Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362

Bumping this since it got no attention last time...

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

In addition, most of the uses I've seen of it are for biographical information, peacocking a barely-notable artist, or unduly pushing the author's viewpoints. Given the nature of the site, it should clearly be at least deprecated, if not outright blacklisted.

Paging @Caldorwards4:, @ChrisTofu11961:, @Gatoclass:, @Martin4647: due to their history of edits related to the topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I also find Saving Country Music to be an unreliable source. The word "editor" (used to the describe the person managing this website in this case) is a loose term. He/she appears to wear multiple hats, which is fine in some circumstances. Yet in this case the "editor" often does approach his writing from a non-biased standpoint. I have often avoided this website due to its biased language. When we evaluate media outlets for reliable sources we should consider whether or not they any professional journalistic background. If they appear not to, then their content should be avoided. In this case, Saving Country Music should be avoided. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

While I won't pretend to have taken an in-depth look at the site in question, the fact that either it or its author have evidently been repeatedly cited in reputable journals indicates to me that it is reliable. However, given that it basically appears to be a one-man blog, it would probably be a mistake to give too much weight to it in articles, and certainly, claims made by the author about himself should be taken with a large grain of salt. Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I've got some familiarity with this particular website, and having read a few of its pieces before, I'd recommend against its use for most purposes. It's essentially a one-person blog, has a tendency towards the polemic, and a tendency to self-aggrandize. While I wouldn't say it should never be used, there's generally going to be better sources for things such as biographical information, and we need to make sure that usage here meets due weight, given the nature of the claims it makes itself (the Sturgill one is a good example) and the tendency to publish polemic-like pieces. Hog Farm _Talk 19:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

victimsofcommunism.org is a website of an educational and research foundation with an academic council with research and education programs. It was previously discussed here, but just because people think it has an anti-communist bias (which it obviously does) isn't a valid reason to reject it as completely unreliable, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. It certainly is a reliable source for it’s own views on communism, however biased some think that is, and the usage context in Mass killings under communist regimes is to present their attributed view: ”In 2016, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation made an effort to compile ranges of estimates using sources from 1976 to 2010, and wrote in its Dissident blog that the overall range "spans from 42,870,000 to 161,990,000" killed”, where the linked article Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation makes clear in the first line of that article it is a ”non-profit anti-communist organization”. --Nug (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• It seems Nug forgot to mention that this source has been recently a subject of the RSN discussion. Nug is perfectly aware of the previous discussion, so I have no clue why he never mentioned it.

In addition to that, the problem with this source not its reliability. It is closely affiliated with the US authorities: It was established by the Act of Congress, and is currently lead by Andrew Bremberg, a former director of the Domestic Policy Council in the Trump's administration. In addition to this source, the article cites three other sources that are closely affiliated with the US federal authorities of with VoC. That creates a serious bias, for Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect official position of any state.

In addition,this source provides desperately obsolete data for the USSR, so it is unreliable for the USSR and for the total figure. The highest figures available from modern data (e.g. Rosefielde) are at least three times lower.

In addition, the link to this "source" is a dead link. This information is available only from some web depository, and it is not at the official site any more. Therefore, there is no proof that these figures reflect a current position of VoC. No matter if this source reliable or not: it does not say that anymore, so, strict;y speaking, it is not a source. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

?? I did link the previous RSN discussion above. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also closely affliated with the US government and was established by an Act of Congress and is led by political appointees. --Nug (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

My bad, a blue colour is barely visible on my monitor.

However, your summary of previously expressed opinia is somewhat deceptive. Yes, majority of users pointed out that it is an extremely biased source, however, many of them noted its poor reputation in fact checking and accuracy, and their tendency to exaggerate figures.

WRT CDC, do you claim that CDC as a source is independent from the US government?

In addition, the main goal of VoC is not a study of Communism, but "educating Americans about the ideology, history and legacy of communism." In other words, this is not a neutral research institution, but the organisation that pursue some ideological goals in accordance with the policy of the US administration.

And, finally, you carefully avoid an answer to my criticism: it is no evidence that VoC figures reflect a current point of view of this organisation: its web site contains no such figures. I pointed your attention at that fact previously, why you restore a dead link? Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Foundation is a bi-partisan non-profit, the Act of Congress that created the Foundation was signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton. Regardless of your personal politics, the source is acceptable per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and usage in this context is appropriately attributed to them. There are no policy issues against using Wayback machine, even Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Notes and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#References uses it. Nug (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

BIASEDSOURCES say that biased sources may be reliable in the specific context, and that is exactly what I say: it is reliable for the views expressed by organisations that have close ties with US administration, but not for figures themselves, and that is a proper context for its usage.

WRT Wayback mashine, the main link is not dead in your example. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The CDC also has close ties with the US administration, so this argument is nonsense. And the claim that it has a “poor reputation in fact checking and accuracy” is totally without any evidence what so ever. The Academic council is comprised of these scholars, many of them specialists in communist studies: Peter Rollberg (chair), Peter Boettke, Jonathan Brent, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Paul A. Goble, Paul R. Gregory, Hope M. Harrison, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, Mark Kramer, A. James McAdams, Sean McMeekin, Aaron Rhodes (editor of Dissident), David Satter, F. Flagg Taylor IV and George Weigel. --Nug (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I share Paul Siebert's concern that the figures are not on the website anymore. JBchrch talk 06:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• If the figures compiled in 2016 are not on the website anymore, it appears as though the VoC memorial foundation doesn't stands by them anymore. The sentence should thus be removed from Wikipedia, especially if we identified methodological errors in the calculation. Mottezen (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Bias is not an issue and never is. I think this is usable with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

They have stated that they include the entirety of the end-total global death toll resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic (which now stands at over five million) as part of their tally of historical victims of communism: 1 2 3 (see their executive summary for link 2, in which they make clear they are talking about the end total no matter what that is). Their TL;DR reason for this is "China and the W.H.O. lied, people died, it was all communism". You can make of that what you will, but it has made me rather skeptical of their judgement. I will grant that they haven't repeated this line since last year, though, to my best knowledge. Probably prefer better academic sources where possible. --Chillabit (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

