.

[Guesses] g1: In the first half of the sentence, the author mentions all foreign media, including the NYT. Either the first half has nothing to do with the second half, or the second half is describing a single case. g2: The first half of the sentence is stated with the second half of the sentence describing the NYT article in mind. The second half of the sentence is stated as evidence for the assertion in the first half.

[Claims] The only facts that can be ascertained from the WaPo article are f1 and f2, and g1 and g2 are both just speculation. The problem here is that not only g2 but also g1, which you believe, is just a speculation. Whether g1 or g2 is correct is not the subject of the discussion. Only the writer knows that. It is, as Austronesier said, both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. The only thing we are discussing here is whether or not both g1 and g2 are speculations.

You draw your conclusion only by saying that "the string 'foreign media describe Happy Science as a cult' seen through our retinas and optic nerves is consistent with the proposition". But this is not correct. This is why I stated earlier that "there is an unverifiable part in this WaPo article".

[Conclusion] The proposition is False. It is only our speculations that are leading to the conclusion.

To add to this, whether g1 or g2 is correct will greatly affect the conclusion of another agenda item. Therefore, it is also wrong to view this as if it were a small problem. I myself believe that not a few readers will read it as g2 and professional writers are naturally aware of this, however, again, whether g1 or g2 is correct is not the subject of the current discussion. Whether or not both are speculations is the only issue.

What I would like to suggest is that instead of lumping them all together as "foreign media," we should explain what each media is claiming, and then carefully consider each claim. --Cadenza025 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Baba tells Bibi, Bobo and Bubu: "In and around Roma Termini railway station, there are lots of places where you can get hot coffee". Generally, all of them trust Baba. For Bibi, it is sufficient to have Baba as a reliable source of information, but Bobo and Bubu want to see for themselves. The three of them take a train to Rome, and indeed upon arrival they see lots of places where hot coffee is sold. Bibi just smiles and wants to see more of Rome. Bubu says: "Our trusted friend Baba was right, as usual!" But Bobo is still in doubt: "Ok, we can get hot coffee everywhere, but how can we be sure Baba was talking exactly about these cafes and vendors that we are seeing now when they said that in and around Roma Termini railway station, there are lots of places where you can get hot coffee?" Bibi and Bubu sigh and tell Bobo to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. –Austronesier (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand that it is difficult to verify everything, and Wikipedia has no function or role to verify the truth. However, BABA, BIBI, whatever, and you can make fun of it all you want, If you don't want to take it seriously, feel free to leave, still I cannot overlook the fact that lies are being perpetrated with impunity. Having said that, I respect the rules of Wikipedia, and I try to argue within the rules.

Media "A" says "B" because "C".

Media "X" says "Y" because "Z".

It's okay to write those things as they are. Whether they are true or not will be verified over time. In fact, there are many court cases where major Japanese media wrote false articles about Happy Science, and Happy Science filed lawsuits and were found to have no evidence or backing for their articles. What I am simply trying to say is that it is absolutely wrong to lump the word "cult" together and write it as if it is one conclusion without evidence and harden it as if it is an agreed decision. --Cadenza025 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@bonadea, you said that I wouldn't call the organisation "evil" even if they have been involved in some very controversial activities. I saw these words and thought I would trust you. However, calling a religion a cult is the same as calling it an evil. If people do a Google search for HappyScience, the word "cult" will be there. And we, the innocent, continue to be persecuted in this infosphere. Even if that's what the media does, and even if you don't intend to, you are supporting and amplifying their activities. At this very moment, you are hurting the faithful. You keep calling them "cult" without any reason. Just because the media says something, doesn't mean it's been properly corroborated. Is it enough that the editors of Wikipedia are convinced? Please stop hurting and respect the faithful of HappyScience. We don't need to rely on the media to do that. The media are not omniscient and omnipotent, so there is much they do not know. As you can see, I am one of the believers of Happy Science, and I think I fall under the category of WP:COI. So I'm not going to edit the article myself. I leave to you what I know. According to WP:ABOUTSELF, it is possible to write about things that only we know, right? happyScience is neither evil nor cult. --Cadenza025 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

My parable is meant dead serious. And please learn to distinguish between WP:WIKIVOICE (e.g. Happy Science is a cult, which we do not do in the article) and citing media coverage (e.g. Happy Science has been described in international media as a cult, which is sufficiently sourced). This has nothing to do with being "convinced".

As for We don't need to rely on the media: oh yes, the content of WP is solely built on reliable sources, and these include the Washington Post. And please be careful when you equate WP reflecting the content of reliable sources with "persecution". –Austronesier (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see that you guys are just following Wikipedia's rules. I respect you all. But whether the word is "described" or whatever, even if you switch the word around and it follows Wikipedia's rules, the fact remains that it is actually hurting a lot of people for no reason at all. For no reason whatsoever.

