Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375

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

Archive 370

←

Archive 373

→

Pearson journals

There are three scientific journals associated with Roger Pearson (anthropologist). They are the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, the Journal of Indo-European Studies, and Mankind Quarterly. We have discussed Mankind Quarterly before and appear to have a consensus that it is an unreliable fringe source which serves as an outlet for scientific racism but have not formally deprecated it as far as I can tell.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies is published by the scientific racism organization the Institute for the Study of Man. @Joe Roe: has challenged my removal of the Journal of Indo-European Studies and insists it is reliable and mainstream although stating that "Their continuing involvement with the Institute for the Study of Man is deplorable"

The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies is published by Scott-Townsend Publishers, it has a long history of publishing questionable content on race and human intelligence.

Mankind Quarterly is published by the Ulster Institute for Social Research and also has a long history of publishing questionable content on race and human intelligence.

Not sure whether they should be evaluated as a group or whether we should do individual RFC for each (I'd lean towards the later but interested to see what others think). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Any specific content in mind? Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Lets see... Heres the last use case I removed for each journal: Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies Journal of Indo-European Studies Mankind Quarterly Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have a more basic problem with (and not just the fact that neither of you corrected the wikilink to Indus Reviver.) Putting aside its reliability, how does the citation support that text at all? This might be better discussed on the talk page there, because it's not a RSN issue, but I thought I'd point it out here because that article has such low traffic that it might not be noticed. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Bundling these together seems a rather strange response to our conversation on Horse Eye's Back's talk page. There's no dispute that the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies and Mankind Quarterly are unreliable racist rags. Nor that Pearson is a white supremacist and his "Institute for the Study of Man" a white supremacist front. The problem is that HEB seems to have leapt to the conclusion that the third publication, the Journal of Indo-European Studies, was of the same ilk, and started mass-removing citations to it from articles. I didn't see anything fringe or controversial attached to these citations, just straightforward statements about things like Proto-Indo-European grammar, the animals herded by the Khvalynsk culture, and the deities of the Mitanni Kingdom. I reverted these edits and tried to explain to HEB that, despite their appalling choice of publisher, JIES is a reliable and mainstream publication. It was edited for many years and until recently by J. P. Mallory, the foremost expert on Indo-European archaeology, and its current editorial board includes several other notable and eminent scholars (Douglas Q. Adams, William W. Malandra, Melanie Malzahn, Peter Schrijver, Yaroslav Vassilkov, David W. Anthony, and so on). The actual content of recent issues (available open access) are perfectly normal, mainstream articles on Indo-European linguistics and folkloristics. Google Scholar and Books searches will show that it is regularly cited in other publications in the field.

The difference between JIES and Pearson's other journals (which he founded/bought later) seems to be that whereas the others were edited by and basically mouthpieces for Pearson himself, with JIES he acted more like a normal publisher and left editorial control to real scholars: according to William H. Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund (p. 171, emphasis added), It is instructive that none of Pearson’s writing appeared in the one publication at the institute of acknowledged academic value, the Journal of Indo-European Studies, which he left to the control of respected scholars Edgar Polomé and Marija Gimbutas. I can totally understand the alarm bells that ring when someone first learns of this arrangement and the continued attachment of Indo-European studies' foremost journal to a publisher of racist pseudoscience. God knows I have my own Opinions on Indo-Europeanists' reaction (or lack thereof) to the racist rot shot through foundations of their field. But that's beside the point. Publishers generally aren't supposed to control the editorial direction of their publications—on HEB's talk page I used the example of News Corp putting out a range of publications from the very wiki-reliable to the very not—and although Pearson apparently flaunted this convention with the other two publications, all the evidence is that he left JIES alone. It is a reliable and mainstream source in a very narrow field, and removing or deprecating it because of its shitty publisher would leave a big hole in a lot of articles unnecessarily. – Joe (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

About JIES: I concur with Joe Roe that "their continuing involvement with the Institute for the Study of Man is deplorable" and an utter shame, but this has little bearing on the question about the reliability of its content. It's a journal that publishes original research in the field of Indo-European studies, including contributions by some of its leading figures. Apart from the usual caveat that comes with primary research articles (JIES occasionally includes articles by fringe authors like Arnaud Fournet), there is no reason for a blanket removal of citations to JIES. –Austronesier (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned by the blanket removal of a journal which was previously edited by Marija Gimbutas. For an Indo-Europeanist that is like blanket-removing a journal formerly edited by Stephen Hawking. I think I would require a RS stating this journal has the same problems as Mankind Quarterly and Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, both of which are clearly extremely problematic.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: MDPI/Heritage

Hello,

Over on the Shroud of Turin talk page, we are having a disagreement about whether the academic journal "Heritage" - which is published via MDPO - is a reliable enough source that a recently-published study about the shroud ought to be included in the article. The "Perennial Sources" page lists "no consensus" for MDPI. Past discussions seem to have been resolved with the observation that each journal in MDPI ought to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Here is a link to the article:

https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47

The lead author of this particular study is a member of Italy's National Research Council and has been publishing in physics for decades. It doesn't appear the technique in question - Wide Angle X-Ray Scattering - is an especially controversial one, and the study itself basically questions the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating of the shroud and calls for further research.

Https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Liberato-De-Caro|author

Here's the talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shroud_of_Turin#Wide_Angle_X-Ray_Scattering

Sorry if my linking is incorrect. I haven't edited Wikipedia in a long time.

I'll add that the Norwegian Scientific Index CRIStin - which is referenced as listing some MDPI journals as predatory - gives "Heritage" a rating of "1" indicating a "standard rating for publication channels that meet basic academic quality criteria."

https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalTidsskriftInfo.action?id=494753

173.79.55.180 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

MDPI sources are always borderline. This is no different, we don't need an RFC for this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I've used the improper heading. I guess I'm looking for a third opinion, given the borderline nature of the source. 173.79.55.180 (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON. MDPI simply does not pass WP:REDFLAG for a WP:FRINGE subject. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

You've offered exactly zero substantive reason here or on the talk page about why an appropriate description of this study and an appropriate description of its findings don't belong in the article, despite my repeated requests that you do so. It's all links to random Wikipedia policy pages which are inapplicable. There is nothing about this journal, author, or study that is inherently suspect. It does not claim that shroud is conclusively Christ's burial shroud. It questions the radiocarbon dating and calls for further study. It is a peer-reviewed scientifc study. You've presented exactly nothing to the contrary. 173.79.55.180 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

A journal from a publisher with "no consensus" on reliability does not meet the above-average sourcing quality required for FRINGE topics. This article is also primary research rather than a review, so is especially inappropriate here. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The publisher's reliablity - per several past discussions - should be evaluated on a journal-by journal basis. And as far as I can tell, this journal is a perfectly credible one.

I also think this is an abuse of the concept of a "fringe" idea. If the source was claiming "The Shroud of Turin is Christ's burial shroud and our research conclusively proves it" then it would indeed be a fringe one. The actual claim of the source is "Wide Angle X-Ray Scattering shows that radiocarbon dating of the shroud may possibly be inaccurate, and it is possibly from the time of Christ, but further study is appropriate." Wide-Angle X-Ray Scattering, as far as I can tell, is something that's been around for a while.

My argument is that we have a peer reviewed, scientific study which admittedly stands apart from the mainstream consensus, and that the article ought to mention it in a sentence or two of with proper context and include a link. 173.79.55.180 (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

1. It's not the study we're saying is FRINGE (although if it's going against established consensus then it should also be treated as a minority stance), it's the topic itself that is under FRINGE restrictions.

2. Primary research reports should not be included in controversial topics. If the current article lists a bunch of other primary studies, those should be removed too unless they've received widespread media attention (and must be attributed and summarized carefully in that case).

3. MDPI is, at best, a low-quality publisher. FRINGE topics should only have very strong sourcing, so even if this study was a review it probably wouldn't be appropriate to include. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Since tgeorgescu's first move in this debate was to tell me to go back to Conservapedia, I'd really like an informed, substantive response from someone else. 173.79.55.180 (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You had answers from three other established editors. You just don't like their answers. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am just a visitor here and I guess it's your empire so you can do whatever you want, but it would be nice to get a reason or two other than "tgeorgescu thinks Christianity is fringe." I just don't see any principled reason for excluding a reference to this work so long as it is placed proper context - and the cited "policies" don't justify that either. 173.79.55.180 (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing arbitrary here: I seek to render the mainstream academic view according to my best knowledge. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, here is what I would add to the article:

"In 2022, Italian scientists used Wide-angle X-ray scattering to compare the shroud to other materials which date back to the time of Christ. The authors concluded their results "are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition" but cautioned that further study is needed given that these results contradict the carbon dating study conducted in 1988." 173.79.55.180 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I never said Christianity would be fringe. You conflate between shroudies and Christianity. The Catholic Church says that the veil is a relic, however, it has no official stance upon whose relic it is. Even the Pope is not a shroudie. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:ONUS to consider. Even if you could prove that this study is in fact verifiable, the onus is on you to gain consensus that adding this content is of merit. Since this theory is one that dissents from the vast majority of studies utilizing also established scientific methods, this is a tough burden to bear. What's important to remember in this specific case also is that the study analyzed a sample with the dimensions of 0.5 mm × 1 mm, whereas earlier reputable sources pointed out that the cloth may currently be composed of linen from different time periods. Concluding from this, even if the study would be correct, the conclusion drawn seems far-fetched to me, especially given little reputation and lack of repetition so far. It's an interesting idea though, I'll admit. ★Ama ^TALK ^CONTRIBS 01:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The limited sample size you mention addresed as a limitation in the study itself, which calls for repeated applications of the same technique in order to verify or dispel the initial result.

The Shroud of Turin article currently reads like a laundry list of every scientific study ever done on or about the shroud - so it would be odd to say that this study does not merit inclusion even in passing.

173.79.55.180 (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

As for reputation - the journal is reputable, the author is reputable. Nobody has suggested otherwise. 173.79.55.180 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't listen:

it's a new journal, so it did not build prestige;
MDPI is borderline reputable, it is not a good publisher for WP:V heavily contested claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

A comment on the article talk page points out that the study isn't fit for our purposes, and in my opinion should be summarily dismissed as unreliable. The abstract itself points out that it is unreliable - storage conditions of the alleged shroud determine the accuracy of the report. to quote .. " .... under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe." That, my fellow editors, is not possible. QED. (Well spotted, Achar Sva) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 02:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

...Is there a non-secular temperature scale? JoelleJay (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

My going assumption is that MDPI journals are basically preprint repositories that ask for money. Citing them pretty much falls under WP:SPS. XOR'easter (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the above the MDPI journals are generally suspect. Maybe okay for mundane claims but a big no-no for anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This is well-established, and a RfC is not necessary. If what the OP wants to insert is truly the kind of "accepted knowledge" Wikipedia is bound to reflect, it should be easy to find a more reputable source for it. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have had a look at this, and expected to find Italian news sources referring to the research, probably allowing it to be added. I found nothing outside of exceptionally Catholic non-reliable websites. I did come across a report of another study by Liberato De Caro in La Stampa, (RS) which claimed that the shroud contained ferrides and creatine (this was detected with an X-ray process), and thus could be shown to have been in contact with the body of a man who had been tortured. I personally would not consider adding this to be WP:DUE as it is an exceptional claim which has had very limited coverage.

I then had a look into De Caro, and while he is clearly a professional scientist in the field of X-rays, he is also very much a fringe theorist in terms of matters relating to the life of Jesus. Here he publishes an article completely outside of his field, the text refers to another study he has published, also outside his field. The older study has as its goal the rehabilitation of the traditional dating of Jesus' life as 1 BCE to 33 CE, claiming that ancient astronomical and calendar reasons would even allow us to pinpoint the birth to the winter of 1 BCE(!). Another WP:REDFLAG is that he always publishes his bible related stuff around Easter time, suggesting to me that there is a strong apologetic motivation for his work.

I would strongly suggest avoiding Liberato de Caro's work on anything relating to the Bible, as WP:FRINGE very clearly applies. He may at some point publish something which garners massive attention, and in that case careful inclusion may be warranted, but I hope not. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Citing Joe_Roe's comment in the WP:FTN-thread: "X-Ray Dating" isn't a thing. The method was first published by the same authors in the same dubious journal in 2019 and as far as I can tell nobody has paid any attention to it.. That's the crucial point. The method was introduced in 2019, and so far, the 2019 paper has 7(!) citations in Google Scholar (most of them "in-universe" by the same authors). This clearly shows that this kind of research is fringe.

As for the 2022 paper, it has zero citations (obviously, as it is pretty new). Why should WP as a tertiary source mention a recent primary research article, especially when it comes from a fringe corner? This is completely WP:UNDUE. If it will create a significant media hype outside of academia (against Boynamedsue's and – admittedly – also my hopes), we might report about the hype, but still won't present this research as anything that merits inclusion under scholarly criteria; it is simply not on par with previous mainstream research. ––Austronesier (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that someone is actually willing to provide information about this - this is exactly what I wanted from the initial editor who removed this source. 173.79.55.180 (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Other editors have dug much deeper in order to debunk that source. But the WP:PAG-based reasons I told you still apply. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Cyprus Mail on Gonzalo Lira

The article Gonzalo Lira, about a pro-Putin Chilean-American vlogger in Ukraine who spreads pro-Putin misinformation, currently cites the following sentences to the Cyprus Mail:

On 17 April 2022, George Galloway, former British MP, announced on his television program "The Mother of All Talk Shows" that an interview with Gonzalo Lira scheduled for that edition could not be carried out due to his disappearance in Ukraine. Friends and relatives of Lira confirmed that they had lost contact with him since 15 April with his numerous followers concerned about his fate.^[1]

According to Cyprus Mail, Lira’s disappearance received scant Western media coverage and was mostly reported by Asian, African and South American news outlets.^[1]^{[undue weight? – discuss]}

Chilean embassies and consulates worldwide acquired hundreds of thousands of calls with questions about Lira’s fate.^[1]

On 22 April, Lira confirmed being safe, stating that he was detained by the Security Service of Ukraine.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Lira did not deliver details about his detention but stated that he is still in Kharkiv and was told by the Ukrainian authorities not to leave the city.^[1]

I have suspicions about some of the other sources used in this article, but regarding the Cyprus Mail in particular: is it a reliable source for these statements?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably yes. Judging by its article it hasn't had major issues during its 70+ years of existence and its biases with regards to the Cyprus conflict are irrelevant.