OK and pushing Covid misinformation is enough for me to say no it is not an RS, it's political get in the way of factual reportingSlatersteven (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's enough reason to not take them seriously. Chuck 'em on the unreliable pile. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Two notes. Firstly, if the source being used is currently a dead link, we cannot be sure the organization stands behind the opinion presented, and phrasing their support in the present tense is problematic. Further, if they attribute the entirety of COVID deaths to communism, I question the value of including deeply polemic sources in our articles. Is there no better source for the information you want to include? This one seems deeply dishonest. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Due to the dead link and their COVID-19 misinformation and politicization, without any reliable source giving secondary coverage to that article and not being a good tertiary source on its own in light of all this, it is undue and not a good tertiary source. Attempting to merge it with other more reliable U.S. government sources, which has been Siebert's argument for using this and similar sources, would be too close to OR/SYNTH without a secondary source doing it for us. All of this may be worth to mention, including their fringe COVID-19 Communist death toll, at Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation as their own views but not anywhere else. Davide King (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an advocacy organization, and it should be treated as such. Use in-text attribution, use secondary sources to ensure due weight, and be cautious with WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. MarioGom (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Advocacy organizations are not reliable sources. Use scholarship. Levivich 03:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  I am not in favor of using this website, as expressed above, but sometimes advocacy organizations can be reliable, such as WP:SPLC. JBchrch talk 03:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• This idea that dead links no longer contain reliable information is incorrect. Because every link dies eventually. Links can be taken for many reasons that have nothing to do with reliability or "standing by" the data, it's the nature of online media. Otherwise we do we bother with archive links, delete ever citation when the link dies. -- GreenC 03:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  This is true, but when an organization dedicated to anti-communism removes from its website the number of victims of communism, we might need to think about why that may be, and consider that it might not be just linkrot. (My personal and uninformed opinion is that it's probably because they don't want to host information that contradicts the "100 million" figure that they display prominently.) JBchrch talk 03:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not the first time when this source is discussed here, therefore, in makes sense to collect all arguments in one place, to avoid their repetition. I checked the archived copy, and I found the "Works Consulted" section.

It is natural to conclude that these are the sources that were used for the final figure. Below, I analyse the quality of the sources from this list.

• Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.

Actually, this book was published in 1993: Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century. New York: Collier Books, 1993. ISBN 978-0684826363. I see no evidences that the figure of 60,000,000 million is a recent addition to the 2010 edition. Therefore, this book is the old source. In addition, the author mentions this figure in passing, it is highly unlikely this figure was a result of his own research.

• Courtois, Stéphane, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, and Jean-Louis Marolin. The Black Book of Communism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

This is a very controversial source, which was the subject of several RSN discussions (, , , ), and the figure of 85-100 million is the most criticised and controversial statements in this book.

• “Cambodians Recall Massacres.” AP, May 22, 1987. Per WP:NEWSORG, reliability of this source depends on context, and, since it is not clear what exact invormation VoC took from it, no judgement about its reliability can be made. The source looks desperately outdated.
• Fitzgerald, Mary Anne. “Tyrant for the taking.” The Times (London), April 20, 1991. Per guidelines, this source is reliable for the author's opinion. It is outdated too.
• Katz, Lee Michael. “Afghanistan’s President is Ousted.” USA Today, April 17, 1992. A piece of outdated news, which may or may not be reliable.
• Li, Cheng-Chung. The Question of Human Rights on China Mainland. Republic of China: World Anti-Communist League, 1979. What Is That Outdated Trash?
• Panin, Dimitri. Translated by John Moore. The Notebooks of Sologdin. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976. This is an outdated estimate of Soviet death statistics. ALL researchers who study USSR, including even Conquest, reconsidered their old data in light on freshly discovered archival documents that became available after fall of the USSR. This source is never used by serious modern historians.
• Rummel, R. J. Death by Government. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994. AND
• Rummel, R. J. Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1990.

these two sources use the same data summarised by Rudolph Rummel. Rummel was a subject of the RSN discussions too (, (this may be relevant too)), and a conclusion was that he is not reliable for figures. Some fresh source that supports this conclusion is Karlsson

"... there have been major differences between the results presented by radical spokespeople for the different paradigms. While Jerry Hough suggested Stalin’s terror claimed tens of thousands of victims, R.J. Rummel puts the death toll of Soviet communist terror between 1917 and 1987 at 61,911,000. In both cases, these figures are based on an ideological preunderstanding and speculative and sweeping calculations. On the other hand, the considerably lower figures in terms of numbers of Gulag prisoners presented by Russian researchers during the glasnost period have been relatively widely accepted."

I believe noone can question reliability of Karlsson.

• Tolz, Vera. “Ministry of Security Official Gives New Figures for Stalin’s Victims.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Research Report. May 1, 1992. (The figure of seven million direct executions under Stalin, given by a member of the security services heading a commission for rehabilitation, may be taken as an absolute baseline figure to which should be added the many deaths suffered by labor camp inmates and the deaths preceding and following the Stalin period.) - Again, that is a desperately outdated piece of news.
• “Top defector says famine has killed over three million Koreans.” Agence France Presse, March 13, 1999. - the same.
• Vickery, Michael. Cambodia 1975 – 1982. Boston: South End Press, 1984. Actually, Cambodia is the only non-controversial piece of information. Interestingly, it is so uncontroversial, that the state that stopped this genocide was Communist Vietnam, and the state that started a propaganda campaign explaining the scale and horrors of this genocide was Communist USSR (while US provided Pol Pot with a tacit political support). That is arguable the only reliable source in this list.
• Zucchino, David. “’The Americans … They Just Drop Their Bombs and Leave.’” Los Angeles Times, June 2, 2002. - again, WP:NEWSORG.
• Matthew White’s website Necrometrics provides a useful compilation of scholarly estimates of the death toll of major historical events. - This is especially interesting. This source was authored by a self-described atrocitologist (who can explain me what does it mean?). However, what is interesting, this source takes information from: (i) Rudolph Rummel, Stephane Courtois, Zbigniew Brzezinski, i.e. the authors that are already named in this list.

