Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 300←Archive 304Archive 305Archive 306Archive 307Archive 308→Archive 310

Headlines and perennial sources

@Newslinger:

Should our perennial sources list have an entry for headlines? They have been discussed a bunch of times.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I would think so, as well as for photo captions in newspapers, for the same reason these usually aren't given the same editorial oversight as the text body. --Masem (t) 16:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_294#Headlines already seemed to come to that conclusion. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure if the perennial list is the right venue for it. I totally support having a clearer policy statement against using headlines as sources, but I think WP:V or WP:RS would be a better place to state it. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment & suggestion: Newslinger had expressed concern that such an entry might not fit the list format. But perhaps insert in How to use this list … after Even considering content sentence in Context Matters para: Similarly, article elements such as headlines and photo captions may not have been held to the same standards of fact-checking and accuracy as the text body, and so should be viewed cautiously regarding claims. Either there or on WP:V or WP:RS per Blueboar. I believe this addresses all concerns expressed in prior discussions: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Humanengr (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:HEADLINE is a thing, it might be worth trying to get it up to a guideline. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm flexible on placement, but I think that wording (should be viewed cautiously) is too wishy-washy. It needs to be a clear-cut directive, as worded at WP:HEADLINE. Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I included that phrase in view of objections from prior discussions, but am fine with deleting it if that's consensus. (At one point, I had it as a parenthetical.) Without it, it's effectively a shorter form of WP:HEADLINE. Humanengr (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
This type of guideline, assuming you can get community support for it, should be incorporated into WP:RS. It would be out place in WP:RSN. - MrX 🖋 19:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Confusingly WP:Headlines redirects to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Oops. Now goes to Wikipedia:A headline is not a reliable source. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate this page, and I've used it as the basis for suggested wording at WP:VPP § Workshop (Headlines). If the RfC passes, Wikipedia:A headline is not a reliable source could become an explanatory supplement. — Newslinger talk 01:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

BBC HistoryExtra / historyextra.com

Is Censoring Anne Frank: how her famous diary has been edited through history a reliable source for claims about Anne Franks's sexual orientation or preferences?

I don't think there is any question about it being a generally reliable source on history, or about it being a RS about Anne Franks's diary being censored, or about the fact that some of the censored material was about sex or poop (although for some strange reason nobody is fighting to include the poop material in the article).

I fully expect at least one reply asserting that nobody is trying to insert claims about Anne Franks's sexual orientation or preferences, but the history of the various attempts to sexualize Anne Frank shows otherwise. First there was the attempt to categorize her as a lesbian. When that didn't fly the claim morphed to bisexual, then to bisexual longings. When that got shot down the claim morphed to same-sex-attraction. The coatracking is pretty obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A related question: if this source a reliable source for claims about Anne Franks's sexual orientation or preferences, do claims about sexual orientation or preferences meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Reliable for stating that same-sex attraction is discussed in the Diary, but not for applying an LGBT label ("orientation or preferences", sic.).
For those disinclined to read the source, the relevant paragraph is as follows:
Revelations that Anne Frank wrote about sexual anatomy, masturbation, menstruation, same-sex attraction and scatology [the study of faeces] complicate readers’ image of the teenage author, who spent two formative years in hiding and whose journey to adulthood was cut tragically short. (They have also fuelled censorship attempts, as when a Michigan mother petitioned for the book’s removal from a seventh-grade classroom, and when a Virginia school district began assigning a version of the book that did not include the passage about Anne’s genitalia.)
It seems obvious to me that this paragraph documents the fact - that no RS contests AFAIK - that frank wrote about attraction to a girl as well as a boy. I don't see why the source would not be reliable for this claim; it is already used in Anne Frank with respect to the "genitalia" material, FWIW. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable per above. There has to be discussion of this in the article. I don't see anything untoward about the source. Discuss the wording of how the article will phrase the issue; to omit the whole question is wrong, but labels aren't necessary either. Claims of "sexualization" are not helpful. The article's subject is a real human being not some holy chaste martyr from fable. Remember. GPinkerton (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable and lends some weight, along with other sources which make similar claims, per Newimpartial. It should not be used for applying an LGBT label or category to Frank herself, as that claim is not made in the source. (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable Anne Frank's diary should be reliable enough source for her sexual orientation. Okay for WP:LGBT to claim the article is within its perview. As for categorization, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality: there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Some deceased people are properly sourceable as having been openly LGBT during their lifetimes, in the same manner as still-living people, and do not pose any special difficulties — historically, however, LGBT people did not always come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification may, in some cases, be impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For such a person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What kind of question is this? The source says: "Otto made his own cuts, too: he removed passages in which Anne was critical of her parents’ marriage, and expurgated sections about sexuality and her often brutal comments about friends, family members and acquaintances. . . . five “suppressed pages” became public [circa 2003]. . . And in 2016, conservators photographing the diary for preservation purposes realised that brown paper inside the diary was actually pasted over two pages of dirty jokes and information on sex education.[P] Revelations that Anne Frank wrote about sexual anatomy, masturbation, menstruation, same-sex attraction and scatology [the study of faeces] . . ."
In general, unless there is a dispute from other sources, the source says factual things that can be checked and has the indications of reliability for those statements. This source actually says nothing about her orientation. It says she wrote about, inter alia, sexuality. You are going to have to find other RS to discuss her orientation.
As for weight, the source also discusses a biography of Anne Frank, look to the biography, but in general there is no reason given here not to discuss whatever the biography says about sexuality. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
You might want to look at the paragraph I quoted above, which is the one relevant to "same-sex attraction". You are right that "sexuality" can mean many things, but "same-sex attraction" means rather fewer and more relevant ones. Newimpartial (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I quoted the "same-sex attraction" language as it appears in source, so I already looked at it. Everyone of any orientation can write about same sex attraction (as they also do about sexual anatomy, masturbation, menstruation, and scatology) indeed people of all orientations do write and talk about it. To source what the diarist wrote about same sex attraction, this source does not give it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see that at the tail end of what you cited (to be fair, you left it as a sentence fragment). No, this source does not suggest a sexual identity label for Frank, so it can't be used for that.
The piece of context you might understandably have missed, is this Noticeboard post was part of a large-scale FORUMSHOP by Guy Macon, where he keeps framing the questions in line with his Whac-a-mole stance. In this instance, the article talk page participants (and also the participants here) aren't generally sympathetic to the LGBT label idea, at least in Wikivoice, but Guy has insisted on that framing for whatever reason. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, if the question is put differently, 'is this source reliable for a statement that the diarist covered same sex attraction, and does it lend weight to discussing that', my answer is yes, and yes (serous author, serious publication). But the details have to be found elsewhere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfamiliar (trendingsocial.com)

  1. trendingsocial.com
  2. To be used in Pachtaoge

  3. Originally, the song was sung by Atif Aslam. However, due to ban on Pakistani artists, it was re-recorded by Arijit Singh. Later, original version was also released on public demand.