Having said that, I see that someone tagged this with the undue weight tag, which would make it a WP:NPOV issue rather than a reliability one. Alaexis_¿question? 13:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, appears to be a reliable old established newspaper from Nicosia Cyprus - Questions that CP might be all of a sudden not reliable are a little strange, to be honest. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Strange? How so? Maybe you regularly rely on online English-language newspapers from Cyprus for your news, but I don't. Any source that appears to take two pro-Putin shills at their word naturally deserves some extra scrutiny in my opinion.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Ermenrich: using what two pro-Putin shills say in an article deserves scrutiny. And, if GizzyCat is going to keep adding their comments, the least GizzyCat should do is identify who, within the sourced article said it; and acknowledge that no RS supports the claims fo the two shills. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There does not seem to be anything controversial about the assertion that this person's detention has received scant attention in the press, I certainly hadn't heard anything about it. I would suggest that making this assertion would not in any way reduce the credibility of what is an otherwise reliable source. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, I think the larger issue is whether he was actually detained. The Daily Beast article on him suggests he may not even be in Kharkiv.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

In that case, we have a really longstanding procedure which is to report what all reliable sources state, attributing if the information conflicts. The Spanish language sources seem to be reasonable too btw. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of needing the Cyprus Mail and other Asian news outlets for information on Lira in the first place is due to the near-total news blackout regarding him in Western media. Havradim leaf a message 08:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Total news blackout? A former pick up artist turned pro-Putin vlogger claiming, without evidence, to have been detained by the SBU is only news to the Russian conspiracy mill. Like I said, the Daily Beast suggests he might not even be in Kharkiv anymore, where he was supposedly detained. It is a classic Soviet propaganda technique to plant news stories in small papers in places like Cyprus in the hopes that they’ll spread.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison - Can you address the issue of you misrepresenting that source please --> - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Posts on this noticeboard need to abide by BLP policies. Calling a living person a "former pick up artist" and "pro-Putin shill" (a shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with said person or organization) appears to breach those guidelines. Burrobert (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich and BetsyRMadison Could you please address WP:BLP issues in your above comments? I believe striking the problematic words will do. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Burrobert, there are no BLP issues in my comments. See How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine by the Daily Beast. Lira is most certainly a former pick-up artist, formerly known as Coach Red Pill, and an RS calls him a pro-Putin shill. I'd like to call him some other things, but will refrain.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: and @Burrobert: There is no WP:BLP issue with my above comment. On April 20, 2022 a wiki-editor added the Daily Beast article titled "How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine" within the article for "Gonzalo Lira." I'm certain GizzyCat already knew that before making this false accusation since GCB has edited that page many, many, many times since April 20. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You and another editor actually said "two pro-Putin shills" so the slur was directed at two people. Regarding the Daily Beast: "Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons ". In addition, you didn't say that the Daily Beast called Gonzalo a "shill". You, yourself, called him a "shill" which is a different matter. Burrobert (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Why do you keep falsely accusing me of the same thing over & over? For the record, as you know, I answered you yesterday, when you falsely accused me of yesterday. And, you know I answered yesterday, because also yesterday, you replied to my answer here . So tell me: Why do you keep falsely accusing me of the same thing over & over again? BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure you replying to me BetsyRMadison? My last comment was on the 24th. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: my apologies. I don't know how, but I misread the entry dates. Maybe I needed more coffee? Anyway, I did strike my comment and I'm sorry I wasn't more careful. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You should take responsibility for your own comments and not pass responsibility on to a third party. We have a note recommending that we use particular caution when using The Daily Beast for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. Changing "dating coach" to "pick up artist" is an unecessary slur against a living person. As mentioned above the definition of "shill" entails that the living person has an undisclosed "close relationship with said person or organization". Burrobert (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich you just added this to the article -->. Seriously folks, you are skating on a very thin ice. Despite the views that Lira person holds regarding Russia we still need to obey our rules here - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not change "dating coach" to pick up artist - the information that he was a pick up artist had simply been removed from the article. I would suggest that those who are trying to whitewash Lira, a known pro-Putin conspiracy theorist, should consider that they themselves are skating on thin ice regarding our other policies. If you would like to bring a case against me, go ahead. Ukrainians are dying because of Putin. I should at least be willing to get banned from a website.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobody wants to bring case against you Ermenrich (at least not me) Just be careful please while editing or commenting on WP:BLPs - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

PS - @Ermenrich I would alter your "pick up artist" edit from the the Bio of Lira to something else if I was you. It’s up too you but that particular edit of yours looks bad, seriously - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why - but I will alter to something else if this is especially offensive for some reason. It seems a simple statement of fact to me.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, just make sure the source you used actually says in manosphere GizzyCatBella🍁 14:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that neutral language needs to be used. Havradim leaf a message 19:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

References

[1]
[2]
"Gonzalo Lira #WhereisGonzaloLira", YouTube, retrieved 2022-04-22
[3]
"Gonzalo Lira se encuentra con vida, sin acceso a sus redes y fue detenido por el SSU" (in Spanish). El Tarapacá. 22 April 2022. Retrieved 22 April 2022.
[4]
"Acusa detención de la SVU: Chileno Gonzalo Lira apareció con vida dando entrevista por YouTube" [Accuses arrest of the SVU: Chilean Gonzalo Lira appeared alive giving an interview on YouTube]. CNN Chile. 2022-04-22.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Request Sanity Check

This edit , removed cited content, I'd carefully checked it was confirmed by the additional cite I added. The edit summary was Once again source doesn't back up what is being claimed here.. The editor in question continues to claim that the edit isn't sourced from the sources given: A) BBC and B) The Guardian.

The content:

“

Its record as the largest ship sunk since the end of the Second World War was only eclipsed by the sinking of the Russian cruiser Moskva on 14 April 2022.^[1]^[2]

”

From the Guardian:

“

The missile cruiser Moskva is the most significant naval vessel to be sunk since Argentina’s General Belgrano in 1982. Photograph: Russian Defence Ministry/EPA

”

“

It is the most significant naval vessel to be sunk since the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano was torpedoed by a British submarine, HMS Conqueror, in 1982.

”

The source does back up the claim, verbatim, so I don't see this as a legitimate edit summary. The other editor isn't discussing, merely asserting it isn't cited. Requesting independent review. W C M_email 07:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

[1]
"Russian warship Moskva has sunk – defence ministry". BBC. 14 April 2022. Archived from the original on 14 April 2022. Retrieved 14 April 2022. If the Ukrainian attack is confirmed, the 12,490-tonne Moskva would be the biggest warship to be sunk by enemy action since World War Two.
[2]
"Russia's Moskva cruiser sinks following Ukrainian claim of missile strike". 2022-04-15. Retrieved 2022-04-16.

Doesn't "largest" mean something different from "most significant"? In the latter case, it's an assessment which seems odd to give in wikivoice; should be attributed. However "largest" (since WW2) from the BBC source seems fine to state as fact, but would be not be appropriate in the Belgrano article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, this probably isn't the best venue, WP:DRN would be better if the talk page has gone off the rails, which it hasn't yet. However, from what I can tell, the BBC source does not mention the General Belgrano, while the Guardian source says it is the most significant loss since the GB, not necessarily the largest. In short, this is WP:SYNTH, tying the sources together to make them say something that neither do. No source I could find ties the General Belgrano to the Moskva in the way you are trying to say; regardless, I do think inclusion of this would be WP:UNDUE as it is kinda an irrelevant factoid, but that is for a discussion elsewhere. Curbon7 (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

According to this article on The War Zone (magazine), Moscva had a displacement of 11,500 tons, while the question of General Belgrano's tonnage is more complex since:

Fully equipped, the Argentine cruiser displaced 13,645 tons, which would put it ahead of the Moskva, although some accounts state that the Argentine warship was running with a smaller displacement than the Russian cruiser, at least at the time that it was sunk.

So barring some authoritative sourcing on the subject, I would suggest that we should not claim that Moscva was larger than General Belgrano (or vice versa) in wikipedia's voice. Lets just leave the comparison out as WP:UNDUE or attribute the, possibly contradictory, claims to the respective sources. Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

ARA General Belgrano:

Displacement 9,575 tons (empty) 12,242 (full load)

Length 608.3 ft (185.4 m)

Beam 61.8 ft (18.8 m)

Draft 19.5 ft (5.9 m)

Moskva:

Displacement 12,490 tons

Length 186.4 m (611 ft 7 in)

Beam 20.8 m (68 ft 3 in)

Draught 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)

You always have to be careful comparing ships and I'll acknowledge I was perhaps over reliant on journalists doing their job properly. I'd noticed over the weekend several sources comparing the two sinkings, many of which made a comment it was bigger than Belgrano. I appreciate all the input and will now think further on whether or not to follow WP:DRN or let it drop. W C M_email 17:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Speaking of trusting journalists to do their job properly... I believe that the 12,490 tonnage for Moskva listed by BBC, is a WP:CIRCULAR reference lifted from the wikipedia article Russian cruiser Moskva. The number in the wikipedia article was, in turn, the result of a 7-year old vandalism, wherein in IP changed the tonnage from 11,490 to 12,490 without any source or explanation (I could believe that the tonnage changed in post-construction remodeling, but surely not by "1-digit"). The 11,490 tonnage is consistent with the one in the War Zone article and matches the numbers at Slava-class cruiser, which I was able to verify in Jane's Fighting Ships (2009-10 edition; page 666, I kid you not). Abecedare (talk)

Nice job, its amazing how sometimes those vandalism edits can slip through the net. W C M_email 07:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, "tonnage" and "displacement" are two different things. We are talking about the displacement here, not the tonnage. Warships don't usually have a tonnage. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

tvnewsroom.co.uk

New Atlas

EU political report

Fairobserver and The Progressive

should there be an edit filter for adding WP:MBFC

Al Jazeera and ethnic statistics

Corrosion hour

Help - Retaining bad sources on Harry Styles page?

Hello! This is a follow up to a discussion that was had here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_-_Retaining_bad_sources_on_Harry_Styles_page? Note that it does seem to be coming to more of a consensus with several editors over the course of the past day weighing in favor of the changes that have gotten reverted for quite some time. This is just a notice that this page may require a watchful eye in the future.

Over the course of many years, the Harry Styles personal life section has been repeatedly twisted to intentionally imply Harry Styles is a straight man posing as gay for clout, when in fact he does not label his sexual orientation and has been open about this for the past five years. Recently in an interview with Better Homes and Gardens magazine, Harry discussed how reporters harassing him about his sex life when he was in One Direction caused him much distress, and implied a very specific article used as a source for his sexual orientation haunted him. You can see discussion of this on the talk page. See also on the talk page, a long discussion over what it "means" to be "out" that generally goes in circles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Styles

People have tried ad nauseum to change the personal life section on his Wikipedia page to be more respectful because of this. Prior to today, the google feature of this article bolded the terms "I am pretty sure I am not bisexual" - something that intentionally implies he is straight. It is a serious problem because thinkpiece writers and clickbait writers very obviously use that section of his page to research his sexuality and paint him as a duplicitous attention seeker when he simply does not label his sexual orientation, something he expands upon philosophically in the new article. Additionally, the source for him initially not labeling his sexual orientation both does not really explain why (he just explained for the first time) and it is a secondary source relaying what The Sun (a tabloid!) said. This is not respectful, or even good citing.

Harry's music and art very clearly is in conversation with queerness, which people can view cynically if they like, but this seems to be quite the value judgement - and is Wikipedia really the correct place for these value judgements? Why are editors being allowed to prioritize an interview Harry gave when he is 19 as the be-all-end-all statement on his sexual orientation, and allowing this (intentionally, I think) to reverberate through the discourse? In my opinion, this is no less than heterosexism and biphobia (which can affect any person expressing fluid sexuality - I am not trying to say he is bisexual, this is just how this works.)

Is there a way to set a more value neutral precedent on the page so that this does not remain a forever war as it has for the past decade? It just feels cruel at this point.

H-influenzae (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit tagged as "use of predatory open access journal"

Hello, this edit was tagged as "use of predatory open access journal". In it, 4 new references were added: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]. However, I'm not sure which one is responsible since I was not able to find any of them on Beall's List. Does someone know how to figure out which one triggered the automatic filter so it can be removed? I assume it is either "Global Social Sciences Review" or "International Journal of English Literature and Culture" but I do not want to remove them just on suspicion.

As a side note: I have already asked this question at the Help desk but it was pointed out to me that it might be better suited here. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

References

[1]
"The Myth of Sisyphus". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 13 April 2022.
[2]
Rasheed, Nausheen; Khan, Mamona Yasmin; Rasheed, Shaheen (30 June 2021). "Philosophical Exploration of Absurdism and Existentialism: A Comparative Study of Kafka's Work The Metamorphosis and The Trial". Global Social Sciences Review. 6 (2): 94–100. doi:10.31703/gssr.2021(VI-II).10.
[3]
Mondal, D. (2018). "The Trial by Kafka: in the light of absurdism and existentialism". International Journal of English Literature and Culture. 6 (4): 80-84.
[4]
Kavanagh, Thomas M. (1972). "Kafka's "The Trial": The Semiotics of the Absurd". NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction. 5 (3): 242–253. doi:10.2307/1345282. ISSN 0029-5132.

The International Journal of English Literature and Culture, at least according to WP:CITEUNSEEN. – Joe (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Clicking your link to "Philosophical Exploration of Absurdism and Existentialism: A Comparative Study of Kafka's Work The Metamorphosis and The Trial" tells me that I've won a prize by making the 18.36th billion search. Oh, and my device is infected. 😂😂😂 Tewdar 19:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Like the others said (WP:UPSD will flag this), International Journal of English Literature and Culture is the culprit. Global Social Sciences Review doesn't look great either, but I'll need to do some digging to see if I can find something more tangible than just having a hunch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have much towards predatoriness (the worse I have is being indexed in a fake impact factor service ), but there's very little in terms of reliability (literally no one indexes this journal). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  - The link https://www.gssrjournal.com/guidelines/publication-charges-policy helpfully explains that Hence, in order to meet such high standards while securing academic and financial scope of authors, GSSR recommends the very nominal Publication charges. 😂👍 Tewdar 20:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for having a detailed look at it. I agree that the "Global Social Sciences Review" is not the best source to be cited. But from what I can tell, the reference is not used to support any controversial claims in our article. I think it's only essential for the one paragraph talking about Kafka's Trial. I'll see tomorrow if I can find some alternative sources so it can be removed altogether. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan ethnics page

Hi, there is an old map Created by CIA in afghanistan ethnics page wich is Completely wrong and made by political strategies, for example according to wikipedia itself balkh province major ethnic is tajik, while according to cia wich is Completely bacause of political agenda (because of stopping iran's influence on persian speaking societies of Afghanistan) it shows uzbeks and major ethnic but my map is based on Al-Jazeera report wich according to wikipedia Al-Jazeera is reliable rather than cia wich is a governomental organization. Some one changed my map and blocked me!!?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5644Khorasani (talk • contribs)

The user is trying to insert this map, which is based on this one, and as you can see, the accuracy of that map is disputed and has been for nearly ten years. I have already warned them about harassing another user on their talkpage, and now they are forum shopping it. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, I followed your link and wasn't able to understand what's wrong with either of these two maps? Alaexis_¿question? 16:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Now we have two threads regarding the same source. I already told 5644Khorasani that I had opened a WP:RSN, so he proceeded to make a new one instead.. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis Apart from the fact that the map they are trying to insert appears to be based on data that is 37 years old? This one isn't exactly up to date, but at least it's based on data from this century. We might be better removing both of them, tbh. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned about the age, the distribution of ethnic groups usually doesn't change drastically in the course of several decades. Still, all things being equal more up-to-date is better. The differences are actually minor and are mostly due to the different approaches to mapping the data (district-based vs continuous). One major difference is that Aimaks are a separate ethnic group on the CIA map whereas on the other map they are coloured as Tajik. If there is a controversy regarding their ethnicity we can append a note describing it. Alaexis_¿question? 05:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Balkh province, I don't think that we can say that the CIA map shows incorrect information. It does show Tajiks in and around Mazar-i-Sharif where a large part of the province's population resides. Alaexis_¿question? 08:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

For anyone who missed it, there's quite a lot of discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map of Ethnic Groups in Afghanistan, by district.svg of alleged problems with that specific map which I suspect will apply to any map derived from it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This relates to #Al Jazeera and ethnic statistics that was previously started for this same topic. Seems like the conversation is progressing here, so let's keep it here. DMacks (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website as a source for BLP's

The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website is a source that is self-published by Jeremy Ruane and used primarily for statistics on articles about New Zealand soccer players, including BLP's. I am bringing it here as there is a question about whether it is a suitable source for this purpose under WP:BLPSPS.