Frankly, this desperately outdated sources that pick information from each other may be a reason why VoC removed this statement from their web site. The figures are outdated and unreliable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No one is claiming their figures are up to date and reliable, it is just a mention of their attempt to estimate it in 2016 "In 2016, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation made an effort to compile ranges of estimates...". Given it was made back in 2016, web archive of it is entirely appropriate. Regardless of your personal politics the VoCMF is a significant and notable organisation, their view ought to be presented regardless of your personal opinion of it. How would WP:NPOV be achieved if all right-wing views are removed from a politically charged topic. That why we have WP:BIASEDSOURCES. --Nug (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You are actually advocating citing a source you acknowledge is outdated and unreliable in order to achieve 'WP:NPOV'? I suggest you read the first sentence of that policy: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." WP:NPOV is achieved through citing reliable sources, not unreliable ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have a poor understanding of policy. Read WP:BIASEDSOURCES: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, 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. " Even if you think the view of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation isn't objective, it can't be excluded if you want to achive NPOV. --Nug (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not how NPOV works. Achieving NPOV doesn't require citing this source (or any source, see WP:NPOV#Bias in sources: This does not mean any biased source must be used...), and we certainly don't include biased sources in order to counterbalance other biased sources. We don't cite think tanks or advocacy groups because they are not reliable sources, because they are not independent of the subject they are covering (unlike scholarship and journalism). It's not about bias, it's about independence, and though WP:BIASEDSOURCES is part of WP:RS and not WP:NPOV, let's not forget the rest of what WP:BIASEDSOURCES says: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. This source does not meet the normal requirements for reliable sources because as an advocacy organization, it has a low level of independence from the topic. Levivich 02:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The American Heart Association is also an advocacy organization, advocating heart health through its educational programs. I already pointed to the fact that VoCMF has an academic board, it has a research and educational program, what evidence do you have that is doesn't have a reputation for fact checking, apart from your personal opinion? --Nug (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not the same kind of "advocacy". While the AHA might "advocate" for heart health, there is nobody on the other side advocating against heart health. Levivich 03:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I won't comment on the rest of the RSN as I'd rather not involve myself with the whole communism assessment effort in the last few weeks (bless all of you with the patience to do so). I do want to comment that I am increasingly annoyed by marking all groups of people that hold an opinion, professional or otherwise, as equally guilty of advocacy. Advocacy groups have different characteristics, goals, and methods and they are not all the same. At this point I'm almost expecting to read someone say that the Arsonist Lobby Group (fictional) and the legislators of the US fire code are both advocacy groups and neither should be trusted. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

No, Nug, I do not have a 'poor understanding of policy'. You, on the other hand, seem to, given your apparent belief that 'balance' is to be achieved by selecting sources for their political perspectives, rather than for their compliance with elementary tenets of said policies. Frankly, I'm astonished that a contributor with your experience could have such a fundamental misunderstanding of such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

NPOV means summarizing the available RS without distortion. If the available RS lean to the right, so too will the article content, probably, and likewise if they lean to the left. (For example, if the only places a book has been reviewed are the Wall Street Journal, the Economist and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, our article is going to read differently than if the reviews had been in the Guardian and the Daily Beast, and that's just how the cookie crumbles.) We don't aim for false balance by shoving mediocre sources under one side of the fulcrum. "Neutrality" doesn't mean saying one positive thing for every negative thing, or one left-wing thing for every right-wing thing. Sheesh. XOR'easter (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay, so you are advocating removing any viewpoints by Kristen Ghodsee, a frequent contributor to Jacobin, a leading voice of the American left, with respect to MKuCR? --Nug (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

XOR'easter is correct. Of course, Nug avoided to mention in their fallacy that as an anthropologist, ethnographer, and specialist in former European Communist regimes, she is used for her speciality in memory analysis, that being a leftist is not considered to be an indictment to reliability in academia, that she is backed by other scholars like Neumayer, and she is used to say uncontroversial things about the use of body-counting and criticism. So that is indeed a strawman and false balance on their part. Davide King (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Nug, please, keep in mind that that is a "Reliable Source Noticeboard". Whereas neutrality considerations are still important, the primary issue that we are discussing here is reliability of the sources, which includes a reputation of fact checking and accuracy. To cite NPOV in a discussion about WP:V is disruptive.

During this discussion, we must come to a conclusion if this source uses a fresh and recent information or an outdated and unreliable one, and if it treats this information correctly. After that, we may decide (here or elsewhere) if this source can or cannot be used in some concrete context.

Do you have any objections to the statement that it uses obsolete data and is heavily based on the (highly controversial) Black Book figures and (even more controversial) Rummel's data? Do you have any rational objections to that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be labouring under some kind of misconception that the total death toll is some kind of precise number, but as you know, it can never be a determined beyond an estimate, and there are many different estimates. As Harff states "That is in fact an inevitable problem for those seeking reliable data on mass casualties. Few perpetrators make accurate counts of their victims. Estimates diverge widely … I fully understand what it takes to collect reliable, unimpeachable global data. It is impossible. … Over time I have become more critical of country experts who challenge systematic empirical studies. Case studies are scarce, of dubious accuracy, or non-existent for some episodes of mass death, and estimates vary greatly. Some episodes dating back to before say, 1918 happened in countries that no longer exist or in countries that did not yet exist. Colonial authorities in Africa and Asia kept scarce or no records of birth or death rates. Perpetrators seldom keep records of their misdeeds and if they do, as in Nazi Germany, death estimates often are greatly underestimated or attributed to circumstances rather than deliberate policies.". I already pointed to the fact that VoCMF has an academic board, it has a research and educational program, what evidence do you have that is doesn't have a reputation for fact checking, and are less reliable than say, William Blum? --Nug (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is expecting an exact figure for a death toll, but there are such things as really bad estimates. As for the rest, well, the Discovery Institute has a board and claims to conduct research and educational programs. The existence of such things doesn't say very much at all. XOR'easter (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

But we still cite the Discovery Institute as to their view on Intelligent design. --Nug (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The difference, of course, is that we are using secondary, independent reliable sources to summarize their views, not the Discovery Institute themselves, which can only be reliable for uncontroversial "About" stuff. We have no such secondary coverage about this Dissident blog article, which makes it undue, especially when several of the sources they cite, we already mention them. Their 40–160-ish range estimates have not been picked up by any reliable or scholarly source, and considering they said that they are going to add COVID-19 deaths to the body count, it is moot; it shows their unreliability, and went into fringe territory and misinformation. Davide King (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: you are just unfamiliar with sources. There is a consensus among scholars that the number of Great Purge victims is about 1.2 million. There is some uncertainty, but it is minimal. There is a consensus that the number of GULAG deaths is in between 1.6 and 1.8 million, and the amount of people who passed through the GULAG system is 18 million, although if we include broader categories, the number of deaths may increase to 2.7 million. Even such an old school anti-Communist as Conquest recognized that. These are consensus figures, and to say otherwise is tantamount to claiming that the Holocaust killed, e.g. 10 million Jews. Only freaks may claim that.