    . I don't know whether this source is reliable or not but I'm sure that the information, I want to add are perfectly (100%) true. And I can also prove the correctness of statement by arguments. Thank you. Tears. Empire AS Talk! 13:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Having taken a very cursory look, I would have to say no, it is not a reliable source. The website lists no formal editorial staff, and appears to simply compile trending posts from social media without any fact checking. Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it looks like a low quality source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Al Jazeera might have published a false claim

I think it's appropriate to point out that Al Jazeera has published a claim which may be unambiguously false. In a recent report on India's military, it stated:

"First batch of five jets arrive at Indian Air Force base as world's biggest arms importer modernises its military... India has become the world's biggest arms importer as it modernises its military." (emphasis mine)

India is not the biggest importer of arms; it's the second biggest.— Vaibhavafro 💬 07:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty rote error, and not really a huge deal? "False claim" seems like a pretty weird way to frame this. Parabolist (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Is it even an error? One report is from March and measures over 5 years. The other doesn't mention its source or methodology. Does this use the same data? Does it use the same approach of reviewing a fixed period? Does the announcement on July 2nd that "approved the purchase of 21 Russian MiG-29 and 12 Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighter aircraft costing $2.43bn to replace obsolete Soviet-era weapons." Stack on top of their existing spend? Does the 5 year window mean that some Saudi arms deals are now out of the period of review? Koncorde (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Something cannot be "may be unambiguously false", [[7]], no not unambiguously false.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure this is false. India was 2nd largest over a five year period ([8] or [9]). Al Jazeera is saying that "India has become the world's biggest arms importer as it modernises its military", with the recent buys. It might be correct for 2020, it depends how and what you measure.--Hippeus (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As others have said, comparative statements like these require more than just an editor saying "wait, this contradicts that", since there's usually multiple ways to measure something (and in this case the question is over what timeframe; India is #1 if you measure from 2010 to 2019, but Saudia Arabia is ahead if you look at just a five year period, mostly due to a spike following the Arab Spring.) Beyond that, we don't expect WP:RSes to be perfect, only to be generally reliable; they should issue retractions when an error is caught or pointed out, but I can't find anything to indicate that anyone but you has noticed this (if it is even an error in the first place and not just the comparisons being apples and oranges, as others have pointed out.) The fact that nobody else pointed it out suggests that even if it is a mistake, it is inconsequential. --Aquillion (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
And there is always "it was true at some point" [[10]], this is the kind of "factoid" that really is all very undue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Resolved: I agree with the opinion that the error isn't very big. I thank you all for the comments.— Vaibhavafro 💬 14:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure this is correct, I count 1 "its minor" and 3 it might not even be false.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
It's worth bearing in mind how we use news sources. Their value is in reporting news. In this case, the Al Jazeera article was reporting an import by India while The Week's article was reporting the findings of a research institute that ranked arms importers. Neither source would be unacceptable for a claim that India was the world's largest arms importer, although the second source would be a reliable source for the institute's rankings. TFD (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - need an RfC for this source - Al Jazeera needs to be downgraded - The Jerusalem Post - "Al Jazeera violates US law by not disclosing ties with Qatari royalty", Gore had to sue them, Politico headline: "Lawmakers push for Al Jazeera to register as foreign agent", Greek City Times headline: "Al jazeera mouthpiece for turkish propaganda against greece in new film", - needs an RfC, obviously they are not generally reliable as state owned media. Atsme Talk 📧 01:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There are many state-funded media that are considered reliable like CBC and BBC.VR talk 11:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
But this one has serious issues involving US Law which really needs close scrutiny. Look at this Malaysia police raid Al Jazeera’s office, seize computers, and this Malaysian Police Raid Al Jazeera Offices Amid Probe Into Report on Migrant Workers . If our BLPs require us to adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies then the same would apply to what we consider RS for citing material we intend to include in our encyclopedia. It may even be an issue that we should bring to the attention of the WMF. Newslinger, please share your thoughts. Atsme Talk 📧 22:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a note for the casual reader about that first link: Al Jazeera is not actually having any issues with U.S. law, someone at the washington free beacon (which isn't exactly given a ringing endorsement in the archives of this page!) just THINKS they should be in trouble. Parabolist (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Just another note - we don't need the Free Beacon - how about the BBC - Al Jazeera is not a RS anymore than RT is a RS. I don't particularly care for MSN but here it is. The problems aren't new as you can see in The Guardian article. And don't overlook what's happening in Malaysia - where there's smoke there is usually a fire. Atsme Talk 📧 00:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, lets take this one at a time. I have no idea what the BBC link is supposed to say, that is just the BBC's profile of what Al Jazeera is. If your contention is that Al Jazeera is funded by a government, linking to the BBC is fairly ironic. And the MSN story is them reporting that the Free Beacon reports that a former US Congressperson THINKS that Al Jazeera did something wrong. The Guardian article gets us closest to any sort of actual sourced reporting on their independence, but is just about rumors that some employees are dissatisfied. Again, none of this is about Al Jazeera having, as you said, "serious issues with US law", outside of the opinion of a former politician. Parabolist (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not even a profile of Al Jazeera, it's a profile of Qatar. The only mark against AJ on that page is the (accurate) assertion that they practice self-censorship when it comes to their coverage of Qatar's government and domestic issues. Nevertheless, scholarly publications have repeatedly identified it as one of the most important, albeit not flawless, media voices out there today, placing it alongside BBC and CNN on a global scale and identifying it as the standard bearer of press freedom in the Middle East. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, Reporters Without Borders's response to the "smoke" in Malaysia was to unequivocally denounce Malaysia's actions as an encroachment against press freedom. signed, Rosguill talk 21:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Please answer the following questions:
  1. Is Al Jazeera owned by Qatar - yes or no?
  2. Has Al Jazeera faced criticism for its involvement in several controversies ranging from slanted journalism to anti-semitism per Al Jazeera controversies and criticism?
  3. Does the BBC article I linked to not state the following: Al-Jazeera Arabic can be outspoken on subjects deemed as sensitive in the region. But the Qatari media observe strict self-censorship on domestic coverage and avoid criticising the state or government. Yes or no?
  4. What sections in our WP article about Al Jazerra's controversies and criticism do you consider false?
  5. If The Times of India is not considered reliable because a small few editors alleged that it is pro-India, and if RT is not considererd reliable because it is alleged to be a state-owned publisher of propaganda, what makes Al Jazeera any different considering they are also state-owned and self-censored, or so they claim that's all they censor? Why should we believe their claims when there are legitimate opposing views that dispute them?
  6. What scholarly publications have repeatedly identified it as one of the most important, if not flawless, media voices out there today, placing it alongside BBC and CNN on a global scale and identifying it as the standard bearer of press freedom in the Middle East? Keeping mind that Al Jazeera published an opinion piece by scholar Hamid Dabashi accusing the BBC of publishing fake news. So if it is indeed placed alongside the BBC and CNN as a RS, then how are we not dealing with fake news? I have already provided multiple links showing that CNN repeatedly failed to retract false statements and errors.
  7. Based on what neutral information can we present Al Jazeera to our readers as a RS they can trust for statements of fact, when we know full well the controversies that surround that network? Is the Qatari government the best representative of freedom of the press that we have, when WP itself is censoring media based on consensus discussions that raised legitimate questions as I have repeatedly demonstrated?
You certainly do not have to consider me an expert opinion about media, but at least show me a tiny bit of collegial courtesy by acknowledging that my questions raise legitimate concerns about this entire rating process, and the method we are using to determine what sources are or are not reliable for statements of fact. Atsme Talk 📧 22:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme,
  1. It's funded by the Qatari government and largely maintains editorial independence, although it has been accused of self-censorship with respect to its coverage of Qatar itself by various reliable sources. Honestly I think that this is a bit of a tired argument at any rate: it should be abundantly clear to anyone that frequents this forum that government-funded publications can be reliable, and that privately-funded publications can be unreliable.
  2. Politicians and pundits have repeatedly accused Al Jazeera of antisemitism; reading through both Al Jazeera controversies and criticism and Al Jazeera, as well as peer-reviewed sources linked below, the worst I see that's credibly sourced is an anti-Semitic cartoon shared on a social media account that was then taken down and apologized for, and using framing that privileges Arab perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. None of this rises to the level of something that would merit deprecation. The claim that AJ reported that Jewish employees received advance warning of the 9/11 attacks is concerning, but the way it's reported is suspicious: we have an AJR report citing a NYT editorial that criticized AJ. Where is the actual AJ article, or failing that, additional reliable coverage criticizing it? I wasn't able to find it searching online, and the accusation is puzzling given that there's a much better documented criticism of AJ's 9/11 coverage in that they gave too much airtime to Al-Qaeda members who took credit for the attack, which is a valid criticism of their political priorities, but doesn't imply that their coverage is unreliable and undermines the accusation that AJ presented 9/11 as some sort of Jewish conspiracy.
  3. I honestly don't have time to go over it in detail right now, but from what I've read, a fair amount of the controversies actually reflect well on Al Jazeera: controversies of the form of authoritarian regimes trying to outlaw the publication. Our much better-written article at Al-Jazeera doesn't include any smoking guns.
  4. I don't have an opinion of TOI's news coverage–I have much more experience with their film and celebrity coverage, which is largely tabloid-level puffery. RT is actually an unapologetic propaganda outlet and has been abundantly documented as such.
  5. Type "Al Jazeera" into Google Scholar and tell me what you find. I see an abundance of academic sources poring over every detail of the network's coverage, and generally treating it as a source on par with CNN and BBC. Here's some of what I found:
  1. AJE's coverage, like that of any news organization, is far from perfect. It sometimes slips into cheerleading and self-congratulation, and it sometimes makes mistakes...Nevertheless, the world of news is richer for having AJE as part of it [11]
  2. Al Jazeera–the flagship media of the Arab world–has ascended to the zenith of the global market...its audience is now larger than BBC and CNN combined...Al Jazeera earned unprecedented popularity in the Arab world for its courage to challenge the Arab establishment and its role as a forum for free speech in a landscape defined by dictatorial propaganda [12]
  3. Al Jazeera has also led the way in exposing Arab power abuses...it has instilled what may loosely be described as a culture of accountability [13]
  4. The National Press Club has vouched for it, and I've already linked Reporters without Borders' vouching for it higher up in the thread.
  5. I also found many more paywalled articles analyzing CNN and AJ side by side, apparently with the same degree of gravity.
In sum, I think that there's ample evidence that Al Jazeera, while hardly perfect, can be considered a counterpart to other international media, a peerless source when it comes to news in the Arab world, and thus a necessary component to our neutrality if we're going to continue relying on news publications as sources. It's widely used and analyzed by academics, and deprecating it would be a travesty. In the absence of a smoking gun that shows them intentionally reporting lies, I see no reason to consider it. signed, Rosguill talk 23:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
While I disagree with your position, I certainly do appreciate and respect your input. I will take the time necessary to properly review and carefully consider your responses. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 00:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable Despite having made a few mistakes in the past, they correct mistakes and admit to them - no outlet is immune to making mistakes, it's how they handle those errors that counts. Otherwise known for balanced reporting without sensational headlines etc. Generally they produce straight news reporting with minimal bias, but I wouldn't use them for reporting about Qatar as they are a Qatari state owned outlet and have displayed a biased lack of criticism in that regard. Bacondrum (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Meh Jlevi (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Atsme: Hi, I just want to address your claims about state owned media. Al Jazeera is a top tier news outlet. Many of the highest quality and most reliable news outlets are state owned. By far the most reliable sources in England and Australia are the state owned BBC News and ABC News, privately owned for profits are often far less reliable, ie Sky News, Fox News, The Daily Mail etc. Whoever owns a paper, be it a state or an individual, each outlet must be assessed on it's record for reliable reporting of fact. Al Jazeera does as well as any reliable outlet overall. Granma is a state owned mouthpiece, Al Jazeera is more akin to the BBC or the ABC, a quality state owned outlet. Bacondrum (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Human rights in Qatar - look at the section Individual rights and the subsection Freedom of expression. It is state-owned media, and a false equivalency to compare AJ to US/UK media, or to even think they have such freedom. It may well be more than the Middle East is accustomed to but it is not a RS for this encyclopedia. I'm done presenting my views - an RfC is forthcoming. Atsme Talk 📧 20:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
sounds like your personal opinion rather than evidence based criticism of the outlet which is widely seen as a high quality, reliable news outlet. Bacondrum (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
you wouldn’t doubt our media freedoms? Despite having 70% of our media concentrated in a virtual monopoly, in the hands of Rupert Murdoch and the Federal Police raiding journalists homes and our public broadcaster for simply doing their jobs? That surely only happens in those backwards countries, in far away lands. [14] Bacondrum (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  1. My comments about media are not WP:OR; rather, they are evidence-based but to understand that, one must read the links I've provided in the respective discussions. Journalistic self-censorship is influenced by political ideologies, religion and/or relative laws, and that is something we should not dismiss. Rosguill previously mentioned Reporters Without Borders, so in keeping my promise I did the research, and the following tells me I've been on the right track from the beginning: Media Caught In Information Warfare - Qatari journalists are left little leeway by the oppressive legislative arsenal – whose victims include the Doha News website, closed in 2016 – and the draconian system of censorship. Reporting on the government, royal family and Islam are off limits as in the rest of the Persian Gulf and violators risk imprisonment.[1]
  2. Our job is to determine what content is compliant with our core content policies on a case by case basis, with strict adherence to US Laws per BLP as to how it should be presented in an article and cited, in context, to whatever source published the information per WP:RS. Of course we should avoid poor sources and be cautious about breaking news, recentism, newsorg, notnews, redflag, label, npov, v, etc., and exceptionally so if it involves medicine or science. See What Every Journalist Should Know About Science; seek higher quality sources per WP:MEDRS.
  3. The red flag waving over the reliability of Al Jazeera is the fact that Sharia Law conflicts with US Law, and Sharia Law governs Qatar and several other ME countries. The point being...while the Qatari government denies involvement or censorship in the content of Al Jazeera, their hovering presence coupled with the potential punishment for blasphemy, or disobeying the law in the ME has a chilling effect - not unlike an unspoken "offer they can't refuse"; therefore, it is not free thought. Per CJR: There are no Al Jazeera journalists reporting in Egypt - They've all been detained or indicted. “This is beginning to creep on everyone working in Egypt, this fear. I also have this sense of concern and this over-thinking every time I go to a protest,” said photojournalist Mosa’ab Elshamy, whose brother Abdullah is an Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent detained in separate circumstances. “This is the risk that everyone in general, but photojournalists in particular, are afraid of.”[2] AP, 2013–15 detention of Al Jazeera journalists by Egypt, BBC, English-Wales source, and CPJ.
  4. Self-censored is still censorship, not the publishing of free thought. See HRW: The Qatari government tells Human Rights Watch that it was not directly involved in censoring the LGBT articles, indicating that the blank pages are self-censorship based on what a publisher perceives as compliant “with the local cultural standards and expectations.” Censorship of media content because it relates to sexual orientation and gender identity violates freedom of expression when it discriminates against LGBT people.[3]
  5. Re: US media conglomerates - I've been cautioning editors about that for quite some time, and I've explained why we should hang a caution flag on all news media, political pundits and clickbait publishers on the internet. There are many more issues that face media today besides political biases as evidenced by the following excerpt from a July 2020 article published in The New Yorker:

For some critics, the publication of Cotton’s Op-Ed represented the point of no return for the old mores of journalism. “American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment,” Wesley Lowery, a former reporter at the Washington Post who won a Pulitzer Prize, in 2016, for his reporting on policing, tweeted, after the piece was published. “We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field. The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity.” He later published his own Op-Ed in the Times that elaborated on his argument. “For years, I’ve been among a chorus of mainstream journalists who have called for our industry to abandon the appearance of objectivity as the aspirational journalistic standard, and for reporters instead to focus on being fair and telling the truth, as best as one can, based on the given context and available facts,” Lowery writes.[4]

Sources

  1. ^ "Qatar : Media caught in information warfare". RSF. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
  2. ^ "There are no Al Jazeera journalists reporting in Egypt". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
  3. ^ "Qatar: Censorship Ignores Rights, FIFA Rules". Human Rights Watch. 2018-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
  4. ^ Luo, Michael. "How Can the Press Best Serve a Democratic Society?". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
I have provided ample RS throughout this discussion that corroborate my position, and there's nothing I've seen to date that convinces me to deny the facts that I've demonstrated above. Atsme Talk 📧 16:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme you seem to be arguing that any reliable based out of a country with less free press than the US should be considered unreliable. Look at this map. Your reasoning would exclude news sources from most of the world.VR talk 21:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
This has become a forum discussion about US law vs Sharia law. I'm archiving it now. Bacondrum (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Usage of published books for reliable sources and fact checking

While reading Slate I encountered this:

  • Graham, Ruth (2019-07-09). ""I Did Not Die. I Did Not Go to Heaven."". Slate. Book publishers don't normally fact-check books. They'll run sensitive material by lawyers, but otherwise it's on authors to make sure their work is accurate.