@NZFC, Nfitz, Joseph2302, ClubOranje, SuperJew, and NealeWellington: pinging editors who have contributed to discussions on this source. BilledMammal (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

When in doubt, always refer to what other sources do or say about the site and its creator? Is it used or cited by known reliable sources? Is the site run by a noted expert in the field? Also, do we know where the site gets its information from? If so, perhaps we can use those sources instead? --Jayron 32 16:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

~~From an overview, it almost certainly shouldn't be used for biographical facts, but it seems fine for stats and results.~~ However, shouldn't these stats and results already exist elsewhere, negating the need of this source? Curbon7 (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That said, the New Zealand national encyclopedia directly uses that website as a source () (these pages: ), so that actually gives some credit to a potential overall reliability. The site also has received multiple awards () and appears to be considered reliable source for stats. Ruane also has been described by the official New Zealand Football association as a "football historian" and has worked closely with them (). Honestly, I would argue this is completely reliable SPS. Curbon7 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

However, do note that per WP:BLPSPS, self-published sources should not be used for BLPs, as they don't have editorial oversight (but this site seems to be fine for historical or non-BLP topics); circling back to my original point, I don't think it'd be a biggie to use for stats, but shouldn't these stats exist elsewhere? Curbon7 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I will say I think and know from experience that the website is reliable and more than just a "blog". As mention above, he is quoted by New Zealand Football as the association's official football historian and has basically taken over from Barry Smith. Is linked to Te Ara - The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand which is run by New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage. He is noted or quoted in major newspapers Jeremy Ruane, a New Zealand women's football journalist and Ultimate NZ Soccer website editor and renowned Kiwi football historian Jeremy Ruane for his work. He is part of the RSSSF stats website, and they quite often link people back to Ultimate NZ Soccer as well , , , . You will see from the website itself he isn't the only one contributing to it though has done most of the work and that he has previous experience as a football journalist in New Zealand. As for where he is getting the information from, previously it has all been researched, the latest stuff he is getting directly from COMET (COMET is what NZ Football use for player registrations, matches, referees, clubs etc ).— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 20:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

To answer Curbon7 question, unfortunately there really isn't another website for the stats. The old New Zealand Football website used to have the All Whites stats on them but as Project Football links they used to combine international with non-official games so the stats weren't reliable as such. Now, the latest version of the website doesn't even bother. Soccerway has a lot of the latest stuff but only for the last couple of years, it doesn't cover much more than that. Before that, there is a book An Association with Soccer: The NZFA Celebrates Its First 100 Years" that covers all the history of NZ football and older player stats but that only goes from 1981 to 1991. So there had been a gap after that, also the book didn't cover the women's game which only Ultimate NZ Soccer has done. This website not only covers these gaps but has put them all in one easy to read version, with a number of break-downs by player, club, team line-ups and competitions. It would be pretty devastating to a number of Wikipedia New Zealand Football articles if this was lost as a reference.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 20:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think such a website, with mundane and verifiable stats, is what we were concerned about when we set a policy of not using self-published sources in biographies of living people. And if we restrict the use of this website, surely we also have to restrict the use of team websites that are used to establish shirt numbers, ages, and heights of professional athletes. That Wikipedia has no firm rules (WP:5P5) is a pillar of Wikipedia - and this site (and sites like Man Utd First Team Squad & Player Profiles) should be the exceptions that prove the rule. Nfitz (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think I mostly concur with Nfitz. If all we're citing to this website is the stats for games, that could be gotten elsewhere (like individual newspaper reports, etc) and the site is merely being used because it conveniently collects all of the stats in one place, that has basically zero potential for BLP abuse. This is non-controversial stuff. If you were using said website to reference something like "John Doe likes to drown kittens in his spare time.^[1]" then, no, you shouldn't do that. --Jayron 32
The consensus appears to be that we can use it in BLP's for statistics as an exception to WP:BLPSPS, but it should not be used as a citation for information beyond statistics? BilledMammal (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This talk has died unfortunately as would like some confirmation. I know I've said it above but I'd definitely like to confirm that UltimateNZSoccer be able to be used for statistics at the minimum on BLP. Not sure if it's been used anywhere on a BLP for anything else, so will look into that further too to see if so, how it's used. Can I confirm that it's use isn't disputed for use with football club articles? Example would be when clubs where formed and also their best results in New Zealand National League, Chatham Cup or the Kate Sheppard Cup.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 06:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
To address the third and fourth sentence, its author appears to be a subject matter expert, so it can be used for statements not concerning BLP's, including in the examples you provided. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you BilledMammal, that's good to confirm.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 09:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

References

[1]
no animals were harmed in the making of this example.

Question on reliable sources.

Is anyone familiar with Hindi works able to tell me if the book “Bihar men samajik parivartan ke kuchh ayam” is a reliable source or not?

A broader question...

An article about a multi-campus student group in a student newspaper is generally not treated as showing widescale notability, but in general are they treated as Reliable sources? I'm dealing with a situation where what are apparently considered secrets to the student group and which someone claiming to be national president of the group is trying to delete. Since one of the challenges might be that the student newspaper is not a RS, I thought I'd get out ahead of this possibility by checking here.

Groove Phi Groove
<ref name=Hilltop>[https://dh.howard.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=hilltop_902000 Howard University 'The Hilltop' April 12, 1991 - Groove Phi Groove moves to a different beat]</ref>

Naraht (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't treat a student newspaper any differently than any other newspaper, with regard to reliability; which is not to say the same benchmarks one would apply to any other newspaper should be used to assess a student newspaper, no more and no less. It's probably under the remit of WP:AUD for notability reasons, as you note, but I wouldn't say that student newspapers are a priori unreliable, or at least any less reliable than any small-town newspaper would be, for example. --Jayron 32 14:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Student newspapers are not usually considered RS. To be considered reliable, a source has to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and most student newspapers don’t (this isn’t to say they have a negative reputation… most have no reputation at all). Rare exceptions do exist. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue that the "student" part is not really relevant to the analysis, and distracts from the real issue: Does "X" have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is sufficient to look for information. Any particular category we could put "X" in is a distraction from the question; we just need to consider the specific source's adherence to standards of reliability, not what "X" is in terms of how we classify it. --Jayron 32 16:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
See WP:RSSM, and it seems within reason that the Howard paper is reliable for a Howard student org. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Prehistoric wildlife - http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com

An editor (@Ta-tea-two-te-to: is removing External Links to "Prehistoric Wildlife" with edit summary "Deleted the link of website that includes many unreliable information". It doesn't seem to have been mentioned at RSN: is there a consensus that it is unreliable? It seems to offer bib sources, though not footnoted to particular statements, but is perhaps a one-person hobby site. (I'm not particularly familiar with RSN procedures, nor with prehistoric life - Protemnocyon was on my watchlist because I created its talk page after stub-sorting it in 2018, and left the default "add to watchlist" set!) Ah, possibly RSN etc doesn't concern itself with eligibility to be an External Link? PamD 12:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

After looking at the Prehistoric Wildlife site, I would say that it definitely cannot be used a source, and that it fails WP:ELNO as well. There is no indication on the site of who manages the site, who has added material to it, ~~or where that information came from~~. - Donald Albury 14:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

On a second look, I see some sources cited, but that does not make the site reliable (I cite sources in my own blogs, but they remain blogs). - Donald Albury 16:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

(EC) As an RS if it's a hobbyist site it would need to be by a subject matter expert to be of any use. But I see no information on who's behind the site, for example the copyright is simply "www.prehistoric-wildlife.com" and I see no author/s anyway. But also I had a look at one of their articles when I was looking for author information. I read it a bit since while I'd heard the story before, I couldn't remember the details. I was disappointed in the quality so came to our article Archaeoraptor and was surprised how similar it seems to be. Not a word for word copy, but it seems to my unexperienced eyes a lot like close paraphrasing. Except, while haven't investigated my feeling is it's likely backwards copying so we don't have to worry about WP:COPYVIO issues of our article but this does further suggest it's not a great source. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

There are some reasons why I claim Prehistoric Wildlife is inaccurate: First, some of information is out of date. For example, look at the page of their Kannemeyeria, there is description that "‬Kannemeyeria may have been prey to large thecodonts like Erythrosuchus", but the group name thecodont is already outdated and not used for now. Before I edited, article of Kannemeyeria in Wikipedia referred that website and called Erythrosuchus as thecodont. Second, some of reconstructions are inaccurate. The most prominent example of this is Jaekelopterus. Apparently this has only recently been fixed, but before that, Prehistoric Wildlife reconstructed Jaekelopterus as Mixopterus-like eurypterid and not Pterygotidae, even though original description made reconstruction as Pterygotid. And this caused huge misconception that Jaekelopterus was similar to Mixopterus and Megalograptus. There are many other misleading and outdated reconstructions and silhouettes like Helicoprion etc. And the last,most importantly, the issue of size estimation. Many famous prehistoric creatures pages in that website have their size comparison charts. However, in many cases its size tends to be exaggerated. Most of the time, the size is based on information from websites such as Wikipedia, but the size is not based on the actual skeletal elements, it just fits the length of the crude silhouette to the size. Important examples are, for example, Tupandactylus and Dinopithecus. I recommend comparing the size of Tupandactylus on this website with the size of the actual fossil skull. Far from being far taller than man, this animal is even less than his shoulder height. About Dinopithecus, this website probably completely misunderstanding "shoulder height" and "standing height". The animal's shoulder height is only 80 cm (still very large for a baboon), at least as far as I estimate from known fossils and modern baboons, but rumors of a monster with a shoulder height of 150 cm have spread, all because of this website. In the first place, much of the information in Prehistoric Wildlife seems to depend on Wikipedia. Isn't it strange to use it as a reference for a Wikipedia page? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable, the website is a self-published blog with no author credentials or editorial policies. While some have refs, others does not include any. As per the preceding arguments, there might be circular sourcing or paraphrasing, as some sources cite entirely the same sources as WP. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained RS tag can't be removed because reasons?

I am currently upgrading Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation because the original editor is being told she can neither improve it, nor defend it at the AfD, which seems pretty wrong to me. (19k+ global edits but only ~350 on en.wikipedia)

One of the editors trying to delete it has tagged it as RS without specifying a problem, and I just got reverted and threatened with DS for removing the tag. Could somebody else please take a look? I am a longtime editor with lots of experience on this board and I just spent two days on the sources. While I may have conceivably have missed one that isn't, I am pretty damn sure that there are few if any RS problems, and I am still not getting an answer as to what these alleged RS problems might be. Thank you to anyone who applies brainpower to this problem. Elinruby (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wasn’t I who tagged the article it was a different editor. You prematurely removed the tag describing it a tag bombing in your edit summary and your removal was reverted by me. It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first. That was explained to you on talk page as well - The editor who created the article is not extended confirmed so can’t edit the article. The article has been since protected , editors with the extended confirmed user access level only can make changes so they unable to do it for technical reasons also. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You're reverting in defense of his unexplained tagging though, and have not been unable to explain it either. The author of the article is irrelevant. I have chosen to speak on their behalf after reviewing the sources. I am not seeing any RS problems, and would like to remedy any that do exist. Meanwhile. An extensive bibliography just got removed by the same editor because one of the items was published in the Kyiv Post, which Wikipedia cites elsewhere quite extensively btw, and apparently it gave Ukrainian cooties to all the OTHER items I added the other night from Jstor. I mean, come on. If somebody doubts whether the Kyiv Post is RS, the place to ask is here. Meanwhile the sources I added from Jstor are definitely academic and RS, but I suppose I will be reverted if I re-add them??? Elinruby (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Update As of this writing the bibliography is there, and there are so may reverts and page moves that I can't tell if the person who said it was removed was simply mistaken, or what. I have asked below for an opinion on Kyiv Post however, since this seems to be the point of contention. Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

New Eastern Outlook is a disinformation website managed by Russia's SVR, not its Academy of Sciences

I just finished researching and writing New Eastern Outlook (NEO). Although some of its articles are by Russian academics, many are by conspiracy theorists and others pushing misinformation. Some Wikipedia articles use it as RS, but those articles should be reviewed and new citations should be looked at askance. For example:

In 2013, Veterans Today was a fringe conspiracy site partnered with Iran's PressTV. Looking at this low-grade anti-Semitic content, New Eastern Outlook reached out to engage Veterans Today as a partner website.
2016 NEO story claiming Zbigniew Brzezinski confessed on Twitter a US/CIA role in coup was not just un-fact-checked by NEO simply false. (That bullet point's not in the article.)
In 2019, NEO was taken down by Facebook and later by Twitter for deceptive behavior on those websites. Writing about it at the time, Kevin Poulsen called NEO ""one of Russia’s less-concealed outlets for propaganda and disinformation."
NEO's COVID vaccine disinfo fact-checked by Politifact was also a topic in 2021 WSJ article that quoted US intel: "New Eastern Outlook and Oriental Review, the official said, are directed and controlled by the SVR, or Russia’s foreign intelligence service. They present themselves as academic publications and are aimed at the Middle East, Asia and Africa, offering comment on the U.S.’s role in the world."
Sample text from a COVID story NEO published on February 28 2020:
What western media do not talk about is that with high probability the virus was man-made in one or several bio-warfare laboratories of which the Pentagon and CIA have about 400 around the world ...Western media also are silent about the fact that the virus is directed specifically at the Chinese race, meaning, it targets specifically Chinese DNA.

If NEO is RS, then the above statement "the fact that the virus is directed specifically at the Chinese race" would be RS supporting that claim in any article. NEO should be off our RS list. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Assuming this is true -- and having previously dealt with HouseOfChange I am pretty sure he doesn't just make things up -- then I emphatically agree. Elinruby (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Elinruby -- and just adding that NEO should be on Wikipedia:Deprecated sources as similar websites are. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Time to revisit CNET

CNET (RSP entry) recently launched a redesign which includes a hideous new logo and an expansion in scope beyond its tech focus to now include personal finance, health and entertainment. Judging by their introduction to the change, it feels like they are going all-in on prioritizing SEO and affiliate links. Already we are seeing articles about credit cards on their front page. Let's not forget that CNET has been acquired by Red Ventures (home to, ahem, this, and many other marketing-oriented sites).