A consensus figure of Great Purge deaths (including executions and camp deaths) is 1.2 million. Rummel says it was 4.3 million.

A consensus figure of GULAG deaths is 1.7 at most (ok, let's say 2.7, which may include deportation deaths). Rummel says that only post-Stalin camp deaths amounted to 6.8 million (according to all respectable scholars there were no GULAG in that time, and mortality in prisons was quite moderate, which means those 6.8 million were taken from this air).

A consensus figure for Soviet civilian deaths as a result of the policy of Soviet authorities during WWII (GULAG mortality, execution, etc) is ~1 million. Rummel says 13 million: that is bigger that all military losses and comparable with all civilian losses.

And so on, and so forth.

Note, I know the real figures, because it was me who added all (or a significant part of) this information to Wikipedia. I can prove that with sources. I can take (again) Rummel's "Death by government" from the library, and analyze each reference at this (or any other) Wikipedia page, and I can show that each source that Rummel uses the USSR is an obsolete piece of trash that is not recognized seriously by most (or all) experts in Soviet Russia.

I can do that, because I am familiar with sources, I know the present state of knowledge of this subject, and I want Wikipedia to be seen as a respectable informational resource, not a collection of various gossips and fairy tales.

In contrast, you can respond just with vague speculations that "noone can know for sure", and this your baseless assertion is the only justification of your persistent pushing of obsolete figures that discredits Wikipedia. Why are you doing that? Why are you not going to your library? Paul Siebert (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

They are RS for their views, not for those views being facts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Do I understand you correct that you said "VoC is a RS for the article about VoC, not about Communism"? If that is what you say, I, obviously, agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Not quite, what I meant is they are an RS for their views, not for those views being facts. So this would be more an issue of undue than RS. So we could say "according to...".Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, the 'views' they held regarding the specific issue being discussed are sourced to an archived webpage. Is there any reason to assume they still hold them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant, they were pushing a conspiracy theory, that (to my mind) raises questions about impartially and fact-checking. Indeed if anything it makes it worse, as it (to my mind) implies they belived it when told to by their political masters, and now it's not being pushed by their political masters are no longer pushing it. That makes them a propaganda outfit, and thus need to be treated as such.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is unclear. We can write "According to X, the Moon is made of blue cheese" only if there are serious reason to believe that the opinion of X is important and relevant to the article's topic. Therefore, we cannot put "According to VoC ... " at any article: we can do that only in a certain context, for example, in a context of anti-Communist propaganda, but not in a context of a neutral academic discourse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hence why I said "So this would be more an issue of undue than RS".Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC0

Clearly not a reliable source for the reasons given above. And if it isn't clear that they stand by a statement, we can't even use that with attribution. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

In this one instance yes, I am talking about the wider issue of general reliability. I think it is clear they are far too biased to be used for statements of fact, about anything.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, and the previous discussion concluded as much: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_Foundation. Given the group's commentary on Covid-19, they seem to be approaching WP:FRINGE status. Should not be used in articles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Arguments that as this organisation is "bipartisan" it is neutral are rather amusing! World politics exists between the Democrats and the Republicans, therefore if they agree something is true, it must be. In reality this source exists only to advocate a point of view that Communism is terrible and so cherry picks data to fit that pov. Things appear and disappear off its website but then come back in other places, it is not clear who writes which parts of its content and their qualifications. Its website is not organised enough to use securely, its official publications might be usable if prefixed with "anti-Communist advocacy group. the Victims of Communism memorial foundation states", but I would be very careful to find specific papers which have been cited by academics. Incidentally, I wonder why there is no Victims of Capitalism memorial foundation" in the USA? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, per Doug Weller and K.e.coffman. Ought not to be used in articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, per more or less all the arguments presented above, and per the previous discussion. Nothing in this discussion actually amounts to a serious claim that the source is 'reliable' per Wikipedia norms - instead inclusion of a clearly questionable source is being presented as as a means to make the article 'neutral' according to some imagined standard. That isn't how WP:RS works, it isn't how WP:NPOV works, and is fundamentally opposed to core principles of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Putting aside the fact that they've pushed fringe views, there is no indication of any sort of fact-checking process or any degree of editorial controls on their website; they're not even purporting to make the basic effort that would let us start to consider whether a source is a WP:RS. They have no particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. There may be a few advocacy organizations that manage to pass WP:RS through these things, but the simple fact that something is an advocacy organization with a website obviously doesn't make them reliable. Similarly, I feel like people are turning WP:BIASED ass-backwards in discussions like these - bias alone does not disqualify a source, but bias alone certainly doesn't make a source reliable, either; some of the arguments above seem to basically say "the source is biased and you can't disqualify a biased source, therefore it is reliable!" The problem here isn't that the source is biased or even that they are an advocacy organization, the problem is that they are only these things, with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, editorial controls, or anything else outside of that that would make them usable as a RS. Also - and I am tired of belaboring this point, but it is necessary - WP:RSOPINION does not allow us to cite random unreliable sources just by slapping an in-text attribution on them; it is a subset of WP:RS. It defines sources that meet RS to an extent, but only enough for opinion; it is not something that allows RS to be ignored entirely, so some degree of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is still required. Otherwise, we could cite opinion to Reddit threads and random YouTube channels! The default standard for RSOPINION is eg. labeled opinion pieces in an RS, not just "is an advocacy org and has a website" - this is nowhere near that and is therefore a bad source even for opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Additional considerations apply. VoCom is an anti-communist think tank. Like the vast majority of think tanks, there are some things that it produces that should just be ignored when writing an encyclopedia: VoCom's numbers on the Communist Death Toll suffer significant methodological problems and should not be used in WikiVoice. That being said, that topline death toll number is a very small amount of what they actually do; I'd strongly caution users against trying to use this discussion as a proxy for how they feel about the current state of mass killings under communist regimes. Personally, I would recommend ignoring everything written by a think tank that isn't actually written in a report or academic style (random blog pages, even from the Council on Foreign Relations, are not generally good things to cite). However, it would be very sloppy to label the foundation writ large with one broad stroke.