I wonder if this quote should be noted in regards to *published books* and the need for Wikipedians to assess their accuracy. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It depends a lot on the publisher. Some books are peer reviewed, others not fact checked at all. Books are not blanket reliable or unreliable any more than websites are. (t · c) buidhe 22:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Good point! Before I use a book off of Google Books I check the publisher. Academic publishers are typically the best. I avoid the book if I see it's self-published. I also like to use book reviews to write Wikipedia articles on the books themselves so other editors know the book's reputation. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
That's what I do. Once I even caught someone citing a Holocaust denial pamphlet because it was on Google books! (t · c) buidhe 22:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
More than once, I've seen text cited to books that were just content taken from Wikipedia. I can think of a couple cases where the text in the book was actually the exact same text of the Wikipedia article it was being used to support. XOR'easter (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Best said here: Self-publishing#Controversies and problem areas "In the traditional publishing model, editors and publishers act as a filter or screen, weeding out possibly radical, badly written, or otherwise substandard content. In contrast, self-publishing enables authors to bypass this filter and sell their books directly to the public." Though written about self-publishing, with ubiquitous internet proficiency nowadays, everyone fancies themselves an authority and knows they have an audience. A writer no longer has to convince a publisher of the worth of their book. With the collaps(ing) of the printed book industry I'm sure there is less editing and oversight with books nowadays, and more willingness to take someone's manuscript, slap on an ISBN, and go with it. Wikipedia editors should evaluate the reputation of the author and not just take it for granted if a book was published by an established publisher. The older the book (especially pre-internet), the more likely there has been publisher oversight. I agree that we should probably have a caution for Wikipedia editors to do a more thorough evaluation of the author and their expertise. Normal Op (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sportskeeda

I just ran across this, noticed it's used some 1,500 times and there's been past spam cleanup. It's not completely user-edited, but close enough that I'm thinking complete removal might be best. I'm not seeing how they distinguish user submitted content from their employees'. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Religion News Service / religionnews.com

Is this page from Religion News Service...

...a reliable source for any of the following claims?

  • Anne Frank was a lesbian
  • Anne Frank was bisexual
  • Anne Frank had a same-sex attraction
  • Anne Frank's Diary contains homoeroticism
  • Anne Frank had bisexual longings

(I apologize for listing multiple claims, but as can be seen at Talk:Anne Frank the editors who wish to insert claims about Anne Frank's sexual preferences keep changing the wording, making those who oppose play Whac-A-Mole with each new way of phrasing the same claim.) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources which state some or all of these. Even if you don't accept it is true: WP:Verifiability, not truth. AFAIK RNS is a fairly reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood the purpose of the reliable sources noticeboard. Arguments as to whether the claims are true or whether the claims are supported by other sources belong on the article talk page. RSN is for examining whether this source is reliable for this claim.
For example, I could ask "is the Dilbert comic strip a reliable source for the claim the Barack Obama was the 44th president of the United States?", and the answer from RSN would be "no" despite the fact that the claim is true and supported by multiple high quality sources. Please keep in mind that a source not being reliable only puts the associated claim at risk of removal if no other reliable sources support the claim (which again, would be an argument for the article talk page, not RSN). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think buidhe's confusion is understandable, considering that this seems to be yet another FORUMSHOP on an issue that really should be resolve-able through the Talk page RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding reliability, In my opinion the specific page listed above is a lot more like a blog entry than it is like a news item, and should not be used to support a highly contentious claim about the sexual preferences of a historical figure who was only 15 years old when she was murdered by the Nazis for being Jewish. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Number one, this isn't a news item, it's an essay or opinion piece. Number two, the reliability, or otherwise, is neither here nor there for most of those assertions - the only one of the above claims that it makes is that she had bisexual longings. Surely more authoritative academic authors (academic historians) must have covered this stuff? It's a very weak source, we should be trying to reflect what real scholarship says on the subject. GirthSummit (blether) 12:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Girth Summit, the passage in question states that Otto Frank edited out many passages: about Anne's conflicts with her mother, Edith; about her emerging sexuality, especially where she embraces her bisexual longings. This strikes me as a plausible interpretation well within Jeffrey Salkin's ambit as a writer, and that there should be no bar to its inclusion on WP at least as an attributed opinion. He is certainly not the only one who has advanced this interpretation of Otto Frank's redaction of the Diary, and there aren't really any reliable sources contradicting the claim, either. Newimpartial (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece (the author is listed as an opinion writer) but I think, here, it fails WP:SOURCETYPES as not the kind of source usefully reliable for history. It does suggest that there are underlying sources with serious historical commentary for the redacted portions of the diary, but then those underlying sources are what Wikipedians should be looking at. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • This seems like a pretty weak source for the claims. I am very concerned that a small number of editors are dredging the dusty corners of the web for anything they can find to support the content they want to add, leading to substantially undue weight on something that is simply not considered important by most sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    • JzG, I believe the discussion here concerns the reliability of the source, rather than weight. And you have previously argued that unlike, e.g., exploration of her genitalia, which is sourced to HistoryExtra, that academic-level sourcing is required for same-sex attraction (the phrase used in HistoryExtra). This seems inconsistent and axe-grindey to me.
    • As I said at the article talk page last month, Religion News isn't a blog - it has editorial oversight. Jeffrey Salkin, the columnist who wrote the source in question, is recognized as one of the most thoughtful Jewish writers and teachers of his generation and is therefore an "acknowledged expert in a relevant field" in the sense required by WP:RS. It should certainly be RS for an attribution of bisexual longings as one of the ways the diary was understood and as a reason that material was expurgated in earlier editions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Newimpartial, assumptions of ill-faith aside, this board routinely parses out the difference between reliabilitry and due weight. In this case the reliability is marginal and there is undue weight. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Surely per policy WEIGHT can only be determined in relation to all available RS, and not only in relation to a single source? Guy Macon appears to be playing Whac-A-Mole with sources - first PinkNews, then ReligionNews, then BBC HistoryExtra - which is not an approved use of the mallet AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
          Newimpartial, WEIGHT appears to be assessed by some editors according to "how many obscure pages can we find that support the content we desperately want to add to this article, but which is not supported by any of the dozens of heavyweight sources that are devoted to the subject". Guy (help! - typo?) 10:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As can be seen from the above, some editors really want to sexualize Anne Frank, but this is not the correct place to discuss that. I advise completely ignoring any comment that references some other source. The poster is free to open a new section about that other source if they want to discuss whether it is reliable for a particular claim.
The question before us is whether Martini Judaism: Imagine Anne Frank at 90 from Religion News Service is a reliable source for claims about Anne Frank's sexual preferences. All other unrelated material should be ignored as if it had never been added. If that doesn't do the trick, we can always apply Template:Hidden archive top. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That's some really great framing, Guy, but to answer that question accurately people really need to look at the context of your question, including the multiple discussions on Talk:Anne Frank as well as your FORUMSHOP expeditions. Whether the Religion News source is RS for a particular claim depends on what claim it is, and whether or not said claim is extraordinary. As to your assertion As can be seen from the above, some editors really want to sexualize Anne Frank, that is a personal attack and, I must say, quite beneath you as an editor.
    • If there were consensus to add material (meeting RS and DUE requirements) that Anne Frank's Diary was censored by Otto in part to keep material concerning bisexual longings or same-sex attraction out of the published work (the terms used in the two sources mentioned above), this would by no means be sexualizing its young author. However, your misapprehension, or perhaps simply unreflected opinion, on this point may go a long way to explain your desire to right great wrongs on this topic.
    • To be clear: I don't want to see anything inserted in any article that is poorly sourced or contrary to consensus. But a campaign of tireless FORUMSHOPping, personal attacks, exaggerated or misleading edit summaries and calls to arms was not how I understood that content disputes on WP were supposed to be handled. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I don't think I've seen the term sexual preference used in earnest since the 1990s. It's good to know how we react under stress, I suppose. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Chartable?