At a minimum, I probably won't trust their articles on topics beyond tech that they have just expanded into, because it takes time to build expertise, and it feels like they are now prioritizing quantity (churnalism) over quality, so I won't hope for improvements in the reliability of their coverage of new topics. Depending on how things go, we may have to downgrade their coverage of tech as well. It's a sad day for tech journalism. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 06:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Many of the articles on the new CNET seem to be mass-produced "5 ways to do X" articles. Articles of this nature may be produced by freelancers or a team that isn't composed of professional journalists. I would agree that reliability should be judged on a case-by-case basis based on the subject matter. In particular, articles on more serious issues, especially those that relate to BLP (e.g. scandals affecting tech companies, controversies relating to particular people in tech) should be scrutinized. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In particular, coverage in mass-produced "how to" and "list of cool stuff" articles should be assigned a low weight when it comes to evaluating due weight, since an unlimited number of articles can be cranked out for the least important topics in order to get SEO traffic. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I see the issue. Looks to me like CNET pivotted to some sort of everyday-practical-tips publication with a broader scope than just tech. I've read some of their articles on topics that I know something about and didn't spot any big error or problem. I wouldn't cite anything with affiliate links, though. JBchrch talk 18:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

At this point I would probably place CNET (RSP entry) on par with Insider (RSP entry) and Vice (RSP entry) in terms of reliability, whereas previously I regarded them as an authoritative publication of news and reviews of consumer electronics. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 06:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Kyiv Post on Ukrainian Insurgent Army

An editor has just deleted an extensive bibliography because it was somehow tainted by the presence of an item in the Kyiv Post. Obviously this is remarkably excessive, but can some of the people that have been following this board more recently than I have comment on the reliability of the Kyiv Post? I apologize if this request duplicates a previous request of mine. I have urgently overdue RL matters and need to take a break from dealing with this insanity. The article title is Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation. Today. It is also the once and possibly future Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance. Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Update As of this writing the bibliography is there, and there are so may reverts and page moves that I can't tell if the person who said it was removed was simply mistaken, or what. I would Still like an opinion on Kyiv Post however, if you please since this seems to be the point of contention. Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's still deleted: @Elinruby: The article from the Kyiv Post by journalist Mark Rachkevych was under "External Links" in the main article. The entire "External Links" section is deleted and so is the article. The stated reason for deleting the article was "Stop posting non RS’s opinion pieces written by non-historians for some press" . However, the person who deleted it is mistaken, the Kyiv Post is not "some press." According to wikipedia , the Kyiv Post is "the oldest English-language newspaper in Ukraine...commitment to high journalistic standards and ethical practices." Wikipedia goes on to discuss the journalism awards Kyiv Post has won, "In 2014, the Kyiv Post staff won the University of Missouri Journalism School's prestigious Medal of Honor for Distinguished Service in Journalism. Five Kyiv Post journalists have also won six-month fellowships through the Alfred Friendly Press Partners program administrated by the University of Missouri's School of Journalism." According to wikipedia, the Kyiv Post is very reputable, even internationally reputable "Kyiv Post is the most-quoted Ukrainian source of news by American and European news organizations and the second-most quoted in Ukraine and Russia, after Russia's Kommersant ... based on citations in Factiva, the Dow Jones research database." The journalist who wrote that piece is Mark Rachkevych. From his bio "Mark was a reporter and editor for the Kyiv Post from 2006 to 2016 and still contributes as a freelancer. The native Chicagoan has bylines with the Financial Times, Bloomberg News, Associated Press, Ukrainian Weekly, Irish Times, and Ukraine Business Insight, among other publications. He is a former U.S. Peace Corps volunteer, a graduate of St. Norbert College in Wisconsin, and fluent in the Ukrainian and Russian languages." The whole goal of editing is to make the article better; therefore, I feel "External Links" section and the article should both be reinstated because it seems the editor who deleted it made a mistake. BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Question Are you referring to to this particular edit? M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a short note about sources expectations in that topic area --> See ArbCom ruling May 9, 2021 The above is not a RS for that particular topic area - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you are an involved editor who has been edit-warring against the article, and not an administrator, so you should not be "enforcing" that decision, especially since you have been misrepresenting it to keep the author of the article from even commenting on your AfD. But AGF, you could possibly be correct. So. To save the other editors from having to wade through the decision, you are referring to this language: "The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard."

So it is, then, your contention that the Kyiv Post is not a "high-quality source" because it is not "reputable"? Welp. I am here to ask for an opinion about that, as the decision specifically provides. It doesn't really matter much, since the article only appears in the article in the bibliography, but I suspect you are in error about that. Elinruby (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I don't see the Kyiv Post mentioned in the link GizzyCat gave so I asked GCB to give the quote that mentions Kyiv Post. Not sure that will happen. If GizzyCat (who is the editor who placed the AFD to Delete the article) wants to unilaterally mandate we get consensus on on Kyiv Post as a Reliable Source - then, after reading the wikipedia page on Kyiv Post and the journalism awards they've won (here ), my vote is Yes, they are an RS.
We are all volunteers here. The whole goal is to make the article better, and I feel that one person keeps throwing unnecessary obstacles in the way of other editors who are working very hard trying to get that done. BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I don't see the Kyiv Post mentioned in the link you gave. Can you please give the exact quote that mentions "Kyiv Post"? Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)h

I think they are saying it isn't a reputable institution. But I am not the GizzyCatBella whisperer. However, it isn't a book and it isn't peer-reviewed journal, so assuming she is making sense, that seems to be what she is saying. It's a mainstream news paper afaik. Pretty sure it's quoted extensively at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I too am capable of error. Elinruby (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: According to wikipedia, the Kyiv Post is very reputable. In fact, wiki says the Kyiv Post is 'internally reputable,' "Kyiv Post is the most-quoted Ukrainian source of news by American and European news organizations and the second-most quoted in Ukraine and Russia, after Russia's Kommersant ... based on citations in Factiva, the Dow Jones research database.". GizzyCat is simply wrong to claim otherwise. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: P.S. The rule says "Administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland." GizzyCat is not an administrator so GizzyCat can't impose it. Also, the rules says, "may impose" not "must impose." The rule goes on to say, "On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus.". According to wikipedia, the Kyiv Post is a "reputable institution." And no administrator has imposed it.

To summarize: GizzyCat is not an administrator; GizzyCat has no authority to impose it; No administrator has imposed it; An administer may (but not must) impose it; According to wiki Kyiv Post is a reputable institution. There's no reason and no rationale for this brand new obstacle, that the editor who placed the AFD to Delete the article, is unjustly tossing out on other volunteer editors who are working very hard to improve the article.
Pretty sure I asked here before about Kyiv Post and a word that figured in the replies was "gold-standard" but I have been asked to document so many ridiculous things in this AfD (Stalinism was "dandy"???) that it's starting to blur. I am hoping that somebody who knows off the top of their head will come through here and reply. Otherwise, there are multiple mentions in the archives, which are not user-friendly, as each result takes you to about twenty specific posts, some of them lengthy, and combing and weighing these could take days. So let's hush now and other people talk. The longer and more contentious-looking this post gets, the less likely it is someone will answer, since most people who answer here came in with their own problems, as I did below for HouseOfChange Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I repeat the question Are you referring to this particular edit? M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:ABOUTSELF rule 2

RfC: AllSides media bias ratings

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

The discussion seems to be split between Option 2 and Option 3. The people who are in support of Option 2 point out that the confidence ratings in Allsides are highly variable—while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, whereas the low-confidence ratings tend to be based more on surveys. The people in support of Option 3 point out that while the source might be highly useful outside Wikipedia, its methodology, which is partly based on the opinions of users, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. There was also a significant minority of users pointing out that AllSides has been referenced in reliable sources as an accurate source for media bias ratings. After reading the discussion, it felt like the arguments for Option 2 were slightly stronger than the arguments for Option 3, as they were more nuanced and allowed for significant variability. The Option 3 arguments were less nuanced. Therefore, I would close this discussion as a slight consensus towards Option 2. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:250C:38E9:9B7D:2A04 (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Which of the following best describes AllSides's (allsides.com) media bias ratings? This question has been discussed several times at RSN (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but participants have mostly talked passed one another and editors recently disagreed on how to interpret the consensus. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable

Survey: Allsides

Option 2: I believe that broadly categorizing AllSides as either reliable or unreliable would oversimplify it. Their website consists of several different sections with different but related aims; they have drawn by far the most attention from editors for their media bias ratings, which attempt to describe the bias of websites' news reporting on a five-point scale. In making these assessments, they depend on a variety of factors; along with each rating, they include a section explaining how they reached the conclusion they did. Some of their explanations, like those for The New York Times and Fox News, are extremely thorough; others, like those for The Telegraph and The Atlantic, seem to rely heavily on surveys, which is problematic. (AllSides acknowledges this by noting that they have "low confidence" in the latter two ratings.) Their research seems reasonably well-done, they have solid editorial control, and they are frank in acknowledging their limitations. Personally, I think that we should approach AllSides on a case-by-case basis; the more exhaustive the methodology section is, the more likely the rating is to be reliable and constitute due weight. Ratings in which they have "low confidence" should probably never be used, while high confidence ratings are generally usable with attribution, though in some articles, editors may not consider them valuable enough to include. In some cases, content from the methodology section may be usable even when the bias rating itself is not, although when they are reporting what other sources have said, editors should prefer those sources. There are several other caveats that I believe editors should keep in mind when using AllSides: it does not consider opinion columns nor any television programming, it deliberately chooses not to assess the reliability of sources, and AllSides uses the concepts of left- and right-wing politics in their American sense, which does not apply very well to European politics. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. As I note in the discussion below, several media organizations that explicitly cover the source give it high marks for its bias ratings. Common Sense Media gives AllSides high marks, writing that the news analysis site attempts to offer a thorough assessment of recent media coverage -- and essentially succeeds at that goal and that Generally, AllSides does a stellar job of breaking issues down. CSM also notes some limitations of the methodology (the site's analysis solely involves online reporting, not broadcast or other print coverage). Deseret News's executive editor also appears to like the site's methodology. Several experts interviewed by Poynter gives the media bias rating methodology high marks. Allsides also has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor, which itself has a stellar reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The source's methodology is explicitly given, and the explicit statement in the confidence the source has in a particular rating should enable Wikipedia users to avoid using low-confidence ratings—this is a significantly better source than the number of media bias sites that don't state their methodology and/or don't give anything akin to a confidence interval. Overall, this has the reputation a WP:GREL source for labeling media bias; even USA Today explicitly uses the website as a source for the political orientation of media organizations in its own fact checks (1 2). — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 3. AllSides Media is basically a completely opinionated source. In my opinion, it should only be treated as a primary source.

Should we listen to Common Sense Media (CSM) comments on them? CSM is an organization that reviews and provides ratings for media and technology with the goal of providing information on their suitability for children.1 It has also been noted by other news organisations for being an advocacy group(might be lobbyist too).2 3 4 5 6 CSM rates them something good but The actual parents gave them half the rating.

In addition to that, CSM also mentions, The site's rating system isn't perfect -- AllSides makes it clear that it, too, approaches coverage with some level of bias.

AllSides Media has been using Wikipedia as it's source multiple times. I think AllSides is fine for personal learning, but I doubt it could be used in Wikipedia as a source.

Allsides also has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor. They also have a partnership with The Epoch Times, which was deprecated in a 2019 RfC. Viral weirdo (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 Like the rest of the "media bias" aggregators, this site does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. There are reliable sources for media bias - published, peer reviewed papers. Further, reviewing the Poynter article, the methodology that AllSides uses to rate is beyond problematic - it's bad. "In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools." Just no. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- In fact, the peer reviewed papers use AllSides as their data source for media bias. To say that there is a great deal of separation between peer-reviewed media bias literature and the AllSides ratings is simply not true. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  - You can use anything as a data source... This is a bit of a specific point but my dog once published a paper which almost entirely relied on Inspire (magazine) as a data source, that in no way means that the house publication of AQAP is a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    - If you don't mind sharing on your dog(?)'s writings, can I ask what the data from Inspire (magazine) was used for in that study? — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 per my reasoning in the discussion section. They're a tool which may be valuable for use outside of wikipedia but as a source its a no-go and we have no use for such tools here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 - I agree with the assessment of Compassionate272, above. Judge it on a case by case basis… because a LOT depends on how confident they are in their own methodology and rating. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 Generally unreliable. Placing ideologies on the political spectrum is inherently subjective, i.e., it depends on the position of the person placing them. Allsides groups CNN, The Nation and Jacobin as left-wing. In reality there is a large difference between CNN, which is corporate media supporting liberal capitalism, and Jacobin, which describes itself as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture." (It shows a picture of Karl Marx.) The reason anyone would believe these publications occupy the same place in the political spectrum would be if they were conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 I agree with most of the comments raised by Compassionate727, who previously I had a discussion with on the reliability of the source. It is indubitably subjective and should IMO certainly be evaluated case by case basis. The quality of AllSides likewise tremendously depends on its asserted quality, e.g., the high confidence ratings are definitely more reliable, but even though they clearly do not manifest Option 1 as generally reliable. For example, it lists the CSM as centrist with high confidence, vindicating that “As of May 2016, The Christian Science Monitor’s AllSides media bias rating remained the same, despite a small majority of nearly 2,500 community members disagreeing with our Center rating.” Nevertheless, currently most of the community disagrees with the rating, which the site states may lead to a re-evaluation, but this is not the case and the entry has not been updated. Besides, its low confidence entries are poor, including the Daily Telegraph one linking back to Wikipedia as a ref, which seems to be circular source IMO. As per Compassionate 727’s comments, some of its ratings are almost entirely based on Blind Bias Surveys that are attributed from people all over the spectrum with no noted expertise, which might be unreliable. As a result, to me AllSides could at best be used for rudimentary info preferably with attribution, and if other RS cover it they should be preferred over this.

Mhawk10’s comments are also insightful, but I do disagree with some aspects. Common Sense Media, an RS primarily for film and media reviews, give AllSides a favourable rating. This does not seem to make it reliable- it also awarded WP a four star rating, despite it being user-generated. Further, the source does not seem to have a reputation for accuracy, as almost all source can be found in peer-reviewed journals, including MBFC, but this does not likely warrant significant coverage. Therefore, to me this is not generally reliable even for the high confidence ratings and should be determined situationally. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The star-rating system you're referencing isn't a reliability scale. According to their methodology, Common Sense Media rates media based on both age appropriateness and, for digital media, learning potential. We rely on developmental criteria from some of the nation's leading authorities to determine what content is appropriate for which ages. And research on how kids learn from media and technology informs our learning ratings. Wikipedia is actually quite good for learning about new things—that is the entire purpose of having a free encyclopedia. And, CSM flags Wikipedia as Collaborative reference: Research with caution. If you read the extended description, it says that Kids must be encouraged to think critically about what they read and double check facts and sources if they are using anything for a homework assignment when viewing Wikipedia; it's not saying that WP is actually super reliable for asserting specific facts in a high school-level academic setting (or, presumably, in more serious settings). — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, and I concur with your statements on WP, but you stated that CSM gave high marks, while also suggesting that it only determines learning potential, so how does that make this source reliable? The view expressed for the Poynter article is cherry picked, it states “But use them with caution” and likewise notes the similarities of AllSides and Ad Fontes, the later being generally unreliable. I am also tentative of the quality of the Deseret article, it labels as an opinion piece only and also said that “Meanwhile, the Ad Fonte Media Bias Chart—yet another respected gauge of bias”. Do you consider Ad Fontes also reliable?