The area of the foundation that is most reliable is the academic research produced through its study centers. They break down into three silos: China Studies, Latin America programs, and Poland Studies. Each silo appears to operate without much overlap in terms of staffing. The China Studies and Latin America programs seem to be well-run. I have some concerns regarding the Poland Studies staffing choices.

The foundation's China Studies fellows are both well-respected and well-accomplished. Adrian Zenz, who is a world-renowned expert on the abuses in Xinjiang and regularly publishes peer-reviewed works on the subject in respected journals, is a fellow at the foundation. Ethan Gutmann, whose work on Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China has been incredibly detailed and influential, is also a fellow in China Studies at the foundation. Matthew Robertson, the third China Fellow, is also the author of multiple peer-reviewed works on organ harvesting, such as this one published in the BMJ and this one in BMC Medical Ethics.

The director of Latin American Programs at the foundation, Carlos Ponce, is likewise a highly respected individual in the area of Latin American human rights work and has had significant experience at Freedom House before joining VoCom.

The Poland Studies fellows feel like a mixed bag. Chelsea Michta seems to be an expert on the Warsaw Uprising and memory politics following the fall of communism, and her thesis seems to be related to the topic area. Monika Brzozowska-Pasieka being in Poland Studies feels a bit odd; she appears to have most noted for suing Holocaust scholars for not being sufficiently pro-Pole. Anna Draniewicz seems to be an expert on the policial history of Polish-language films. seems like an expert on Polish history, while seems to be someone whose research on the Polish diaspora in the United States is respected. Maria Juczewska doesn't seem to have strong qualifications and her graduate research appears to largely have been biography writing on a notable Pole.

Many of the foundation's fellows are strong experts in their respective fields. This is particularly true for its China Studies programs, which are doing some of the most intensive research into the history of human rights abuses under the Chinese Communist Party's rule. That being said, there are definitely some odder characters in Poland studies and the methodology for its giant death toll figure is not rigorous.

Because of the above, I believe that there are some areas of the institution that are reliable and probably better than most WP:NEWSORG-level sources, while others are clearly unreliable. This leads me towards a classification that additional considerations apply, with the particular context of the source (the author, format, and relation of the content to the author's area of expertise) being something to consider when using it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree with your point about MKUCR. Regarding your points, I feel that if the academics are reliable experts and have published quality work in peer-reviewed journals, one could cite the work in the journals. Others above have mentioned concerns about the editorial process of the organization, and if this holds I don't see a strong argument for finding it reliable as there is no guarantee except trust in the authors that the work they publish is reliable, I think. Note this is a strong opinion weakly held, though. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable The site doesn't do any original research, it merely publishes information from other sources, without attribution. An obvious problem is that it presents a high estimate of victims of communism as fact. TFD (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable lack of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (t · c) buidhe 20:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Arnold J. Toynbee reliable regarding the Greco-Turkish War and the Turkish War of Independence? I would've liked to add some of his stuff regarding Hellenic army atrocities during the war, but some user claimed that he wasn't because his "pro-Turkish stance". Beshogur (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend you notify relevant WPs of this discussion as well as active editors in the pages you wish to use him in, Beshogur. Most editors that have this page watchlisted/happen to come across this discussion are not familiar with the context necessary to assess him as a source.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer modern scholarship over someone who died in 1975, regardless of potential bias issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

While I would say that there is much fine work in history from before 1975, our article on Toynbee indicates that he is no longer a respected source, except in classical history, so I would be hesitant in citing to him. John M Baker (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it would depend on what "stuff" exactly, for that era and for the Middle East his views would still carry weight. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source?

1. Source: Peakbagger.com (description page here, terms of service here)
2. Article: Crypt Peak (as a test-case, and maybe 5,104 other EN Wikipedia articles)
3. Content: Primarily the prominence and elevation of various mountain peaks, also appears to be relied on in some articles to substantiate a WP:GNG pass.

FOARP (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, according to official data the population of Vlachs in Serbia as of 2011 counts as 35 330 [], today one editor posted on their page 3 sources, 2 of them [], [] are from same authors who claim that quote:′′′ members of the community put forth unofficial estimates between 150,000 and 300,000.′′′ and one that [] I cannot verify, seems to be a bit off since that kind of estimation would place Vlachs as second largest ethnic community in Serbia and also the regions in which they mostly live in Serbia (east) don′t count a overall large population [], so are those sources reliable enough for a demographic estimation? Thank you. Theonewtihreason (talk) 27 December 2021 (UTC)

They look to be reliable sources. If someone is published by DeGruyter, we immediately have to take them seriously, unless specific concerns emerge. That doesn't mean that the census data should be excluded though.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Common Sense Media is a San Francisco-based non-profit organization that provides education and advocacy to families to promote safe technology and media for children. It reviews entertainment in terms of age-appropriate educational content, and it has also developed a set of ratings that are intended to gauge the educational value of videos, games, and apps.

But I think Common Sense Media is unreliable for the following reasons. I used rottenwebsites.miraheze.org/wiki/Common_Sense_Media which has a page on the wiki.

1. They are too gullible about lessons, believing that every media influences children. For example, on their Teen Titans Go! review they gave it a 3/5 in teaching positive messages, and they gave 13 Reasons Why a 4/5 due to the show supporting suicide.
2. As an advocate for education, they pander towards educational shows and they are biased against shows that entertain, such as Spongebob SquarePants.
3. They pander towards social justice warriors, meaning the source is ideologically biased and they pander towards media supporting their ideology. For example, they entirely neglect content containing sexual violence against men.Bsslover371 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)^[1]