Has anyone heard of this podcast measurement company? https://chartable.com/about It's being used on Potterless for subscribership data. I can't find it in our archives. —valereee (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it personally. Here's the COIBot report for that domain. Some accounts were definitely promoters and some have been blocked. It doesn't seem to be the case for all instances though. By a few searches the site doesn't seem very notable but just enough so some mentions and some criticism by competitors was available. —PaleoNeonate – 02:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
And 8 current uses in mainspace. There also is some in userspace (apparent single-purpose promotional accounts). —PaleoNeonate – 02:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

9/11truth.org

Can the publications of this organisation be used as reliable sources? There is some background in the discussion at Talk:List of unrecovered and unusable flight recorders#9/11 World Trade Center Black Boxes???. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

9/11 truth movement is considered by RS to be conspiracy theorists, so no, not reliable or usable for anything. (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

https://911truth.org/ says that the purpose of the site is "TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth …" This looks like a problem with WP:TRUTH and WP:THETRUTH so it would be better to find more mainstream sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not a reliable source, should not be used. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

At best it could be used as a source for statements like "and 9/11truth.org has said", but then the question becomes why would we want to?Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  • No. If someone (as in the linked thread) asks the question "A multi-year bi-partisan investigation said one thing, but a dedicated conspiracy website that uses the Daily Mail as a source says another. How do I know who to believe?" Then the answer is unfortunately "why is this a question that needs to be asked?"
If we're to be as generous as possible and drink enough hand sanitizer to shut off several important parts of our brain... Even if this didn't scream "tin foil" at every opportunity, it would still just be some website. It's not clear that they maintain offices or any full time staff. Names are hard to come by, but they do list James Hufferd as their "grassroots contact". Hufferd's qualifications seem to be that he taught at a community college and "was retired a bit early for activism". Show of hands for who can guess what that's a euphemism for. He...I guess has written a few pay-to-publish books.
If I had to guess I would venture that this is mostly just a personal website for Hufferd. It certainly looks at first glance that they have a diverse range of contributors, but many (most?) of these pieces appear to be merely copy/pasted from other sources (e.g., consensus911.org, The New York Times, Florida Bulldog). As it's not clear if, or for that matter why these blogs/other outlets would give permission to reprint stories in their entirety, the site may also likely be rife with copyright violations. GMGtalk 12:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of paper from probable predatory journal

The following paper, "Folk Traditions in Konstantine Gamsakhurdia’s Creative Work (Basing on the novel "Stealing the Moon")" (http://soeagra.com/ijert/ijertjune2014/1.pdf) has some information I would like to cite in Dali (goddess). Unfortunately, it's published in what looks like a predatory open-access journal, the "International Journal of Educational Research and Technology". Would it be reasonable to consider it to be a WP:SPS by a subject-matter expert? The author, Muzaffer Kır, holds a PhD in Georgian literature, has written multiple books on the topic, and at the time of publication was Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Social Science at the International Black Sea University? (He's now moved to another position at the school apparently).

The citation would support the fact that the Georgian novelist Konstantine Gamsakhurdia used mythological characters like Dali in his work. I don't consider the information to be particularly controversial, but I can't find any other sources in English that mention it. The original novel is Georgian, which I don't read, and there's no English translation available online, so I can't even cheat and cite the novel itself. Thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It does not appear to be predatory, because it does not charge authors for submissions. However I have been unable to find out anything about the publisher, the "Society of Education" in India. The author appears to meet rs under WP:SELFPUB, so we don't need to establish that the journal is rs. I would view it as a weight problem. So there is one reference in an obscure journal to an obscure author using the goddess as a character. Obviously it is not important to the topic and should be left out. If the article contained everything that could be reliably sourced it would run into thousands of pages. To prevent that it should only include what is seen as important in the body of the literature. TFD (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Konstantine Gamsakhurdia "is considered to be one of the most influential Georgian novelists of the 20th century," so he's hardly an obscure author. The purpose is to support the assertion that Dali remains a part of the Georgian cultural consciousness into the modern area, which is a major point of discussion in the article. But thank you for your assessment of the quality of the source itself; I think on that basis I will cite it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about PubChem , Sigma Aldrich and ChemSpider

Are the sources above reliable? Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

PubChem (US NCBI) and ChemSpider (UK RSC) are reliable. Sigma Aldrich is a private corporation (owned by Merck), so it depends on the context. François Robere (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Superyacht Times

Is Superyacht Times a RS, and if so, is it suitable for establishing notability when, as is often the case, it is the sole source for an article that goes beyond namechecks? Guy (help! - typo?) 11:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Superyacht Times has it's commercial section emblazoned right on the top banner, so it's somewhat akin to Realestate websites that have previously been discussed on this noticeboard. It's probably fine for noting when someone buys/sells a yacht, but not for establishing notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Its one of the lower quality publications that cover this sort of thing however given that it is one of the few publications in this space without a strong paywall I’d say we can use to to establish notability in most cases, they’re generally the followers not the leaders on reporting so if they’re reporting on something its likely that someone bigger and better already has as well. The exception to this would of course be interviews, which they do pretty regularly get exclusives on. One other thing to note is that the quality of work in this space is exceptional, they’re still a solid source by our normal standards and can definitely be used for establishing notability, I just wouldn’t call them the gold standard when it comes to yachts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Lai arrested, Apple Daily offices raided, major implications for Hong Kong news outlets

Per BBC News this is by far the biggest National Security law related story yet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the implications are simple. Any China-based news source, Hong Kong or otherwise, that publishes anything the Chinese Communist Party doesn't like, is subject to this kind of treatment. We should adjust our policies accordingly. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
My position a few days ago on this was “wait and see,” well now we’ve waited and seen and its bad... Very bad... The "Hong Kong exception” to Chinese media being generally unreliable seems to be at an end. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Open-access website-based opinion polls

Hey there, I would like to ask for fellow editors' opinions on the issue of website-based opinion polls. To be clear as to what I'm talking about - I'm referring to Open-access polls held entirely online, trough an internet website that is freely and readily accessible to the general public and of which no reputable polling agency has methodological control.

I am specifically not referring to polls conducted online when organized by a reputable polling agency, which has pre-selected the poll's participants offline beforehand according to proper methodological standards.

I've seen this type of polling used more and more and have now alarmingly found them used, sometimes even being given more prominence than other official sources in articles detailing opinion polls relating to national elections. The problems with open-access website-based opinion polls (which I'll reffer to as OAWBOPs for brevity from now on) are as follows:

- OAWBOPs are unrepresentative of demographic characteristics. Accessing a OAWBOP requires both access to and knowledge how to use a computer or other smart device, as well as the internet. This skews results in favour of the younger, more well-off and city dwelling demographics, to the exclusion of more elderly, poorer or rural demographics, which may not have the same access to technology and know-how.

- OAWBOPs are unrepresentative of the general population's political opinions, as a WBOP is held only among the visitors to a perticular website. This could mean, for example, that a poll on a far-right website could 'predict' a landslide victory for a far-right candidate in a general election for no reason other than the fact that the website attracts that specific voter bloc to itself. The same could be said about a leftist/centrist website, or a website that caters specifically to pro or anti-government viewpoints - the editorial viewpoints or caterings of the website in question create extreme sample biases.

- OAWBOPs are usually conducted by individuals or organizations with no knowledge of proper statistical methodology and as such, are prone to include many methodological errors - such as biased sampling, insufficient sample sizes, confirmation biases, etc.

- OAWBOPs allow for manipulation on the side of users, which can vote multiple times in one opinion poll by using tactics such as IP switching (either trough router resets, VPNs or other proxies, etc), cookie resets or internet brigading organized on online message boards.

- OAWBOPs allow for manipulation on the side of poll organizers and administrators, as when placed under no professional scrutiny, they could easily alter the results of the poll by specifically excluding certain answers, selectively enforcing voting criteria or just manually adjusting the results of the poll.