Thanks for your helpful ideas and please comment below for any disagreements. Cheers and thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
When I say "high marks", I was not referring to the star-based rating system, but to the quote that immediately followed that statement and to the section of the page titled "Is It Any Good?" more generally. I apologize for the lack of clarity there. The caution Poynter is expressing is to not use bias to determine reliability; we capture this in our guideline WP:BIASED, but that hardly seems like a mark against the bias ratings provided by this source. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the useful clarification, and apologies for my misunderstanding. However, I would also point out that IMO the CSM's evaluation of 'Is it any good?' on its own is not a sufficient indication of reliability and is skewed towards learning potential. There are dozens of examples, but one of them is that it cites Britannica as the "most trusted resource" and praises it extensively, notwithstanding it being only marginally reliable upon a search on WP: Perennial Sources. In comparison, would you view that source to be as top-notch as CSM suggests? Further, the claim that the experts gave AllSides high marks might be erroneous, as that interviewed expert is Mastrine, who is the owner of the unreliable Ad Fontes and likely does not reflect the general view of professionals in media research (hence her praise is likely biased). The comment of USA Today's use of this source for the fact check is invalid as it also cites MBFC. Would you consider MBFC as well as Ad Fontes (please see my previous argument on your comments made for Deseret News article, which noteworthily is merely an opinion source) reliable? As a result, from my point of view, the statement of "USA Today explicitly uses the website as a source for the political orientation of media organizations in its own fact checks" is cherry-picked as unreliable sources are frequently utilised. It is present in some peer-reviewed journals but is tangentially mentioned (i.e., your discussion noted below, and like already said media bias sites are used for sure occasionally, including MBFC for the Iffy Quotient, but is too restrained for significant use). Nevertheless, AllSides is marginally better than Ad Fontes and MBFC because of its unambiguously stated methodology, still, it lacks IMO the status of a reliable source. Thanks again for your comments and time. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Option 3. They are primarily opinion (and are mostly covered as such) but make no particular distinction between fact an option; the poynter coverage of them above specifically does not praise or even evaluate them in its article voice that I can see, and most of the usage or coverage consists of passing mentions; most of what it says is quoted from AllSides. "Raw data" types of websites are generally very hard to use because it's tricky for them to be anything other than primary for their own raw data; but we definitely couldn't use them to support statements in the article voice, and whether to cover things as their opinion is going to come down to due weight - which is often going to be lacking. Additionally, the very nature of AllSides means that their coverage of news sources is going to be indiscriminate, ie. a source having a rating there means little, as opposed to academic papers discussing their bias. There are just much better (and more specific) source available on the political outlook of sources when it is relevant, which AllSides shouldn't be weighted with and therefore isn't generally usable along; and if AllSides is the only source, it's hard to support using it because of its indiscriminate nature and blurring of reporting and opinion. This makes it difficult to see any situation where it would be an RS. --Aquillion (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 I agree with Compassionate. This should be on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes Allsides is great, using thorough fact checking methods, while other times it's a bit more of an online survey. For the Allsides ratings that are supported by other RS or appear to have undergone a good analysis they are generally reliable, but for the one's that appear to have received little attention and care, they should not be used. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 per Compassionate727. LondonIP (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 - agree with Aquillion’s perspective. I will add that without years of training and hands-on experience learning how to approach a topic from a NPOV, most human-based methods are likely to be biased, inadvertent or otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 20:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 2: RS always depends on the WP:RSCONTEXT, what the intended use is, and this question seems too vague to do much, but I’ll offer some specifics for UK publications. As Mhawk10 and Horse Eyes mention below, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and Independent already have stated political affiliations in their articles, so there seems no need, but if the Allsides view of them is being mentioned by third parties then sure, that could be cited. Third party articles with mentions to Allsides would be citeable because they are stable and presumably saying something. But a WP editor going and looking up that day’s ratings would not be usable in article space. Partly because that would be OR, but mostly that any online moving rating is perhaps not going to return the same values next week so mechanically is not usable in article space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 The methodology for their ratings does not seem to be reliable to me. It's a useful tool, but I would not feel comfortable citing it on Wikipedia. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 for editorial reviews, Option 3 for user-contributed, and WP:DISCARD opinions that ~~don't specify whether they're about the user-contributed or editorial sections of the website~~ don't acknowledge a difference between articles created using different methodologies. The editorial reviews posted on AllSides are well-regarded by reliable sources.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ipnsaepl28: are you seriously suggesting that every single opinion other than yours be discarded? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: no, I'm saying that opinions that aren't based on the facts and the relevant policies should be discarded. Some opinions above implicitly make a distinction between user-contributed and editorial articles on AllSides, but others do not. When such an important distinction is not made, any resultant consensus will be heavily flawed and disconnected from the facts, which is what WP:DISCARD seeks to prevent. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Nobody else makes an explicit distinction in the way you have, if you think that some do please name them. Please identify the relevant policies which you feel are being disregarded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I realize that the original statement I made was a bit too extreme. I've modified it (with a strikethrough to preserve the original text). Compassionate727 and Iamreallygoodatcheckers implicitly make a distinction between different types of content. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok so currently you are calling for 12 of 15 opinions to be discarded? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
No, many opinions cite Compassionate727 or Iamreallygoodatcheckers's opinions as part of their reasoning, or use a distinction in their reasoning that is similar to theirs. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Then which opinions do you want to see discarded and what relevant policies do you feel they are disregarding? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ipnsaepl28: Also, could you explain why you believe that the editorial reviews are completely reliable? As per Compassionate727's argument, IMO there is a clear difference even in the reliability of the editorial reviews, with some only with low confidence ratings and citing unreliable sources. Also, why is it "well-regarded by reliable sources"? Yes, some limited examples, including CSM and Deseret News, cite it, but please see my argument above on the flaws of those sources. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 Their methodology is lacklustre, intransparent in its details, and almost entirely based on subjective opinion. There also seems to be conflicts of interest; for example, Epoch Times is usually associated with conspiracy theories and the far-right in peer-reviewed studies, yet AllSides labels it as "centre-right" and makes no mention of the frequent conspiracy theories that they peddle. This seems highly questionable given that AllSides has partnered with Epoch Times. Sarrotrkux (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Allsides

Coverage of Wikipedia aside Allsides does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, their opinion may be notable when mentioned by a WP:RS but they are not themselves a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: Common Sense Media gives AllSides high marks, writing that the news analysis site attempts to offer a thorough assessment of recent media coverage -- and essentially succeeds at that goal and that Generally, AllSides does a stellar job of breaking issues down. CSM also notes some limitations of the methodology (the site's analysis solely involves online reporting, not broadcast or other print coverage). Deseret News's executive editor also appears to like the site's methodology. Several experts interviewed by Poynter gives the media bias rating methodology high marks. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  - Thank you for the links. I'm not sure how much any of them demonstrate the necessary reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I'm not sure if we should even consider any of them other than the Poynter piece. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    Well, Global News describes it as a fact-checking website that is recommended by the experts they interviewed. As I note in my !vote in the discussion section above, AllSides has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor, which has a stellar reputation for its reporting. USA Today also uses the website as a source in its own fact checks (1 2) for the explicit purpose of labeling the political lean of media outlets. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    Isn't Common Sense Media a paternalistic content rating agency? I don't think they're a WP:RS. Likewise CSM *used* to have a stellar reputation, they're so-so these days like with Deseret their links to a fringe religious sect have gotten more problematic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    Per WP:RSP, Common Sense Media is generally reliable in the area of its reviews for entertainment sources. Its applicability to other areas has not been the subject of significant discussion, but it looks like a situational source. Christian Science Monitor is WP:GREL on WP:RSP for news and, as far as I am aware, has not seen its reputation change in recent years. Is there reporting from reliable sources that suggest this? Also, Deseret News is WP:GREL on WP:RSP for news, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    This is not a review of an entertainment source. Something can be less than stellar and still generally reliable. CSM's commentary has been getting increasingly extreme, for instance these pieces . As Hipal pointed out the only thing we can actually use from what you presented is Poynter and they explicitly endorse All Sides as a *tool* not as a source so that has nothing to do with our discussion here. You also seem to have misstated the consensus on Deseret "The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news." not "news" as you said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    With respect to Poynter, the only caution that they give is not to use the bias charts that they are discussing as a measure of reliability (centrist news sources are not always higher quality), and state that Media bias charts with transparent, rigorous methodologies can offer insight into sources’ biases and that such charts offer well-researched appraisals on the bias of certain sources. I don't really know what to conclude from that except taht they are well-researched and useful when their methodologies are transparent and rigorous; again, that's what a WP:RS is. With respect to Deseret, I don't think that anybody in the previous discussions made a distinction between local news and its news more broadly; it's a regional newspaper that tends to focus on LDS issues and regional topics, but I think that the word "local" in RSP is simply a mis-reading of the three discussions linked that unduly restricts the scope of its reliability. With respect to CS Monitor's opinions being published, I really don't think that we should consider its WP:RSOPINION pieces to be similar to its news coverage. In fact, all of those pieces you've linked are labeled as A Christian Science perspective, which plainly indicates that the perspective pieces are written from the viewpoint of a particular religious affiliation. The use of the source I linked is to establish that AllSides has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor the magazine—I think it would be silly to paint it as if the partnership were involved in one particular type of clearly labeled religious opinion column. You've also not addressed the coverage in Global News and the WP:USEBYOTHERS by USA Today's fact-checkers. If USA Today's fact-checkers are using the source in a particular way, is that not evidence of reliability for facts? — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    When you're at the point down the rabbit hole were you're accusing someone of having made a mistaken RSP entry you should probably take a step back. USEBYOTHERS is not a trump card and alone isn't even enough, its just one piece of the puzzle and most of the pieces seem to be missing here. I would also note that for many sources AllSides separates out opinion and news in their rating, they do not do so for CSM. Also AllSides methodology is *not rigorous* its actually rather shit, if you tried to submit a paper to a polisci or media studies journal using their methodology you would be laughed out of academia. We aren't comparing them to other media bias groups (which are mostly unreliable) we're comparing them to actual reliable sources like journal articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    You may think this, but a Routledge-published scholarly book notes that Allsides' use of multiple modes of analysis strengthens our overall confidence in their ratings.^[1] Hardly seems like this gets you laughed out of academia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    How is that related? They aren't using their methodology and they don't even say its reliable they just say they have some level of confidence in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    They are saying that they have enough confidence that the bias ratings are correct to use it as a variable in their analysis. In other words, they're saying that it's reliable enough for bias ratings that they have confidence using it in their analysis, with the confidence being bolstered by the multi-mode analysis that involves editorial oversight, surveying, etc. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    What does that mean for us though? We do not do analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    
    You keep claiming that AllSides's methodology is awful, but you have neither explained why in any particular detail nor cited anyone who makes this claim. Do you have anything you can point to in support of your position? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    "In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools. The readers, who self-report their political bias after they use a bias rating test provided by the company, only see the article’s text and are not told which outlet published the piece. The data is then normalized to more closely reflect the composure of America across political groupings. AllSides also uses “editorial reviews,” where staff members look directly at a source to contribute to ratings." So just to sum up they take bad data, run it through some opaque normalization algorithm, and then might or might not disregard it based on editorial preferences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    I am not sure why you consider the data "bad"; it is entirely normal for survey organizers to solicit participants through their own networks of contacts in addition to the standard "other marketing tools"; in general, participants who are solicited through direct contacts are better than ones solicited via random survey distributors because many of those people are professional survey-takers clicking random responses as quickly as possible because they are being awarded per survey. There is no reason to expect AllSides's contacts to be unusually biased; even if there was, they normalize the results so that the personal bias of, e.g., some right-wing nut who thinks that all media that disagrees with him is far-left propaganda because Ben Shapiro says so doesn't skew the results. As for their "editorial reviews," it has already been noted that AllSides considers a number of other factors, including research by scholars and organizations like Pew as well as their own editors impressions of the source after reading its articles (see the Fox News bias rating for an example of this process), which of course will (and should) affect the final rating. On the whole, "I don't understand what they are doing" by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to reject a source. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    "On the whole, "I don't understand what they are doing" by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to reject a source." if someone ever makes that argument I'l be sure to let them know. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
How would this information be used by Wikipedia? Sources like this I think are useful for RSN discussions but the discussion here suggests we would want to use the ratings of this company in article space. If a RS says "Allsides said X" well fine but if we are editing an article about the WSJ we shouldn't include a sentence like, "Allsides rates the WSJ as X [cite Allsides]". Springee (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Given the past RSN and other discussions, I added it to my list of problematic references in Dec'19, and started actively been removing them around Sep'20. I've found a lot of discussion, but very little attempted use. Generally better sources have been favored. My impression is that where it has been attempted to be used, it is to counter reputable, historic viewpoints. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- In articles like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Irish Times, Newsmax, Jacobin (magazine), AlterNet, The Grayzone, etc. we already state the political affiliation of the source in the lead or infobox. This would serve as one reliable source among others that could be used in describing the political leans of publications. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  AllSides uses an American political spectrum, it would not be possible to use them as a source for the general leaning of outlets in other countries. You will note that for the foreign sources they do rate they only review their US coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  
  Mhawk10, do you agree that CNN and Jacobin occupy the same position in the political spectrum or that CNN is more left-wing than The Guardian? TFD (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  CNN and Jacobin don't occupy the same political ideology; Jacobin is generally to the left of CNN's online news coverage. There is tremendous diversity of thought in the left-wing to far-left; Maoists are not politically the same as Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists are not the same as hardcore left-liberals, and are Stalinists are not the same as La France Insoumise, which are each rather different that Juche practitioners and the anarcho-syndicalists of the Regional Defense Council of Aragon. Generally, however, the left-right framework would put all of those groups on the left, even though they tend to vociferously disagree. CNN's online U.S. political coverage follows a left-liberal line, while Jacobin follows a (democratic) socialist approach. The two are not the same, but in the context of AMPOL they get thrown in on the left side of the political divide. As for the news coverage, I haven't conducted a systemic review of CNN and The Guardian, but my inclination is that the two share a common left-liberal approach in the types of stories they choose to cover; they're both fairly comparable to Vox. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I just removed this addition as a new editor's only edit. Is is safe to assume WP:ARBAP2 applies to such edits? --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Another one , ARBAP2 definitely applies. --Hipal (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it applies, and I agree that both of those are inappropriate uses of the source. Biases should always be attributed, and there's rarely (dare I say never?) any reason to mention them except in a dedicated context. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

[1]
Robert E. Gutsche, Jr., ed. (2022). The Future of the Presidency, Journalism, and Democracy: After Trump. Routledge.