• Bias does not make a source unreliable. And as we are generally using CSM for their opinions on media, that becomes less a problem with outright reliability and more if they are considered a DUE opinion to include on children/family media. --Masem (t) 01:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• There was a recent discussion here that determined it was reliable for reviews of films, tv series, books and so forth but not for anything controversial and I still go along with that, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:CSM in fact. --Masem (t) 02:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• What Masem said: bias does not equal unreliability. And I'm not even sure they're biased in any true sense, maybe just need attribution. You could maybe argue their recommendations are overprotective? But that's not something we deal with. —valereee (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• As others have said, we need evidence they tell porkies, not that they biased.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think the case could be made that as an advocacy org that primarily reports on whether media is suitable for children, rather than a more conventional entertainment/criticism publication, it could be argued that CSM is less DUE than more typical critical outlets, but that doesn't equal outright unreliability. I'm a bit surprised by OP's assertion that they pander towards social justice warriors--my impression based on back when I read CSM regularly (years ago) was that they tended towards social conservatism of the "not in front of the children" variety. I'm also uncertain that it was wise to create the WP:CSM redirect for this source, given that there's another much better-known source by those initials, but this isn't the venue for that discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• I actually think is is more concerning that Common Sense Media said 13 Reasons Why supports suicide. The show has been controversial but I don't believe is is accurate to say it supports suicide and if CSM claims it does as User:Bsslover371 alleges, that is concerning. I don't know why CSM likes a show that supports (teen who isn't terminally ill) suicide but I guess they're entitled to their PoV. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC) 16:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see any assertion in the review itself that the show is "pro-suicide", that appears to be an unwarranted inference by OP. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

they gave 13 Reasons Why a 4/5 due to the show supporting suicide https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/13-reasons-why does not say that the show supports suicide. Vexations (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I posted this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, but this one was much more appropriate, as no editor has been "repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period" (when my edit was reverted, I took it to the talk page), and that is likely why my thread got no response other than the other editor (Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d) I was discussing this with, so my bad for that. The issue is the bolded paragraph.

Tombs is the editor of History Reclaimed,^[1] a website created by a "group of anti-woke scholars" including Nigel Biggar, Zareer Masani, and Andrew Roberts, among others.^[2] The website describes itself as "an independent and non-partisan academic organisation ... composed of historians ... dedicated to historical research to expand knowledge and understanding about the fundamental changes surrounding our country."^[3]

Reception has been mixed, with right-wing tabloids such as the Daily Express supporting this retaliation by those academics against the perceived wokeism of Black Lives Matter and anti-racist movements. University professor of history Alan Lester commented that while activists may get details wrong, they get the bigger picture right,^[4] and Reclaiming History "believe themselves to be marginalised and gagged", despite including at least one CBE. Carlos Conde Solares, a senior lecturer in Spanish history at Northumbria University, wrote that it "purports to defend the positive legacies of colonialism whilst ignoring the contributions to civilisation made by European nations other than Britain."^[5]

The issue has been my addition of the bolded second paragraph on WP:SPS grounds; however, my argument is that while Lester wrote on an university blog, Solares was not self-published (Solares already discusses and mentions Lester, I added him as a primary source to verify the quotes) and also qualifies as an expert like Lester. Therefore, the main issue is of weight, but I think we should first discuss their reliability. I think they are due because it is Tombs and History Reclaimed that are engaged in historical revisionism, not Lester and Solares, who represent a mainstream view and are due. We cannot discuss this only from the POV of this "group of anti-woke scholars" (per The Telegraph), and without Lester and Sorales the whole section is undue and should be deleted. I think Lester and Sorales make it due because the website it promotes historical revisionist views; if the reverse was true (e.g. Tombs and History Reclaimed are mainstream and majority, while Lester and Sorales are fringe or minority), and I would not even need to discuss; however, if Lester and Sorales indeed represent the mainstream view, or at least a majority view, I find it absurd to see them dismissed as undue. Davide King (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

As noted in numerous places, the website WikiIslam has undergone a complete overhaul that removed much Islamophobic and otherwise objectionable content. This is noted in numerous places by Ex-Muslims of North America, WikiIslam's parent organization, here: https://twitter.com/exmuslimsorg/status/1374433601454972942 and here: https://exmuslims.org/wikiislam-overhaul-milestone-achieved/ inter alia, as well as on WikiIslam itself here: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Renovations. The article currently quotes, via a third source, an outdated mission statement, while excluding the current mission statement here: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam This has been noted numerous times on WikiIslam and the website of WikiIslam's parent organization, Ex-Muslims of North America. The current article cites Ex-Muslims of North America to prove that they took over the website; moreover, the Wikipedia page of Ex-Muslims of North America cites WikiIslam when talking about Ex-Muslims of North America's ownership of WikiIslam. As per WP:RS, and I quote, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Numerous other websites including wikis such as RationalWiki have Wikipedia pages that cite the website itself when discussing the website. The overhaul has also been noted by academics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-wgfRLldKI and is verifiable on the website's changelog: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Special:Log. Despite this, a cadre of editors have banded together to say that, despite Wikipedia's own policies, the obviously verifiable descriptions of these changes cannot be used as a source in the article; verifiably false information remains on the article, such as "A corpus of apostasy testimonies are featured too." and "The site also hosts a list of 101 "provocative" questions that are to be asked of any Muslim, to prove that Islam is not a "true religion"."--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• No: As Doug Weller wrote at the t/p, that's just not acceptable. Organisations and people lie by omission and commission about themselves or try in various ways to make themselves look acceptable. The reception section in our article provides a clear view on the nature of the site and using them as a source for their own article is a strict no-go territory.
  The "academics" quoted above have consistently deemed the site to be Islamophobic (see reception section) — in their latest seminar presentation (which is not peer-reviewed), they document WikiIslam's servicing the same old goals but in a "scientificised avatar"; the cherrypicking of arguments from the fringes etc. continue. Which is then used for propagating Islamophobia.
  Unsurprisingly, our OP misuses this line of reasoning to write that the website is offering scientific and valid critiques of Islam. He also proposes that we quote their mission statement as the second line of our lead :) TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not "Islamophobia" per se, the issue is whether the overhaul took place, whether the material was removed, and whether WikiIslam currently contains the material that the Wikipedia article claims it does. WP:RS does not make a provision saying that "Islamophobic material cannot be used to reference itself" so whether or not it is an "islamophobic website" is not relevant to the discussion here. The Wikipedia article currently contains verifiably false information as per WP:RS and WP:V.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The article currently quotes the mission statement from 2015, for some reason these editors want to keep the mission statement from 7 years ago but do not with to quote the mission statement today, again in violation of WP:RS.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

If reliably sourced information becomes out of date it should be possible to mention that without removing reference to the earlier situation. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Pbsouthwood I attempted to update the information while keeping the rest of the previous information in a historical context, but User:TrangaBellam reverted this without seeking consensus and then reported me for edit warring (and violated WP:AGF by accusing me of a conflict of interest). You can see the previous version here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiIslam&oldid=1061813731 , with the historical material kept in its historical content.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

As user User:Louis P. Boog noted, this type of "censorship" "seems to me to go against everything Wikipedia stands for."--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiIslam offers what academics have called "scientific" and "valid" critiques of the religion of Islam - And, you wonder why you are being reverted. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are quotes from an academic discussing WikiIslam here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-wgfRLldKI . On the talk page I offered an alternative quote from the video and to introduce a qualifiying statement from the video, rather than seeking consensus or adding context you just removed it. You also removed more material than this that was added by consensus, and removed the contextual information about the history of the website. "WikiIslam described its purpose in 2015 as "collect[ing] facts relating to the criticism of Islam from valid Islamic sources without the effect of censorship that is common in Wikipedia" and claims to have started as a result of the difficulty in "presenting 'correct' (i.e., critical) information on [Wikipedia]."" This is the mission statement from 2015, care to justify using WP:RS and WP:V how including this in the article but excluding the current day mission statement here: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam is reasonable?--Underthemayofan (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I won't reply further to your sealioning. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're bowing out of the argument.--Underthemayofan (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Or that you are not worth to engage with. People who are paid to edit can seldom see their follies.