Dear fellow editors, my only hope is that you will carefully clarify one by one who is saying what and for what reason, instead of simply lumping them together under the term "cult”. --Cadenza025 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please also see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. Censoring or white-washing Wikipedia articles because you don’t like what the media says won’t solve this supposed harm. What @Austronesier proposed and what I support does exactly what you’re asking: Citing our reliable source (WaPo) and adding an explanatory supplement demonstrating exactly which sources are using the descriptor. Politanvm ^talk 03:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

No. What I'm asking is neither censoring nor white-washing. I'm asking for all to be revealed, not summarized or omitted to hide something. At the very least, I mentioned that the sentence in WaPo that you are trying to cite stands on the basis of our speculation. Unless there is a clear refutation of that, the cite is inadmissible. --Cadenza025 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, this does not mean that you should cite the entire article. --Cadenza025 (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to take Austronesier’s advice and stop beating this dead horse, because anything that needs to be said has been said. We have a reliable source, and we can verify that source’s claim with our own eyes. There is no speculation from me or from WaPo. WaPo linking to another article that provides further reading in no way, shape, or form implies that the NYT is their sole source of information. When I have a few more minutes, I’ll implement Austronesier’s proposal (unless someone else gets to it first). Politanvm ^talk 03:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is unreasonable. No matter how much you think so,

In Tokyo, Wednesday’s protest was backed by the Happy Science religion, which has been described in foreign media as a cult. The group gained infamy last year for selling a “Spiritual Vaccine” that it claimed could cure covid-19 at a price of hundreds of dollars.

No one can prove that it is obvious that the first and second halves of this sentence are unrelated. It is just your wishful thinking from which you draw your conclusions. As I have said many times, this is an issue that greatly affects our conclusions, and you can't turn away from it. --Cadenza025 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve attempted to implement Austronesier’s suggestion. If there’s any feedback or further edit suggestions, it’s probably best to discuss that at Talk:Happy Science, since no meaningful evidence has been shown here to change the reputation of The Washington Post as a reliable source. Politanvm ^talk 04:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Dignity Memorial (operated by Service Corporation International) a reliable source for birth dates? I know that Find a Grave is UGC and thus unreliable, but I can't figure out whether Dignity Memorial is also UGC. Specifically, I want to know if it would be acceptable to use this as the source for Saul Soliz's DOB, as all secondary RS I have encountered thus far only report his death date and age at the time of death. Armadillopteryx 16:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The interesting thing here is, they're not technically the source, they're only posting the information the family is providing. That being said, I'm not sure why the DOB a family provides wouldn't be reliable. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those cases in which I don’t think that the source is going to be incorrect per say but it just doesn’t meet any of our standards for a reliable source so I don’t really see many use cases for it. I do not think we could use it for a DOB. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

User:238-Gdn has used one here.. And although "alleged" might be correct, I don't see how that can be shown in Yitzchak Ginsburgh's article vis a letter by him. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if we knew that the work was originally published elsewhere and cited that, but internally used the perhaps questionable copy on Google Drive for review, that's one thing we'd turn a blind eye to as long as you are vouching for the original publication and proper source. But to a source only published on a cloud drive without mention in wider sources? No way. No way to verify authorship, etc. --Masem (t) 12:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

How do we know it has not been manipulated?Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with hosting it, but the moment someone raises a concern because they want further verification, then I'd say it's no longer acceptable. Similar to how we treat offline sources, or non English sources that are not easily verified by every editor who had questions/concerns. But till then, thank you for including a link even if informal. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The link seems to be a clear violation of WP:COPYVIOEL to me. It's okay to have convenience links for sources, but not when they're hosted by someone without permission of the copyright holder. (Archival links are considered acceptable provided it's an archive of content was published by the copyright holder.) Similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request editors could potentially share this privately to aide with verification but it should not generally be done publicly and especially not in articles.

But this is from May 17 1996 The Jewish Press page 88 so the link is irrelevant. We do not require a link for the source to be valid per Wikipedia:Offline sources.

However a letter to the editor is at most only usable to show the writer's POV. It's even worse than an opinion column or editorial since those may at least have some basic fact checking by whoever published it whereas I'm fairly sure most publishers just try to avoid anything which sounds too insane or will get them sued when it comes to letter to the editor and don't fact check them at all.

With reference to Slatersteven's point an issue here is the providence of the photocopy. If it came from the editor who wants to use it then I'm partially with Shushugah we should treat this like we do every other source. We generally trust other editors when it comes to what sources say and trust them to provide accurate copies if we want to verify the details ourselves. If for some reason people are extremely sceptical of some particular editor, it would probably be acceptable to seek out another copy and maybe even remove it in the interim but you really need to actively seek it out if you're going to challenge it IMO. If the editor doesn't know where the photocopy came from then IMO it's more reasonable to reject it outright even without seeking out another copy.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a bunch of listings of modern plays here, but the 1676 English translation by a notable playwright wasn't there until I added it. Should we lose all the focus on the 20th century English adaptations with no independent sources, or do you think there's good sources that just aren't used yet? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 19:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)