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

Is the CiA a reliable source for usage of surnames?

Ovicio.com

Rape as "weapon of war" in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Discussion is ongoing at Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please direct your comments there. Thanks. --Jayron 32 13:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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

There's a body of literature, also statements by the President of the Security Council (32/2002) and resolutions of the UN Security Council (1820/2008), on the use of rape as an instrument of war - sexual violence "as a strategic and tactical weapon". The UN has developed a definition (here), which is also employed by the ICRC and other human rights organisations. Basically two elements are necessary: "systematic practice" and "chain of command". Chain of command doesn't necessarily mean an overt order to rape, but requires evidence that sexual violence is neither condemned nor punished by military hierarchy and is in line with the overall objectives of the group. Sexual violence as a weapon of war is something quite specific, and is different both from rape facilitated by war and from rape as a means of ill-treatment and torture.
In 2014-2016, sexual violence was quite widespread in the Russo-Ukrainian War, but the OHCHR, in a report on Conflict-Related Sexual Violence in Ukraine 14 March 2014 to 31 January 2017 concluded that "there are no grounds to believe that sexual violence has been used for strategic or tactical ends by Government forces or the armed groups in the eastern regions of Ukraine".
The lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine states that Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war". Two sources are quoted: an article by CNN and an article by The Guardian.
The article by CNN has a wrong title, as the rights groups interviewed by CNN apparently did not allege that Russian troops use rape as an "instrument of war". That claim, "using rape and other sexual offenses as weapons of war", was made by "Ukrainian officials", the article says, and possibly by a psychologist, Vasylisa Levchenko, who said to CNN "The weapon [rape] is a demonstration of complete contempt for the [Ukrainian] people".
The article by The Guardian says that " Women across Ukraine are grappling with the threat of rape as a weapon of war", and says that "They ["Organisations such as La Strada Ukraine and a countrywide network called Feminist Workshop"] fear … that the trauma caused by the use of rape as a military tactic will lead to deep suffering across Ukrainian society". The claim is not substantiated, and it is not even clear if the source is La Strada, the Feminist Workshop or the journalist who signed the article. It's possible that the use of "rape as a weapon of war" here is vague and evocative, meaning that rape is related to conflict, widespread and harmful as a weapon; it i not sure whether it implies anything substantial about the existence of a deliberate strategy of the Russian authorities and armed forces.
If and when a reliable source such as the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International or also a piece of independent investigative journalism will claim that rape is being used "as a weapon", i.e. for military ends, that information will be notable and verifiable enough to belong to the lead of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- All these sources are RS (and no one ever said they are not RS), but your question is not about sources, but about something else. You are posting in a wrong place. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  you may be right and in that case I apologise. I had understood that this noticeboard deals with issues like "does this source X support this statement Y?", where X could also be a specific article from a generally reliable source. Am I wrong? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  Gitz6666 perhaps it would be better suited for WP:NPOVN if the question is "How can we summarize what the sources say on the matter of rape during the Russian invasion of Ukraine in a neutral manner?" — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  Thank you Ixtal for the suggestion. Actually the point I was trying to make was more about accuracy then neutrality: I think we are misunderstanding what the interviewed people and organisation meant to say when they spoke about rape being used as a weapon of war. They meant it is massive and widespread and odious, but they didn't imply anything (I guess) about a deliberate strategy of using rape for military ends; and if they were implying this, then (I argue) it's not notable, it's just an unsupported view. I'm afraid we are misleading our readers and trivializing an important point here. Thank you anyway, and sorry for having brought this to the wrong place. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  At any rate there's a thread on the talk page where anyone can express their views on the topic: Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Rape_as_a_"weapon_of_war" Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
User Gitz is spot-on. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
As the discussion on the talk page is still ongoing (here above the link) may I suggest all interested editors to post their comments there? @Ixtal@My very best wishes@Otr500. The present discussion, posted in the wrong place, is closed. Again, apologises for my clumsiness. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Do these sources suffice in arguing that Kuwait is the head of the Persian Gulf?

Wikitubia's Interviews

diretta.it

CV for academic qualifications of a historian

The Kai Gohar Nama by Col. Zaroor Akhtar

Is Film Threat still reliable?

At a recent AfD someone brought up whether Film Threat is still a reliable source. In the past it absolutely has been per discussion such as this, however recently someone brought up that the site offers paid reviews and other forms of promotion. Basically everything on their site can be paid for.

I was trying to see if there was a way to discern sponsored posts from non-paid ones, but I can't find where any of this is marked anywhere. So we have no way of knowing if a review is paid or not, or if the free reviews are ever completed or made as visible as the paid ones.

This is frustrating to me because I've used the site in the past to justify keeping films. There's even an article I'm working on where this review would really help towards notability. But them charging for reviews does make it questionable and since concerns were brought up at AfD, I thought it would be good to discuss it once more.

So the question here is this: Does the fact that they charge for marketing and reviews now invalidate this as a source? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If "Basically everything on their site can be paid for.", is true, or partially true sometimes, then I would think that it cannot be trusted. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Addition: To me a paid site means someone will surely get what they paid for, that will of course not be negative, so only advertisement and promotion. One will never hear anything negative on those infomercials which seems to be what the site may have become. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that not all content on Film Threat is promotional; for example, plenty of the film reviews are negative. They even publish non-promotional (if anonymously written) reviews of reviewers. I believe the site can, at present, be used for sourced material, at least on a case-by-case, editors-can-recognize-promotion-when-we-read-it basis. If going forward the site's quality deteriorates, then of course we should revisit the issue. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What bothers me is that they don't clearly mark their paid reviews. If they did that, then it would make me feel much better. Pay to play also tends to invalidate a lot of sources. This one just doesn't entirely sit well with me. I'll admit that it'd benefit me more to have it remain reliable since I could save and create more articles that way, but on the other hand I don't want to keep it if it's become more or less a promotional outlet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this option would make you more comfortable: stop using the site's content that is dated/produced after a certain date? I have no idea what that date is, but in the spirit of babies and bath water, if you can determine when the site began publishing paid content, that would be the date. I do not see how it benefits the encyclopedia to eliminate clearly reliable content (for example, critical film reviews) produced at an earlier date simply because more recent content might be illegitimate. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen something similar discussed before. I tried to look and found Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Kirkus Reviews and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#Kirkus Reviews although I'm not sure if that was it. In that case, it seems the site did give an indication what type of review it was albeit in a way many may not notice or understand. There was agreement in that case that reviews from before the practice started as definitely fine. It's noted in one of those threads that a common practice for such paid review sites is that although they may not guarantee a good review, the customer can normally choose whether the review will be published. Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Ars Technica's Eric Berger

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

There is consensus for option 1, which is that the editor Eric Berger is generally reliable for factual reporting on space and technology-related subjects published in Ars Technica and other reliable sources. Some editors consider articles written by Berger to be biased, but not to the extent to which reliability is impacted. Other articles self-published by Berger should be treated contextually based on WP:SPS. VickKiang (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Ars Technica's Eric Berger on SpaceX and other space-related articles? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Added {{rfc|prop}} tag. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
Option 2: Reliable, but may require further investigation
Option 3: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
Option 5: Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated

Ars Technica's Eric Berger

Option 1: Generally reliable, like Ars Technica overall per existing consensus. Also the author of a book about the topic with positive reviews in Space.com (calling Berger a "veteran" space reporter), the Financial Times , and the NYT . Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 1:' On both counts: Ars Technica is a scrupulously reliable source on technology-related matters, and per the analysis above, Berger appears to be a reliable space-related journalist. Seems fine to me. As an aside, who is questioning the use of Berger's work on Ars Technica? What is their rationale for questioning it? --Jayron 32 15:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Concerns from the GAR as too interested and too much of an insider? WP:BIASED is obvious, yet not a reliability issue. I'd think WP:Recentism would be the primary concern considering the nature of the reporting and what Berger's audience expects. fiveby(zero) 15:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1: with a nod to WP:RECENT and always WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. @Urve: notifying. fiveby(zero) 15:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 1: As noted above, Ars Technica is about as good a source as we are likely to have for the "technology news" sector. As such, Mr. Berger falls under that umbrella unless and until there's some reason he doesn't--and perhaps I am missing something, but I have seen nothing to that effect. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Obviously Option 1 Ars Technica is generally reliable for technology news. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Bad RFC, since it seems like this is being asked in order to influence the result of the the GAR, where much more specific questions are raised about Berger which you didn't disclose here (despite, I can only assume, intending to turn around and use the result of an RFC here to try and influence the answer there.) More generally, I tend to get leery when people ask extremely obvious questions here with no context. At a glance, Berger has written extensively about Musk and has spent a great deal of time with him, to the point where he might be considered WP:BIASED. Ars Technica is obviously a WP:RS and there's no reason to doubt Berger's overall reliability but I would be cautious about not giving him excessive weight on this topic as a result. But those aren't reliability problems and I'm concerned that this RFC may be asking an "easy" question which will then get turned around and used as the answer to a "hard" one that wasn't asked, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to influence on the GAR, and I have stated multiple times elsewhere that I fully support the decision of delisting the article. ([1], [2], [3]) I do think however that I am biased and others should make the decision on whether the source is reliable or not. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The issue that Aquillion is raising is not one of reliability of the source, but that the additional considerations from context in which you are likely to want to use the source are not being raised as part of the RfC. In the GAR various editors raised concern that Berger is biased towards SpaceX, not necessarily that he was unreliable. Additionally, I don't see any criticism of Ars Technica which would warrant raising a thread. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, a lot of other SpaceX and other private space corp articles use Eric Berger as a main source. In my opinion, I do feel that the Eric Berger is reliable on the area of expertise, but given my bias on the topic as well highlighted by other editors I think that having uninvolved editors making judgement would be the best idea. I have no ill-faith intents here – if Eric's unreliable, I just have tossed a good chunk of my hard work away. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Option 1: (or bad RfC): Thanks for pinging me, Fiveby and Aquillion. Yes, my concerns about Berger's writing were more specific than reliability, but there's no doubt that he reports factual information accurately. But for content, this RfC has no bearing on what I was troubled by: Whether we can report as fact what Berger writes as aspirational. The article said: "When linked together, these facilities act as a production line, making Starship construction quicker". Berger says this is Musk's desire: "Musk wants a linear flow through the tents ...". I think Berger has an interest in reporting on the speculative parts of SpaceX's development operations. If an insider look is just reporting on aspirations for recently-devised manufacturing processes, then even if it's reliable, I fail to see why we should include it. After all, if this information is not reported in other reliable sources (ignoring the source-text incongruity), then is it due to include every new development wish? This is not a matter of reliability but editorial judgment. Urve (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Bad RfC No context is given so there is no basis on which to decide. If someone thinks a particular claim is a problem then it should be discussed as RSN was used until editors got it in their heads that every dispute should become a RfC that decided a general reliability question. Springee (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that an RfC here seems very heavy-handed. Even if someone wishes to get a formal closure for a reliability discussion, an RfC is not requireed for that purpose. One can just post it at WP:ANRFC under "Other types of closing requests". A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 3: With regards to this specific topic the neutrality of Berger is highly questionable, if even debatable. I regularly read his content on Ars Technica, and as others have noted his technical descriptions come off as highly aspirational. It's common to see him reporting SpaceX/Musk talking points as certainties , which in reality frequently never come to pass. In summary, his reporting is faithful on an events and facts level, but highly colored by his connection to Elon Musk and SpaceX. On this particular subject I consider Berger WP:BIASED. Ebolaisariver (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1: Per Jayron32, and Aquillion. Both seem to be fine, and I don't understand any of the context of the question as Aquillion pointed out. Huggums537 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Bad RfC Journalists are not experts and therefore the reliability of their writings depends on the publication and the nature of the claim. An article written by an anonymous journalist for the New York Times for example is reliable for news, no matter who wrote it. OTOH, a signed opinion piece by a Times editor is not, per News organizations. TFD (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Ars Technica is a generally reliable source for news, with a technology and science focus. It is operated by Condé Nast, which owns a number of other generally reliable publications, including GQ, The New Yorker (RSP entry), Pitchfork, Vogue (RSP entry), and Wired (RSP entry). Ars Technica tends to be more in-depth than most technology websites, and falls under option 1. Eric Berger's articles that are published in Ars Technica are also generally reliable (option 1), including his articles on space or SpaceX. The reliability of Berger's articles that are published in other publications would depend on the reliability of those publications, and Berger's self-published articles would be judged by the WP:SPS policy. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This RFC should include {{rfc|policy}} and/or {{rfc|sci}} tags. And to add to the procedural pedantry: I'm not sure why this ever needed to be an RfC; it could have been an normal discussion/question. JBchrch talk 22:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Added {{rfc|sci}}. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines RfC category is usually intended for changes to policy/guideline pages. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 I'd like to offer a different perspective than just parroting that Ars Technica on a whole has been found to be reliable. I've been working specifically with Eric Berger's reporting on Space Launch System, and I've found him to be extremely reliable (alongside e.g. Philip Sloss and Jeff Foust). While finding and checking citations, I've on many occasions compared direct NASA sources to his reporting, and found his summaries to be fair, due, and accurate. Even in the case of controversial issues, such as discussed here and here, looking back with the perspective of two more years of history, his reporting was vindicated and the opposing sources were proven to be too optimistic. So, from my experience on specifically that topic over the course of multiple years, I would say that specifically Eric Berger's reporting for Ars Technica on the topic of spaceflight is generally reliable. On the other hand, I would have to say that per WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications., I do have to disclaim that Eric Berger's Twitter (or other personal social media, separate from Ars Technica) should not be treated as a reliable self-published expert source. On numerous occasions he has tweeted unverified rumors and speculation, presumably too unverifiable to put into an actual Ars Technica article, that was later proven wrong. Leijurv (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1: for Eric Berger. For ArsTechnica, and especially some of its writers who do not cover tech issues, awful and very unreliable and tendentious. You will observe quite a few above also say Ars is good for tech reporting. But for all the Ars reposts from other Condé Nast pubs and some of its in-house writers... Ars is agitprop-level. But Berger tends to stick to tech issues and he himself should be relied upon.XavierItzm (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Sport at the Metro

Hi! Per Talk:2022 World Snooker Championship#Metro as a source?, I said I'd open up a conversation here. We have WP:METRO, and it has been discussed a lot (last 2017), but the coverage by the Metro for snooker is done by Phil Haigh, who previously worked at Eurosport and the Guardian (see [theguardian.com/football/2013/feb/01/arsenal-stoke-city-squad-sheets] for an example. What are your thoughts on the coverage of sports from this magazine? The about us page suggests that they have a likely editorial roll for sports. I can't say I've looked into it too much, but said I would start a conversation here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you sought out other sources? Surely, snooker is popular enough that more than one single source covers it sufficiently so we don't have to even worry about carving out exceptions for otherwise unreliable sources? --Jayron 32 16:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The suggestion to use Metro was made by HurricaneHiggins. I am waiting for their input after they return next week, to hear what exactly the benefits from using Metro might be. But I would support an exception to WP:METRO for sports. Haigh is a reliable expert, and as far as I can tell, the quality of his work has not suffered since he switched to Metro. There currently are just three sources that make up the vast majority of sources in the Snooker articles (BBC, Eurosport, World Snooker). All of them have their strong and weak sides. There are active discussions about using other sources (not Metro specifically, but things that the three main ones don't cover); most of them run into WP:RS problems. Having a fourth good source would be valuable. Renerpho (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We do have plenty of sources that are unreliable for certain topics, (such as say, politics or science). It's not really a case of "well, there's plenty of other sources, so this one doesn't need to be reliable", we should really focus on whether we trust information from a source for specific topics. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all. My rationale is that Phil Haigh is a knowledgeable sports journalist who covers snooker well — with Nick Metcalfe, he is a co-host of the Talking Snooker podcast. Such sources of information — people who know the game inside and out and write well about it — are valuable, because it's been my sense that snooker is nowadays largely ignored in the mainstream press, which focuses mostly on a few big names at the World Championships. I even see glaring errors nowadays in the BBC's coverage. So it's a bit frustrating not to be able to use Haigh's pieces for verification purposes, just because they appear in Metro. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I reaffirm my support for HurricaneHiggins' suggestion. The source is reliable (in this context), and highly valuable. Please let's allow for the exception. Renerpho (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

At the RSP entry, there are seven discussions linked, but I cannot see that any substantially relate to Metro, so I am unsure why it is listed as generally unreliable there. It is true that tabloids are normally unreliable, but I thought we needed dedicated discussion on a specific source in order to list it at RSP.