We include the previous mission statement because it has been covered by scholars. And, they read something more into it: "critical, as used on WikiIslam, meant holding preconceived negative opinions of Muslims and Islam."

If we include the current statement from their own site, we have no such observation on what it really means. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not paid to edit. Please review WP:AGF and stop violating it.--Underthemayofan (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

How do we tell the difference between removing something because it is no longer part of an organisation's belief and removing it because the organisation does not want it public anymore? Doug Weller talk 08:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not the domain of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia provides info on what's on the site, determining "an organisation's belief" as it exists in their heart is beyond the purview of Wikipedia.--Underthemayofan (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Underthemayofan: Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient reason to include something. Because we cannot tell if a statement about an organisation's belief actually reflects their beliefs and actions, we rely mainly on secondary sources to describe the organisation or individual. Your preferred version of the article relied basically on self-published material from WikiIslam. I accept that you are not paid to edit by the way, and if you are just an ordinary editor there or take no part in it but support it you have no conflict of interest. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A current example is that many, perhaps most, white supremacists insist they are white nationalist. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

So what is the question here? Wiki(s) are not reliable sources by definition. Cinadon36 10:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Its still a wiki, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• All the discussion about bias, mission statements and overhauls is pointless… because the primary problem with WikiIslam is that it is a wiki. We don’t consider ANY wiki reliable (not even Wikipedia). So… Rather than citing wikiIslam itself, look to the sources that are cited in its articles. Some of those sources might be reliable by our standards, and you can cite those sources to support what you write here. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, linking WP:USERGEN for reference, —PaleoNeonate – 15:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Having looked into the issue in more depth… it illustrates how multiple policies and guidelines have to be considered and balanced against each other. So let me break it down:

a) We have multiple RS that have criticized WikiIslam (WI) and applied derogatory labels in doing so.

b) WI claims that they have changed their policies and renovated in response to such criticism.

c) Wikipedia editors are of mixed opinions as to whether these reforms have actually taken place.

Now to apply policy… first let us examine WP:V (and its subsidiary guideline WP:RS). What is verifiable fact is: a) Multiple sources have indeed criticized WI and labeled it derogatorily, and b) WI has indeed responded by claiming it has reformed. The derogatory sources are Reliable, and so WP can mention the derogatory labels and cite those sources. The fact that WI responded is reliably verified by Directly quoting (or closely paraphrased) under ABOUTSELF… however, what is NOT reliably verified by WI’s statement is whether they have actually reformed.

Now let us examine WP:NPOV… the key question is how much WEIGHT should we give a) the derogatory sources, and b) WI’s claims of reform? In the case of the derogatory sources, they are not only reliable, most are independent - and independence is a major factor in determining WEIGHT. So we should give them a fair amount of weight. In the case of WI’s response, self-statements do carry some weight (and so can be mentioned), but because they are not independent, they do not carry as much weight as independent sources. We do not put them on an even par.

Finally, we must apply our WP:No original research policy. This affects the question of whether WI’s claims of reform have or have not actually taken place. To answer this question, someone must analyze the content of WI today, and compare it to its content in the past. The key is that this “someone” must be someone external to Wikipedia. WE (the editors of Wikipedia) can NOT analyze WI’s content and draw the conclusion that it has (or has not) changed. For us to perform this analysis would mean that the conclusion is original to WP. We must look for an external source to perform the analysis.

My conclusion: the article should note (prominently) that WI is resoundingly criticized and mention the derogatory labels in the first paragraph. This should be followed up with more detail later in the article. WI’s claims that they have addressed the criticisms should also be mentioned… but only in passing and not in the first paragraph. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Blueboar, They never claimed to have renovated in response to criticisms (where did you see it?) - even if they had, WP:MANDY would have applied. Quite to the contrary, as our article already notes, EXMNA's press release spoke of a nine-year-long "tradition!" The site claimed in 2012 (or even earlier) to have renovated in response to Larsson but failed to influence academic reception — that page stands now deleted, fwiw. The current meta-pages do not mention any factor behind the renovation.