Even if both the administrators and participants of the poll are not actively trying to manipulate its results (which usually cannot be ascertained), there are many serious methodological pitfalls that can result in gross statistical misrepresentations simply due to the medium used and self-selection of study participants. As noted in the Open-access poll article, these types of polls are usually referred to as "Voodoo Polls" due to their serious methodological problems, ease of manipulation and general unreliability. You can read more about this here from Cambridge.


As such and after having made my position on the issue clear, I would like to ask for other editors to provide their own opinion and decide as to wether or not WBOPs deserve to be treated as RS. I offer the following options:

Option 1 - Treat WBOPs as generally reliable and allow their use in articles as factual statements of popular opinion

Option 2 - Treat WBOPs as generally unreliable and avoid their use in articles as factual statements of popular opinion, instead encouraging their replacement with polls conducted by reputable agencies

Thank you for your attention. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I just ran an online poll on this, and exactly 100,000 responses agreeing that we should allow online polls as sources came in in the first two minutes. Now, a week later, it is 100,003 to 47. If that doesn't convince everyone, I don't know what will. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
In 2012 Mountain Dew had an online poll to name a new apple-flavored beverage. The top results were:
  • Hitler Did Nothing Wrong
  • Gushing Granny
  • Fapple
  • Diabetus
  • Soylent Green
  • Moist Nugget
Taylor Swift ran an online poll to choose a school she would perform at. The winner was Boston's Horace Mann School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
Britain's Natural Environment Research Council ran an online poll to name a polar research ship. The winning name? "Boaty McBoatface"
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Moist Nugget reminds me of another interesting poll result. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I think what you are asking is whether or not we use the results of such polls uncritically and to present data in Wikipedia's voice. I would be opposed to doing so with the caveat that where such polls have become themselves the commentary of reliable sources in a widespread and frequently reported way, i.e. Boaty McBoatface, then we should of course reflect the well-covered nature of such items in due course, but those will be exceptional cases and as a matter of practice, uncontrolled internet polling done outside of the confines of well-respected public polling firms should not be given any weight at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 999999. Never under any circumstances include web-based polls in any context whatsoever unless they have been reported on by multiple reliable sources independent of the original publisher. Remove all such polls on sight and blacklist if necessary. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Wen Wei Po

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the Wen Wei Po? wenweipo.com/ HTTPS links HTTP links has been cited around 440 times on Wikipedia.

Survey (Wen Wei Po)

Discussion (Wen Wei Po)

Hello. I'd like to know the general notability of the Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Po since it has came up in AfDs a few times and I'd like to add it to the list of perennial sources. The Wikipedia article for it says it's a pro-Beijing news outlet and there was a post about it on Reliable Sources Noticeboard here back in 2011 that generally seemed to agree. The last noticeboard discussion only had a few participants though and from reading it over the consensus that it's not reliable doesn't seem conclusive. So, I'd like a more definitive answer as to what it's reliable for, if anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Call it lack of neutrality then. I don't really care because it's just splitting hairs over semantics. People here know what makes a source reliable or not. I don't feel the need to spend 50 thousands words making sure I get every single nuance of what makes a source reliable or not perfectly correct. The import thing is if Wen Wei Po can be used as a source and for what. Which every can judge, whatever term I use. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
What makes an RS is accuracy, so they tell porkies?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Obviously. Which bias has something to do with. Especially in relation to Chinese sources and Hong Kong. I'm not the judge of if they toll lies or not. That's on people who comment to decide. Although, personally I don't think they are 100% accurate with topics related to Hong Kong, but my opinion doesn't matter here or I'd just be having this discussion alone, with a wall. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose RfC. This is just a general reliability question, and doesn't need an RfC. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Should I change the title to be a regular discussion then? Tbh, I wasn't sure what the difference was. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
An RfC is used for calling for a sources deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable. This is so we can get the view of people from all over the Wiki, and not just those who regular this page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I changed the title so it's not an RfC. Since that doesn't sound like what I wanted to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia is being somewhat misleading here. Emir of Wikipedia really doesn't like the concept of depreciation and I understand his perspective. However calling a RfC doesn't mean that the source must be unreliable, though obviously calling a RfC on an obviously reliable source like the NYTimes would be pointless. A RfC means that the discussion will get a formal close and verdict, and can be added to the reliable sources noticeboard immediately. Admittedly I don't think that your RfC was properly formatted. wenweipo.com HTTPS links HTTP links has been cited signficantly more than the Apple Daily has, with around 440 citations. I would recommend pinging the participants of The Apple Daily RfC, as they will probably be familiar with this source, as well as leave a link to this discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The top of this page says "Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}} and should run for at least 7 days. Contentious RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved administrator and consensus assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument." Even if my views on deprecation are well known they were not why I was against the RfC. In my view an RfC to call people from around the Wiki, whereas this whole page is for discussing sources. I agree that the WikiProject would be a good place to get other views on the matter though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I would support an RfC if Adamant1 were interested in restoring the RfC tag. RfCs are intended to solicit participation from a broad section of the community. The 2019 header text RfC endorsed the use of RfCs on this noticeboard for questions of general reliability. RfCs do not necessarily have to propose deprecation; they can ask any question as long as the statement is brief and neutral. For regional sources such as Wen Wei Po, an RfC would attract more opinions from editors who are not normally involved in the Hong Kong topic area. — Newslinger talk 02:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Alright. I changed it back to an RfC. If that's what would allow it to be listed in WP:RSP then I'm for it. I don't think it would get many comments in the Hong Kong Wikiproject anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
​Could you please also follow the instructions at WP:RFCST? You'll need to write a brief and neutral statement at the top of the discussion, then apply the {{rfc}} tag. Please see this RfC for a commonly used example of how the RfC can be formatted. — Newslinger talk 02:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Done, I think. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks. I've sectioned the discussion, since none of the existing comments specify an option. — Newslinger talk 03:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The main problem is with Wen Wei Po is a lack of editorial independence. Personally I would never use it and I’d probally seek to remove or replace it if I came across it but I think they’re a 3 not a 4 on our traditional scale and as such WP:DEPS seems a bit too far, generally unreliable is accurate as far as I understand. If anyone has clear cases of pushing false and misleading information I would be willing to reconsider. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: You said here not a 4 but your !vote includes 4? — MarkH21talk 00:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
There was no survey at that time. The responses which followed mine did in fact include cases of pushing false and misleading information (hadn't seen the Baltic stuff before, that was atrocious). I still have some reservations about deprecation hence the 3 or 4 instead of a straight 4, but I would take that with a grain of salt because I know my personal bar for deprecation is higher (or lower depending on how you want to conceptualize it) than the vast majority of wikipedians. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Apple Daily (RSP entry) is the third-most credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong (with a score of 5.71/10) according to a 2019 Chinese University of Hong Kong survey of the public. The same survey listed Wen Wei Po as the second-least credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong (with a score of 3.43/10). As Apple Daily is considered a marginally reliable source, Wen Wei Po is likely either marginally reliable or generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 02:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I found an article here about them mocking the conditions in Baltic states. Along with this article on how they printed a fake story about rioters burning down a building. They have also printed fake pictures. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Medium stores aren't exactly the most reliable sources themselves. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Medium is a blog host. We would need RSes about fake or fabricated reporting to deprecate. — MarkH21talk 01:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The source in question here is literally owned by the Chinese (Communist) central government and should be examined in that context. That being said, them being viewed in a poll as one of the least credible sources in Hong Kong needs to be considered in the context of the change of many people in Hong Kong towards an anti-Beijing point of view, which means they'd view pro-Beijing sources as unreliable. Heck We shouldn't be so easily dismissing a state media organization as "generally unreliable" due to bias or occasional government interference. The CBC, BBC, or whatever else "public broadcasters" have pretty intense biases of their own and have been interfered with despite nominal editorial independence. Heck NPR now has less than 50% of Americans considering it "credible" and was actually the least trusted news outlet out of 9 major ones in America. By the same logic since NPR gets their money from the US government and is generally considered unreliable by Americans we should be treating it as an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Press freedom is a factor that many editors consider when evaluating reliability. China's #177 ranking ("very serious situation") out of 180 countries in the 2020 Press Freedom Index is a strong negative indicator of the reliability of Chinese media sources (the largest of which are state-owned), and makes it unsurprising that the issue of press freedom is raised in just about every discussion on Chinese sources. The phrase "occasional government interference" severely understates the extent and scope of censorship in Chinese media. It is a false equivalence to compare NPR (RSP entry) to Chinese state media in light of the United States' #45 ("satisfactory situation") ranking on the 2020 Press Freedom Index. Also, the NPR is primarily funded by non-government sources; see NPR § Funding for details. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Newslinger and Bacondrum: Press freedom is certainly a relevant factor. But China's ranking in the 2020 Press Freedom Index isn't the directly relevant ranking. The newspaper is in the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, which is ranked 80th out of 180 in the 2020 Press Freedom Index (above countries like Israel, Brazil, Philippines, and India). It's controlled by the Chinese government, which is a separate factor, but for Press Freedom Index purposes it's in Hong Kong. — MarkH21talk 00:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know how much autonomy a journalist working for the Chinese government has when they are working outside of China. My guess is not very much. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I would guess the same. But that’s due to them working for the Chinese government rather than the Press Freedom Index of the newspaper's jurisdiction. The source Lee, Chin-Chuan (1997). "Media Structure and Regime Change in Hong Kong". In Chan, Ming K. (ed.). The Challenge of Hong Kong's Reintegration with China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. pp. 113–147. ISBN 9622094414. from Wen Wei Po says that at the very least, the Chinese government reduced its control over the newspaper. — MarkH21talk 01:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
That could be relevant for articles produced around 1997 (as the book was published then). It might help to find sources that describe the publication after 1997. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This paper is in Hong Kong, where better alternatives exist, so I have no issues with it being labeled unreliable. However, for mainland China topics I think we will have to accept newspapers with slightly lower standards, lest we risk massive systematic bias. All domestic sources are going to be at least somewhat pro-CCP (or they wouldn't be allowed to exist), so banning all pro-CCP sources would have the effect of requiring all mainland China topics to be covered in international media before we consider them notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Just FYI the “independent” media in mainland China isn't allowed to do original reporting, they can only do synthesis and rewrites of pieces from the major government news sources. There is no such thing as investigative journalism as we would recognize it in most of the world in China. We have almost the same problem with other single party states like North Korea, Eritrea, and Syria... We should have a single rule for the eleven or so single party states not some special exception for China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As an FYI I found that it is designated as a "questionable" source on the Chinese Wikipedia zh:Wikipedia:可靠来源/常见有争议来源列表#香港文汇报 WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this! I was not aware that Chinese Wikipedia community had their own perennial sources list. It's interesting that they have settled on a five-tier system that is similar to a proposal on the English Wikipedia that did not get adopted, although I don't currently see any sources in the Chinese list that are classified as "very reliable" (level 5). It looks like Hong Kong Wen Wei Po (香港文汇报) is classified as "no consensus, unclear, or other considerations apply". I'm not sure how the Chinese Wikipedia's reliability standards compare to ours. — Newslinger talk 05:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wen Wei Pao and Ta Kung Pao are owned by Ta Kung Wen Wei Media Group, which is belong to Chinese Government, and they have some sort of similarity in content. Therefore I believe that both newspaper shall have same rating.--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Examples of Wen Wei Po fabricating false reports, mainly to defame the pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)