In any case, the reasons that Metro is likely generally unreliable would probably not apply to routine coverage of snooker. Per Haigh's previous reporting, I would say it is usable for this type of sports coverage. This would not include anything that's BLP-sensitive, like if they were reporting that a well-known snooker player was a domestic abuser. — Bilorv (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

UKGameshows.com for reviews and opinions

I have created a few articles on trivial new British game shows (Sitting on a Fortune, Moneyball (game show)) and on each of them the reference from this website was removed by User:Neverrainy, first with no explanation and later with the explanation that this website is an unreliable Wiki.

The website does have some parts that are Wiki and are open for volunteer editing, but these particular pages referenced are not, they are clearly attributed to a real person called Iain Weaver. So the argument that an opinion piece is "not reliable" is a non-starter.

I have never used this website to source "facts" but for clearly attributed opinions. We are talking about reviews for game shows, not for ballet or symphony. The other sources, which were not removed by this user, included one which was just reporting what Twitter users said about the show. So anonymous Twitter users are fine for opinions, but not a person on a specialist website.

So in short, are the authored pages of this specialist site reliable for opinion? I don't think the bar is particularly high for passing judgement on a gameshow, even the TV critics for most major newspapers are hardly the Robert Christgaus of the sector. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion: Of course, it is reliable. As a TV critic since around 2001, also having guest critics, the person gives his perspective that removes any doubt about promotional or advertising issues. Using the source on Moneyball (game show) gives negative reviews as well as some praise so should be looked at as very reliable for reviews or "opinion"[s] in the subjects field. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Attributed opinions are not really subject to reliability tests, unless we believe that the website is not reliable for reporting the opinion of the person who is writing the website. This is a WP:UNDUE matter not a WP:RS matter. Discussions about the relevance of reviews are based on the reputation of the reviewer, but in cases like this, it is not a reliability issue because the website does reliably verify what the website itself says. WP:RSOPINION clearly states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact... When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." --Jayron 32 12:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems OK for the attributed opinion, though I do not care for much content about opinions. The DUE question is harder here, as much of what little coverage there is will include opinion of some person. But I have to think WP:WEIGHT of this UKGameshows.com is at least more than Liverpool Echo, so it would be more DUE than at least that one of the other cites. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
As the site does not have any editorial policies or expertise of authors that I could locate, IMO it is unreliable for facts. I am unsure of the attributed opinions, however, better secondary sources should always be preferred over this one and assigned more weight. VickKiang (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Expert on far-right published in The Conversation

Consensus has established that subject-matter experts published by The Conversation are generally reliable sources. At Turning Point UK, the use of an article from Chris Allen (wiki), an Associate Professor at the University of Leicester's Centre for Hate Studies, has been disputed as only usable as opinion. What are people's views on whether the article can be used as a reliable source? Cambial — foliar❧ 14:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think in general it is never a bad idea to cite singular analysis with attribution. Which is to say; whether we call it opinion or expert analysis, or whatever, if we are basing something we are writing in Wikipedia on a single voice, we explicitly attribute that single voice in the Wikipedia text, "According to so-and-so..." is good language to use here. This is especially true about the sort of analysis this article represents; the article is primarily about how to characterize and categorize TPUK as an organization; an inherently fuzzy process. If multiple reliable sources speak of an organization consistently in a certain manner, then it is okay to speak in Wikipedia's voice for such a characterization; because it is widespread and common. When we are citing a singular voice on any topic, and where such voice presents a characterization which is not present in the preponderance of reliable, general-use sources, it is always better to attribute that author directly. That we include it at all is dependent on the author being a recognized subject-matter expert. That we include it in Wikipedia's voice would imply widespread, general use sources frequently do the same in their own voice as well. We have the former situation (a subject matter expert), but not necessarily the latter (widespread use of the characterization by other general-use sources). --Jayron 32 15:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Which part of it, and as a source for what? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The existing content it supports is "The group does not fit traditional conceptions of the far right." This seems to be relatively uncontroversial statement about how its expressed views or purposes align, or don't align, with pre-existing similar groups. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That's an opinion, it's not a fact (that's why it's attributed). Also, as such, it doesn't belong in the lead section. M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been active over at the Turning Point UK page. My position, insofar as my contributions prior to this discussion opening, largely concur with those of Jayron. While Chris Allen is an expert in the topic, it still remains unclear as to whether his opinion represents consensus within political science, or is just his opinion. As such I think we should err on the side of caution and attribute that to Chris until it can be proven that the description, that the group does not fit within the standard descriptions of the far-right, has widespread support. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Since Allen is relying mostly on his own research ("As our ongoing research suggests, the term “far right” is becoming increasingly meaningless and unusable as those on the right become ever more diversified and use a broader range of issues behind which to identify and mobilise"), I think it would be best to attribute his statements. But by the same token, I do not see that the Guardian's characterization of TPUK has widespread usage either. As such, since reliable sources seem to disagree, it would be best to attribute the Guardian as well. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It is certainly a singular opinion and I'd be surprised if it's shared widely - and I'd love to know what descriptions he wants to replace "far right" although I'm not sure he wants to. So if used, it must be attributed. This leaves the question as to whether it should be used. I don't think its differences from the EDL, National Front, etc. are that relevant. He does compare it with Generation Identity - see Les Identitaires which we say is widely considered neo-fascist. Note that he concludes "It also further muddies the water that groups, including TPUK, routinely – yet contradictorily and cynically we hasten to add – decry racism, endorse diversity and champion free speech. If nothing else, doing so enables TPUK and others to refute those who claim it to be far right, which might be just enough to ensure its appeal to those who might have previously been adverse to this label. For this reason, now might be the time to rethink the existing vocabulary and the way it is used to describe such groups." So on reflection, I don't think it should be used. If we find other reliable sources agreeing with him, that will be the time. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Broadly agree with Jayron. He’s definitely an expert and noteworthy but better to attribute and only include in lead if wide range of othe sources say same thing.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

RealClearDefense

RealClearPolitics is listed as yellow at WP:RSP. RealClearDefense has the same owners.

At Sinking of the Moskva we've got this statement sourced to RealClearDefense:

the cruiser was expected to survive several strikes from Neptune missiles (150 kg or 320 lb warhead each) due to its large displacement

If we look at the source to see where the 150 kg number comes from, it says this:

All ship and weapon system characteristics were derived from UNCLASSIFIED sources (i.e., Wikipedia)... According to Wikipedia, the warhead on the Neptune ASCM weighs 150 kilograms or 330 lbs.

This seems to me a violation of WP:CIRCULAR and suggests to me that not only the 150 kg number, but the entire analysis, is suspect. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems like straightforward WP:CITOGENESIS, all else aside. Regardless of the quality of a source we can't generally cite them for a specific point of fact that they unambiguously cite solely to Wikipedia itself. --Aquillion (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would this make the entire analysis suspect? They clearly say "According to Wikipedia" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems like nothing to see here. Citogenesis is very clearly stated. Curbon7 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What specifically is being questioned? The weight of the warhead is clearly not acceptable per CITOGENESIS. However, the part about the cruiser being expected to withstand such a strike doesn't appear to come from Wikipedia (based on the arguments above). I suppose it could depend on how the claim is structured. Ship A is expected to withstand Missile B. Missile B happens to have a warhead of 150kg per Wikipedia. In that case the warhead weight is a secondary fact and the truth of the primary claim, Ship A can withstand, isn't dependent on the accuracy of Wikipedia. An alternative claim is Ship A is expected to withstand warheads of at least 200kg; Missile B has a warhead of 150kg thus A should withstand B. In that case the truth of the claim is dependent on the accuracy of Wikipedia and thus would be a kind of citogenesis. Springee (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
But the conclusion very clearly does depend on the number. If the number is wrong, so is the conclusion. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you actually know that? The author could know something about what the missile can/cannot take out based on other information and included the mass as a secondary claim. As a hypothetical, a person might know a WW2 bunker of a specific design was rated to withstand a 250lb aerial bomb [cite army field manual]. They might then note that, per wikipedia a 250lb bomb contained about 125lbs of explosives. So the first claim is not dependent on the second claim. Unless we know the reason for the claim was based on the mass sourced to Wikipedia, we can't say this is citogenesis. Honestly, even if they say it is, there is some additional interpretation here since presumably the logic would be Ship A can withstand a warhead of size B. Per wikipedia the missile warhead is smaller than B. That would be taking facts on Wikipedia and reaching a new conclusion based on their analysis. Not ideal but again, not the same as saying, "Ship A can handle missile B per Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, looking at the source , the only part of this that would be citogenesis is if we used this source to say the missile warhead is 150kg. The author does an analysis and uses the mass from Wikipedia for just one part. Their analysis is trying to answer the question, could 1 missile of this type sink the ship. What they found was, assuming the Wikipedia number is correct, it would take 4.6 missiles. Even if the warhead mass is off by a fair margin, his primary conclusion would remain assuming the rest of his analysis is sound. I'm not sure about the Wikipedia source since it was updated this year. However, here is an older source that says the same thing . Springee (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
No, wait, that's not true. They cite Wikipedia repeatedly (citations iii through vi are all to Wikipedia), and those citations make up most of the basis of their analysis; in particular, most of the information about the MOSKVA's armaments, especially its SA-N-6 surface-to-air missiles, comes from Wikipedia. I think it is tricky to assess sources that take information from Wikipedia and apply their own analysis to it (it is not pure citogenesis, but the same basic problem applies), but in general we shouldn't be citing an analysis that relies so heavy on Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not classic citogenesis of the "make up a 'fact', put it on Wikipedia, let it propagate" variety, but it does seem to be laundering the numbers. The same basic problem, as you say: information that we shouldn't trust is made to look trustworthy by passing through an intermediary. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest looking at the other facts taken from Wikipedia. Are the Wikipedia sources for those claims good? Can they be backed by other sources (as in my example)? Caution should be used if something is sourced to Wikipedia but that doesn't automatically make the analysis bad. I might make a claim based on the ideal gas law and cite conversions from Celsius to Kelvin and the value of the gas constant to Wikipedia. That wouldn't make my analysis fundamentally wrong. If an editor used independent sources to check my conversion/constant then I think we can agree the the use of Wikipedia doesn't undermine the overall result. Remember that many off Wikipedia do find it to be a useful place to gather basic facts, especially if they can see where the facts came from. Because this isn't citogenesis and the figures cited from Wikipedia can be verified (true or false), I think this is a case where the 3rd party's use of Wikipedia shouldn't disqualify (or qualify) the work. Springee (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I don’t see any circularity issue because Wikipedia is not really the source, it’s just the intermediary. The 150kg number appears in WP but it comes from an external source, and since the Neptun is supposed to be a clone of the Russian KH-35 which has an export catalogue that specifies its warhead at 145kg, this number looks plausible. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems a credible author in Anthony Crowder, he has many other works at RCD and with U.S Naval Institute. The ownership mention is irrelevant — RS goes by publisher and author, two things owned by the same person should have different RS evaluations. For example, Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal and The Star and Chicago Sun-Times, each of which has different reputations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- The About page says that RealClearDefense falls underneath the umbrella of RealClear Media Group's(RCMG) brands, sites that span a spectrum of passions and interests and lists its history as Founded in 2000 by two news junkies from their Chicago apartment, RealClearPolitics grew out of a passion for combing the internet for the most interesting political stories of the day. Tom Bevan and John McIntyre wanted a site that contained the most pivotal information on the day’s need-to-know issues. It wasn’t long before they discovered they weren’t the only ones with this desire. Today, RealClearPolitics has grown from an intelligent aggregator into a comprehensive media company – RealClear Media Group (RCMG) – encompassing 14 specialty areas of coverage, original reporting from our staff of seasoned reporters, live events, the well-known RCP Poll Average, and original video. Based on that I would say that RealClear Media Group is RealClearPolitics and that groups under its umbrella are not editorial independent, all falling under its current WP:RSP entry unless we have a reason to think otherwise. This isn't like two unrelated companies who have the same owner; this is more like eg. the Dotdash network of websites, or how Blaze Media also runs BlazeTV and TheBlaze. They're different brandings for the same core organization. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  It's true that different newspapers with the same owner can have different reputations, as can different academic journals from the same publisher. But in the absence of clear indications that different RealClear properties are editorially independent from one another and aren't just multiple websites run out of the same office, I think the WP:RSP evaluation should apply to all of them. XOR'easter (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  - It appears the author has a clear reputation as an expert and in this case their analysis is based on what appear to be a model accepted by others. In such a case we can rely less on the mixed result for RCP. RCP is currently yellow/no consensus. Many of the arguments against reliability seemed to be focused on the political opinions they were willing to publish. This is not a political article and as others have pointed out, the relationship between RCP and RCD is not clear. Certainly we shouldn't treat an apolitical, technical analysis written by a subject matter expert the same as we would treat their political opinion articles. If editors wish to argue that this information isn't DUE in the parent article, fine. However, to argue that the information isn't accurate seems suspect to me. Springee (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Don't know when if ever, Murdoch owned the Chicago Sun-Times, but, no, he does not now. It is owned by Chicago Public Media Group, a non-profit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Murdoch owned it for 2-years in the 1980s. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so... we are citing a source that RSP says "should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided." And using it for an analysis based on numbers that come from Wikipedia. But it's OK because the author has also been published in U.S Naval Institute. Is that right? GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No. It is circular sourceing and the work is not RS. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yesish, it is RS but I also note other items in what RSP says. This article is RS for the cite because the author is expert in naval military matters, so the specific factors and directness of his analysis for the item mentioned in what makes the article RS. The wider RSP was about a different publication and topical arena so it seems not very appropriate, but note that Yellow is not just ‘avoid’, it is “may be usable depending on context”, “reliable in certain circumstances”, and “evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question.” So yellow is saying to consider the specifics and to use it sometimes — and this seems an instance where the specifics say OK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It is mostly reliable. The only thing circular here is the weight of the warhead, which the RCD author was entirely open about his source. The piece itself is an independent expert analysis on Moskva's sinking and salvo size, which should be reliable. Vici Vidi (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
No, the article is clear that its analysis is entirely based on assumed information; see note ii, where the author says "The assumptions presented here are just that – assumptions. The reader is invited – nay, urged! - to come up with their own assumptions and take the Salvo Equations for a spin themselves!" Such a hypothetical analysis does not rise to the level of a reliable source for a factual event. While I have my doubts about any source affiliated with RealClearPolitics, this article by its own terms does not produce citable information. John M Baker (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out two more errors in this analysis. He's using 12,490 tons as the displacement; that number is wrong, and is the result of vandalism on Wikipedia back in 2015 that has since been corrected (see Talk:Russian cruiser Moskva/Archive 2#Full load displacement). And he has confused displacement with tonnage, a surprising beginner mistake for someone who claims to be an expert military analyst. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The Filmik

Reliability website

Little Black Book (lbbonline.com)

Shibata Naganori

RfC: Indeed

Design and Fashion Sources

Soundography

Best practices for using datasets

Knight Templar website?