We already have, Three years later, they claimed to have purged a range of content—from polemical tracts and satires to testimonies and op-eds—of the site. cited to their About Us section - what more do you want? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Blueboar I think this is preeminently reasonable. I would like to include their mission statement and their statement that they are "neutral towards religions, world views, and issues of a political nature and likewise stays away from extremist, sensationalist or emotional commentary" and attribute it to the wiki in the 2nd paragraph. Would you be amenable to that?--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Mission statements are always promotional and I’m not convinced we should ever use them. I don’t see them as encyclopaedic. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The mission statement from WikiIslam in 2015 is on the Wiki right now.--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I presume you mean the article. As I said, it shouldn’t be there. Doug Weller talk 20:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are amenable to me removing the 2015 mission statement from the WikiIslam article, please state so in the talk page and I will remove that reference.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That portion is sourced to not only one but three independent reliable sources. Snuish (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As User:Peter Southwood noted "If reliably sourced information becomes out of date it should be possible to mention that without removing reference to the earlier situation." And as User:Blueboar has frequently noted, for this purpose WP:ABOUTSELF should allow WikiIslam to be cited and attributed on this matter. On the basis of this consensus I would like to proceed with a sentence pointing out what the current mission statement is based on the page on WikiIslam containing it.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you only read what you like to read? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Then it can be used. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Three years later, they claimed to have purged a range of content—from polemical tracts and satires to testimonies and op-eds—of the site. I would say we absolutely cannot cite them as the sole source for that - it is clearly unduly self-serving. If we have secondary sources, of course, that's fine, we can use them, but we cannot use a WP:SPS to cite something like "we fixed the problem" because that's obviously unduly self-serving, even with attribution. I would generally raise the same objection to mission statements - "they say their goal is truth, justice, and the American Way" or the like is obviously an unduly self-serving statement and requires a secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Underthemayofan, I suggest you propose a change on the article's talk page, complete with the references you want to use, and work towards consensus there. Be specific about the exact wording that you propose to replace, and how and why the references you propose reliably support the words you propose using. There is no way you are going to get consensus here to use the content of a open wiki as a reliable source without going into the precise details, and this is not the place to do that. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: I agree, I have made some suggestions on the talk page. I am afraid to make any pages to the page directly as is because User:TrangaBellam got me a warning for edit warring (which I think was unwarranted). Your input and that of User:Blueboar would be highly appreciated.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I think it is worth noting there's a concurrent discussion at COIN. --SVTCobra 08:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• It is WP:USERGENERATED and therefore completely unusable (outside of a few very, very limited citations to the non-user-generated parts for unexceptional, uncontroversial, non-self-serving WP:ABOUTSELF stuff on its own page); it should not be cited for anything and no amount of changes (short of completely deleting the entire thing and starting over as a non-usergenerated site) are going to change that. None of the other things people are discussing above matter. The "overhaul" makes absolutely zero difference because it the content was never the reason the source was unusable to begin with - it could be the best wiki in the world and it would still be completely unusable as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: "outside of a few very, very limited citations to the non-user-generated parts for unexceptional, uncontroversial, non-self-serving WP:ABOUTSELF stuff on its own page" the pieces we want to quote from WikiIslam are exactly that. They are from the front page, which is NOT user generated but rather admin generated, and they are being cited about their mission statement and the things that they claim for themselves, and there is no dispute that the website actually does say these things. Also, all of this material has been posted on the social media and website of Ex-Muslims of North America. I suppose if the quotes were taken directly from them this objection would not apply?--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

non-self-serving is the keyword.

Apart from the fringes of the fringe, you won't see any site openly asserting that they are Islamophobic. It is not the 90s or early 2000; most say that they are offering "politically incorrect" perspectives on Islam "suppressed" by MSM etc. Most hate groups identified by SPLC deny that they are white supremacists/xenophobes/volcels etc. Hardly means that we can take their self-descriptions seriously. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

So does the current WikiIslam site say any of that? '"politically incorrect" perspectives on Islam "suppressed" by MSM etc.'

What stands out about the wikipedia article currently are the virulent accusations by "Reliable Sources":

Stories were selected only to show that Muslims are "ignorant, backward or even stupid" ... To be "critical", as used on WikiIslam, meant holding preconceived negative opinions of Muslims and Islam.

When you read that and then go visit the site you half expect to find it sounding like something from ACT! for America or the English Defence League. That's why a sentence along the lines of "according to Wikiislam, the cite 'stays away from extremist, sensationalist or emotional commentary'" would improve the wikipedia article. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: no, they are more subtle than that. While Underthemayofan asked to include this from a source:" "they (WikiIslam) want to address these questions (about Islam) by a scientific approach." I think the key quote from that source is "Firstly, we believe that some Islamophobic activists and milieus in the Western world work to anchor prejudice against Islam and Muslims in what they see as scientific arguments about the nature and history of Islam. Secondly, we argue that the website called WikiIslam has emerged as an important point of reference and source of knowledge for the scientification of Islamophobia." This isn't your usual shouting hatred of Islam, it's much more clever and has positioned itself as a knowledge base for such sites. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I don't know, something doesn't seem quite right. It's almost as though the evidence against WikiIslam is so weak (They use fact based evidence, that's "scientification of Islamophobia"; There is no phobia in their "Islamophobia", that's their sneaky "subtlety") you can't allow them to even speak a few words for fear of breaking the spell. Couldn't you accuse just about anyone of anything saying "I don't have any evidence because they're just too clever"? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog:I don't think you understand what the source is saying. I don't know where you get "they use fact based evidence" from. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Here is an example of what I mean, from the wikipedia article on ACT! for America,

In an e-mail distributed in July 2011, the group stated: "ACT! for America does not believe, nor advocate, that all Muslims are engaged in stealth jihad. ACT! for America does not believe, nor advocate, that all Muslims 'must be stopped'."^[1] The Southern Poverty Law Center, called this a "whitewash" and in reply quoted statements from founder Brigitte Gabriel:

If a Muslim who has—who is—a practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah, who abides by Islam, who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a day—this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.^[1]

The editors have evidence of Islamophobia and they don't fear quoting the subject of the article. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

So does the current WikiIslam site say any of that? That is the sort of question we should rely on WP:SECONDARY sources to answer. WikiIslam is obviously not an impartial source on itself and therefore shouldn't be directly cited to say things like "we're not Islamophobic anymore tho" - that's the kind of thing we would want to cite to independent secondary sources, not to a WP:SPS. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like comments on the reliability of iransara.info, particularly for the Frood Fouladvand article. It seems to be an extremely partisan source, and seems to be inappropriately relied upon in the article.

I haven't made one of these posts here before, so I hope I haven't stuffed it up somehow. If I have, please let me know. :) Mako001 (C)  (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 09:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Alternate Mako, your post is fine. Based on , I'd say this website should not be used for anything on WP, WP:ABOUTSELF theoretically aside. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I had thought as much, but figured it would do to bring it here anyway, since there's nothing here about it previously. It was being used as fact in the Frood Fouladvand article, courtesy of a user, who has since been indef banned as NOTHERE after an edit war involving both sides exchanging ethnic insults, accusations of trolling and plenty of general ad hominem nonsense. I ran into it while on RC patrol, sent it to AN3, and now I'm trying to clean up the mess that's left. It does have a good deal of usefulness as ABOUTSELF, as it seems to be the official english language site for the API or Kingdom Assembly of Iran, so can be useful in that regard, if nothing else, bar one exception. It also provided a scanned copy of an "arrest document" (actually an Application for Forfeiture of Detained Cash form under Section 298 (2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) which did give useful insight into why he "inexplicably" was investigated by MI5 (wanted to overthrow the Iranian government, by force if necessary). Mako001 (C)  (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 03:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)