(Moved from Deryck's vote above)

Thank you! To add to the links, here are the articles from the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian newspapers discussed in the Medium post:
Also this is the Wen Wei Po article in question that the Baltic governments took objection to: http://paper.wenweipo.com/2019/08/24/WW1908240001.htm (I compared the text with the one in Medium)
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
A poor example. Under their header "「香港眾志外援小隊」WhatsApp 群組不存在", The Stand literally cites denials from Wong himself as "evidence" to refute the claims: 黃之鋒說，有人「別出心裁」地以「眾志張飛」的名義散播言論, and our own lede describes The Stand as a "pro-democracy online news website", and the outlet was itself engaged in veritable defamation of CY Leung. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
You're right, I've partly misinterpreted the Stand News article. WWP might not have been the originator of the "overseas support group" lie. I've struck out the part of my comment. Deryck C. 22:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The October 2019 blog post on Medium is about a photo from the CNS being misleading and says that the photo was not in the Wen Wei Po article. — MarkH21talk 00:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
You have a valid point; this is probably in the "misleading sensationalism" rather than "outright lie" category.
The August 2019 article regarding the Baltic Way was also an editorial rather than a news report. — MarkH21talk 00:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are not exempt from requirements of factual accuracy when determining the reliability of a publication. Deryck C. 00:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I generally judge reliability only on a publication's factual reporting and treat its opinion/editorial articles separately (with opinion/editorial being subject to WP:RSOPINION).— MarkH21talk 03:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Famous Birthdays (again)

Should we depreciate Famous Birthdays website? it is unreliable because of the severe violations of biographies of living persons policy. It also had been blacklisted from Wikipedia since 2019. --122.2.98.48 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to do this as a a blacklisting effectively supercedes a deprecation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

We currently have over 1,000 citations to Popular Science per popsci.com HTTPS links HTTP links but it has never come up on this noticeboard before. I think their health section, which makes up a large proportion of their content, comes under WP:MEDPOP and therefore doesn't pass WP:MEDRS. As far as their other magazine content goes, it seems much less in depth than coverage in other popular science magazines or the science sections of major newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this magazine when I was younger, and it has a long and storied history. However, a lot of its content is fairly speculative or based on predictions about the future, which must be attributed to the people who made them, if experts in the field. Content quality may have also deteriorated in the last decade. I agree it doesn't meet MEDRS. (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Gallery: The Flying Cars of Popular Science -Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally does not meet the WP:MEDRS standards - I think that popular science publications, while useful for digesting academic information to the general public, should not be used to establish medical facts. There are peer-reviewed journals that publish high-quality scientific papers for that. WP:MEDPOP is quite clear that popular science publications are generally not acceptible as sources for medical claims. They can, however, be used in addition to more serious scientific publications, to provide reading synthesized material for readers outside of academia. So that's the exception I'd say we should stick to. Goodposts (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Does not meet the WP:MEDRS standards The above comments make the case as well as I could. XOR'easter (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Does not meet WP:MEDRS requirements. Given the huge number of top notch WP:MEDRS-compliant sources out there on any medical topic, I don't see why it would be needed to support any medical claims. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Kimba the White Lion and YourMovieSucksDOTorg

There's an RfC regarding Kimba the White Lion that users might be interested in. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 23:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Nonie Darwish a reliable source?

Is Nonie Darwish a reliable source? The following content was restored by Grufo who claims Darwish is reliable:

Khomeini, in his subsequent writings, also approved of adults satisfying their sexual lusts with children provided such activities stopped short of any penetration.