Whitelist RT article on de-Leninization which kicks the State line

I'm aware that Russia Today is state owned, and features generally non neutral propaganda. However, it may be reliable on the subject of the current policy of the United Russia party, and it is to that issue that I intend to cite it. Specifically, the proposal Link requested to be whitelisted: rt.com/russia/lenin-monuments-removed-squares-131/ "All monuments of Lenin to be removed from Russian cities" on the article for De-Leninization, and on the article for the LDPR lawmaker Aleksandr Kurdyumov who proposed it and who is quoted in the article, which cites Izvestia (which is in Russian and I can't read it), and states that United Russia party supports the proposal. It appears to be syndicated on Link requested to be whitelisted: eutimes.net/2012/11/all-monuments-of-lenin-to-be-removed-from-russian-cities/ and a few other fringe English media. If the whitelisting of this article is not permitted, then please take the initiative to seek Russian translators to find the story on reliable russian media, where it apparently is published, and help me do the research.

In the event, the removal of monuments to Lenin apparently did not occur, at least not in Russia, and now Putin is promoting the opposite strategy, of restoring fallen monuments in the occupied territories. Notable that Demolition_of_monuments_to_Vladimir_Lenin_in_Ukraine DID occur. Nevertheless, the fact that it was merely proposed in 2012, supported by the ruling party, (even promoted on State sponsored media, no less) is significant, and testifies to internal debate or dissension or a willingness of the media to kick the Putin's line, if not the Party's.

IMHO, we can record this without stating it in wikivoice, but rather attributed, "According to Russia Today such and such", then we can trust our readers to make their own judgement about the source's reliability or lack thereof. If responsible editors agree, I invite them to add the citations directly to these articles after whitelisting. This seems highly newsworthy to me, disappointing that apparently no western MSM investigated this important story. Perhaps that will change. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

My gut is no. If non-depro sources mention it, fine. But no reason to go to RT. However, you may be interested in the article Demolition of monuments to Vladimir Lenin in Ukraine. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Jaredscribe, when it comes to such events RT is usually fine but it's easier to use Izvestia which is not deprecated. Let me know what exactly you'd like to write and I can check if the Izvestia article confirms it. Alaexis_¿question? 08:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not blacklisted so it does not need to be whitelisted. I confirmed this by using rt.com in the Kurdyumov article; I self-reverted because this is not something I've studied but any person with an interest can do the same. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Titanica Shipbuilder Special Edition archive. I assume this is reliable?

World Atlas

Paste magazine

Aon

As can be seen in the history of Tornadoes of 2014 and Tornado outbreak of March 2-3, 2020, there has been some objection to Aon despite it being commonly used.these reverts were done by @ChessEric: and @United States Man: and I invite others to participate to see if it’s reliable for weather or if it should solely be NCDC, which has holes in its data. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Where is this "commonly used?" I haven't seen one article that has used this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit, TornadoLGS, TornadoInformation12, TropicalAnalystwx13, Supportstorm, Colin777724, and Elijahandskip: Must be nice to just mention us here without pinging anyone else. I sense that there is an ulterior motive here, which makes me sick because I just had to deal with one. Can IP addresses PLEASE leave me alone? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

And don't mention the articles that you edited as examples of articles that use Aon because if you do, I'm reverting them back myself. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

NCDC is the official source we should be using, since it is from the US Government and Aon isn’t, which means NCDC has more reliability (ironic to say that), than Aon. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think an insurance company's content marketing arm is a good source for weather data. Use NCDC. I will remove the AON sources as I see them. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that AON was used for the damage estimates of tropical cyclones. I did a quick check and it is used for Ida and Grace. NCDC does have gaps, including for some significant events, but I don't know if AON's coverage is any more complete. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That being said, if AON is not considered reliable, that would be a significant issue for WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS That's really interesting. I don't know what to say to that. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

NCDC was used over Aon for Tropical Storm Bertha (2020), however other users added Aon to other tornadoes, like Destroyeraa-alt adding Aon to Tornado outbreak of July 28-29, 2021. Given the gravity of removing Aon, it should probably be discussed in an RFC and added to WP:RSPS when concluded. 47.19.209.230 (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Antropogenez.ru

https://www.antropogenez.ru

Is this considered a reliable source for bioscience?

It appears to be more of a pop science hub than a journal. It is cited at Chimpanzee regarding animal intelligence.

Wiki article on one of their editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Drobyshevsky

Thanks for any input. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This publication appears to push fringe views about race. The article Stanislav Drobyshevsky identifies him as an anthropologist at Moscow State University, who, among other things, created a course there on "race science". The "Science" section of Drobyshevsky's BLP states that "Drobyshevsky condemns the popular theory, put forward only according to the data of geneticists, that there are no human races, since their existence is visible to every person." This seems to be a rejection of the mainstream view that races are a social construct and not genetic or biological categories. Most of the rest of the "Science" section is garbled, so it's hard to glean much more from his BLP concerning Drobyshevsky's views on race. I looked at reference [5], more precisely to the Google translation from Russian into English of , which is a review/summary of Drobyshevsky's recent book "The Origin of Races" in Antropogenez.ru. It falsely states that "The lack of reliable information is exacerbated by the de facto ban on racial studies in the West." Assuming the translation is accurate, this sounds like a talking point of the racial hereditarian fringe. The article summarizes the book's conclusions as follows: 1. The opinion about the extraordinary antiquity of the equatorial race in the modern version, the author considers unfounded. 2. The author argues that there is a biological continuity from the end of the Pleistocene for the Caucasians of North Africa and the South African race. For the Negro race, evolution can be traced from the early Holocene times. As for the Central African (Pygmy) and Ethiopian races, their direct ancestors remain unknown. 3. According to S.V. Drobyshevsky, the main boundaries of the ranges of the main races have changed little over the past 10 thousand years. Insofar as one can judge from what I've found in understandable English, this journal seems far from the mainstream and most likely an indication of the resurgence of Scientific racism in Russia. NightHeron (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this incredibly fast and detailed response, NightHeron. Confirms my suspicions. Really grateful to have editors like you around. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Speaking of Drobyshevsky, if we define scientific racism as "the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority", it doesn't apply to Drobyshevsky at all. As you may learn, for example, from this interview, he vocally condemns all kinds of racial discrimination, inferiority or superiority, explicitly saying that all races are the same in terms of intellectual, moral or any other qualities. He just believes that race is a legit biological term, but insists that it merely describes very insignificant differences among people, which should have no social implications at all — except for the wide popular understanding that these differences are insignificant and everyone is equal, which should contribute to the eradication of racism.

Turning to Antropogenez.ru, it's a pop science hub indeed, and it's widely known in the Russia. As you can learn from its authors' page, most of the authors are mainstream scientists, from the Moscow State University, the Russian Academy of Sciences. Antropogenez.ru also holds a regular popular science forum "Scientists against Myths" and a satiric prize given to pseudoscientists, to mock their "achievements" VanHelsing.16 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not say that Drobyshevsky expresses overtly racist views. But he caricatures and ridicules the views about race of mainstream anthropologists in the West. He claims that they say that races don't exist. In reality, they say that races are social constructs and not genetic or biological categories. The review of his book falsely states that there's a "de facto ban" on studying races in the West. This falsehood is part of the standard narrative of white supremacists in the West. The three conclusions of his book are also way outside the international scientific mainstream. When the journal's lead editor is so far out of the mainstream, that raises doubts about reliability. Concerning whether or not authors are also inclined toward fringe viewpoints or false statements about beliefs of colleagues in the West, this cannot be determined from the author page. It's also possible that what passes for mainstream in Russia these days is not the same as elsewhere. NightHeron (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's just he's a traditional biological anthropologist; obviously, in his understanding "race is a social construct" is the same as "race doesn't exist [as something tangible]" because you can't strictly describe it in biological terms only. If it's a social construct, biologists have nothing to do here, he assumes; but he insists that there is biological evidence to think otherwise. I can't view it as a caricature, although his views might be outside of the mainstream nowadays indeed. VanHelsing.16 (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, do you happen to know whether it's common in Russia for anthropology to be part of the Biology Faculty? This strikes me as peculiar, since in the West anthropology is typically regarded as part of the social sciences, not the natural sciences. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The thing is that the traditional meaning of the word "anthropology" in Russian is biological anthropology, including paleoanthropology. By contrast, terms like "social anthropology" or "cultural anthropology" were not used in the Russian academic field until ~the 1990s. "Social anthropology" or "cultural anthropology" were (and are) called "ethnography" or, later, "ethnology". This division was the default one in the Soviet Union. Although other approaches are used nowadays, the academic structure is rather conservative. Most social/cultural anthropologists are educated at departments of history, culture studies or social studies, whereas paleoanthropologists like Drobyshevsky are mostly trained at departments of biology. The instutute that belongs to the Russian Academy of Sciences combines both approaches in its name: the Instutute of Ethnology and Anthropology. Kunstkamera is officially the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography. VanHelsing.16 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Targeted News Service?

That's what it's called. I've never heard of it. Can it be considered generally ordinary-newspaper reliable? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

One would think there would be much better sources for the kind of information that site appears to be trying to publish. It looks like some DC journalist in the 90s tried starting their own wire service or something. It's really difficult to tell what's going on on that site. I would avoid. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

As described at https://www.contify.com/case-studies/news-data-feeds-power-web-monitoring-targeted-news-service/, Targeted News Service is an aggregator of primary sources. It adds its own headlines and summaries. TNS therefore does not have the reliability of a typical news source, and ordinarily its sources, if usable at all, are to be preferred. There may be situations where TNS can be cited (e.g., where one of its stories is appropriate as a primary source and the original cannot be found), but these should be regarded as exceptional circumstances. John M Baker (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything better than an AI data software client they used that describes what they do? If they actually have all these "news clients" then there should be actual information about them somewhere. If we're sourcing a primary government document that only exists on this one sketchy site, I would still hesitate to use it. Unless I'm missing something. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Targeted News Service is widely used by reliable newspapers, which makes me feel better about it. Still, the point remains that editors should try to find something better. John M Baker (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@John M Baker@Pyrrho the Skipper Thanks for your input. I had a specific case in mind, and when I looked closer I actually found the original at www.nps.gov, so that's one problem solved. If I had not, I may have taken the TNS "The U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service issued the following news release:" at their word, so to speak, it wasn't very controversial info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@John M Baker: I'm still not sure where you're getting that info. I know it says that on their website, but are there any RS that says they are "widely used by reliable newspapers" or anything similar? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper: This is based on newspaper database searches for stories in which newspapers explicitly cite Targeted News Service as their source. Offhand, and without looking very hard, I see such citations by the Concord Monitor, the Portland Press Herald, the Bucyrus, Ohio Telegraph-Forum, and the Arizona Star. Admittedly, I haven't checked the reliability of these newspapers, but they sound like they are reasonably reliable. John M Baker (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for providing that. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wolfsangel and Karl E. H. Seigfried's "Norse Mythology Blog"

Over at Wolfsangel, an IP is arguing for )and repeatedly restoring) links to Karl E. H. Seigfried's "The Norse Mythology Blog". Context: An interview Seigfried conducted with author Mark Barrowcliffe on his blog is currently cited all over our Wolfsangel article. Now, this seems like a typical case of WP:SPS to me—Seigfried's academic background is almost entirely musical and largely unrelated to anything to do with Old Norse mythology. Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Wolfsangel. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely SPS. Someone who isn't an expert interviewing a fiction author who isn't an expert on a SPS is not reliable for much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Per my response on the Talk Page of the article, you will see that they are a reasonable subject matter expert (and lectures and write on it). And also, his site on which the conversation was taken from, NorseMyth.org, won international awards for its content. And most importantly, the context of using the source is to faithfully chronicle and record the discussion between the two parties (both of whom have WP BLP articles, Sigfried and Mark Barrowcliffe), and the findings of Barrowcliffe when he inquired amongst other experts about a particular link. And the use of the ref in the article is to reflect this conversation and their findings, but not to present it as conclusive final proof. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see that ScottishFinnishRadish has already reverted the source stating that he is not a expert, when the Talk Page (and any google of his expertise) shows that he is. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Where have they been published in independent reliable sources about the topic, which is the bare minimum necessary to consider inclusion of a WP:SPS? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Here he is writing Chapter 3 in LSE Professor Eileen Barker's 2022 book Radical Transformations in Minority Religions. You don't get asked to write such chapters (and it is about Norse religion) without being an expert. There are many more, but I was disappointed that you reverted my edit seconds after Bloodfox posted here.

Any fair investigation into this guy shows that he is an expert in Norse religions, and his website NorthMyth.org (which Bloodfox has tried to pejoratively categorize) is well regarded (and award-winning in a niche area). Bloodfox is not here to discuss the source (per the Talk Page) but to (re)asset their own view; their use of this noticeboard (which they never informed me of), was to get a quick hanging jury for an "obvious SPS". I may be just an IP but I put as much effort in as any full editor to produce worthwhile content.

An objective analysis of the Talk Page (the source and how it was used in the article), would conclude that while the source is not perfect, it is per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, an acceptable source maintained by a subject matter expert discussing an interesting aspect that is fairly presented in the article, that WP readers would find interesting. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

PS, I also object to Bloodfox editing the WP BLP of Karl E. H. Seigfried to try and denigrate their expertise (removing Norse scholar), which per example above, showed that they did no research on the person before launching their attack on his BLP. That is more in the relm of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.78.18.251.161 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Survey: Allsides

Discussion: Allsides

Ars Technica's Eric Berger

Related Articles