I strongly believe that Darwish is not reliable. Darwish has no scholarly credentials. Additionally, Darwish is a highly WP:QUESTIONABLE source:

VR talk 18:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Further evidence of Darwish's extremism:
  • The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Darwish as not only "anti-Muslim" but also "anti-Arab". It quotes Darwish as saying "Lying and slander is an obligation in Islam."
  • Professor Deepa Kumar in Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire p. 183 writes "People like Gabriel play an important role in the Islamophobic network - they legitimize the racist attacks on Muslims and Arabs...A whole slew of people, mostly "ex-Muslims," have a played this role of legitimation. One such ideologue, Nonie Darwish..." The book seems to have received positive reviews from several professors: Gilbert Achcar, Hamid Dabashi and Arun Kundnani.
VR talk 23:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
None of the points above makes her an unreliable source. An unreliable source is only a source that does not reliably do fact-checking. Her opinions do not constitute a valid argument against her reliability and she is perfectly entitled to think whatever she wants about Islam or have all the affiliations she wants to have. I invite you to have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. --Grufo (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:BIASED, if editors agree that the information is WP:DUE, I would use inline attribution to cite that claim to Darwish. I wouldn't use Darwish to state something as a fact in wikivoice. Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Editor Vice regent seems to believe that all sources critical of Islam or openly anti-Islamic should be considered unreliable per se, and this is not the first source he removes only because of that. So I don't think the point discussed here is so much about Nonie Darwish, but it is more about creating a precedent. His activity is a bit like if I started to remove all Islamic sources that talk about the Quran labeling them as "biased" arguing that only atheists can be neutral about the topic. --Grufo (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd do you believe Darwish is a WP:QUESTIONABLE source, which includes sources expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist? I would think Darwish's opinion that Islam be "annihilated" would be considered "extremist".VR talk 18:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo that's totally disingenuous, you aren't quoting her for her attributed opinion, your using her a source in Wikivoice. Have any other sources corroborated this allegation? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not using her and I am not the one who inserted her among the sources. I am only contrasting the idea that having anti-Islamic positions makes a source automatically unreliable. Every time a source is removed I would rather prefer to read an explanation about why the facts stated are dubious or even just a mention to the author's bad reputation concerning fact-checking, rather than using his/her political or religious views as an argument. --Grufo (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo, you clearly used Darwish as a source to insert the content. Do you now agree that Darwish is an unreliable source and content sourced to her should be removed? VR talk 19:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
It's quite a stunt to state that a revert in a page where I had never intervened before is equal to “using a source to insert the content”. --Grufo (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo, do you consider Darwish a reliable source for this content you inserted or not? A "yes" or "no" would be quite helpful.VR talk 20:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo just a point of order, when you revert a removal you take responsibility for what you reverted back onto the page. Please review WP:BURDEN. There is no stunt being puller here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


Comment Being described as "anti-Muslim" is not the same as being actually unreliable. Quite the opposite in many cases. I don't see any reason why the claim is controversial, though a better source can certainly be found. GPinkerton (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, I would have said the same thing if Pinkerton hadn't commented first. (t · c) buidhe 20:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
buidhe wouldn't you agree that antisemitic sources should considered un-reliable? How is a source that is described as "anti-Muslim" and calls for the annihilation of Islam any different? Does WP:QUESTIONABLE not say that sources with "extremist" views should not be used? VR talk 20:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Vice regent: That's a fallacy of false equivalence. Antisemitism is not about criticism of Judaism as an ideology, it's about racism towards Jews. Calling for the annihilation of Islam is in no way comparable to calling for the annihilation of Jews, which of course the article's subject did on a regular basis, and his devotees continue to do to this day. GPinkerton (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
How is "anti-Muslim" not equivalent to antisemitism? VR talk 20:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Antisemitism is based on race, not beliefs, so it is not an acceptable position (and by the way, Arabs are Semitic people too). And yet, even an antisemitic source can be reliable as a source sometimes. Furthermore, while antisemitism is unacceptable, anti-Judaism for example is a perfectly acceptable belief. --Grufo (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
If you can acknowledge the equal humanity of Muslims and Jews and other groups then you should be able to acknowledge that anti-Muslim is just as extremist as antisemitic.VR talk 21:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Not at all. You really love, fallacies, don't you? Having a negative view of a religion does not mean judging its believers. One can think that the Bible and the Quran are mental masturbations (or worse) and at the same time suspend every judgement about their individual followers. --Grufo (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
No-one - except the antisemitic Ayatollah - is denying the humanity of anyone. Being "anti-Muslim" has nothing to do with denying anyone's humanity. It has to do with denying the validity of belief systems - which are mere ideologies. GPinkerton (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, Islamophobia is a real phenomenon that has claimed the lives of many innocent Muslims, just as antisemitism has. Darwish has been called both "anti-Muslim" and an Islamophobe by many sources.VR talk 22:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Islamophobia is often used as a scare word to stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. Criticism of Judaism is also widely practiced without being antisemitism. Criticising a religion or ideology is very different than demonizing a race or ethnic group (which is what antisemitism does); however, Muslims are not a race or ethnic group. (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
buidhe, Do you agree that demonizing Muslims is as extremist as demonizing Jews? VR talk 22:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Vice regent: Are you now going to claim Darwish is responsible for a "list of Islamophobic incidents"? Or are you going to present some reason why you have been unable to provide any source that so much as backs your claim that "Darwish has been called both "anti-Muslim" and an Islamophobe by many sources". Your NYT article does not in any way support any of your claims; the SPLC describes her as "anti-Muslim" but not an Islamophobe; neither does The Intercept use the word. Nor indeed does the Georgetown University Bridge Initiative, it merely states that another advocacy group had labelled her a "validator" in what they call "Fear Inc". Nothing about any of this supports your idea that Dawish means that "anti-Muslim is just as extremist as antisemitic". Are you really supposing that criticism of ideology is equivalent to antisemitism? You are apparently arguing for WP:CENSORSHIP of all views opposing the Dear Leader. No demonization is mentioned anywhere. GPinkerton (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll just point out that there is a not so fine line when it comes to being anti-Islam and Islamophobic or anti-Muslim as some like Maajid Nawaz (who I think balances the issue properly) prefer. Yes, improper accusations of Islamophobia exist but that does not void the existence of the phenomena [26].
Certain views of Islam (not necessarily Muslims) such as viewing it as "static and unresponsive to change" do indeed veer into Islamophobia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Contrasting_views_on_Islam]. Nonie Darwish is not so different form Raymond Ibrahim [who is regarded as unreliable) or Robert Spencer (same as Raymond and he's referred to as anti-Muslim by RS). Anti-Muslim or not they are clearly unreliable and if these are the best sources you can muster up for "academic" criticism of Islam, I'll point out that you are standing on thin ice (for the record I believe better sourced criticism exists).
As for the comparison with anti-Semitism I'll point out that many anti-semites strongly deny being called such and instead insist on being seen as anti-Judaic or critics of the Talmund or whatever part of Judaism or Jewishness they detest. The line is not as clear-cut. Despite these protestations, they are usually classified as anti-Semites. When you have people calling for the annihilation of a religion, for example "Judaism should be annihilated" especially when backed up by some kind of activism, you are being extremely prejudiced even if you clarify that you have no issue with individual believers per say. Plus, how is religious based prejudice less worse that ethnic prejudice? I'll also clarify that that the legacy of anti-Semitism has certainly been much more destructive than other types of prejudices. Nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right. Islamophobia exists and is wrong even if it doesn't reach the level of anti-Semitism. I'd wager that most people with anti-semitic beliefs have never harmed a Jew, neither have most people who are anti-Muslim ever directly harmed Muslims, but that doesn't change their anti-Semetic/Muslim beliefs which builds up towards mainstream acceptance of these views.
Coming back to the topic, it is quite clear that Nonie Darwish is an unreliable source except perhaps for her own views on her own page.
P.S. Anti Semitism does not refer to prejudice against Arabs. Just check the freaking red clarification on the top of the talkpage of the anti-semitism article. 39.37.135.0 (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
“Nonie Darwish is not so different form Raymond Ibrahim [who is regarded as unreliable) or Robert Spencer (same as Raymond and he's referred to as anti-Muslim by RS).” This confirms my suspect that all that Vice regent (and the anonymous IP address that often accompanies him) wants with Nonie Darwish is creating a precedent in order to remove all the anti-Islamic sources “as such”, independently of the context or the content (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5). As I had already explained in Talk:Islam and blasphemy – the place where they removed Raymond Ibrahim and which is the reason why the IP address can now state that Raymond Ibrahim “is regarded as unreliable” – personally I am not a fan of conservative folk like Ibrahim, but defining him “not reliable source” to my eyes would require more than an editor's personal dislike due to political or religious disagreements. --Grufo (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo, they can each independently be established as unreliable as can some other unreliable anti-Muslim sources I can think of who have not been mentioned or cited, for example: [27]. My comment was directed at you in particular, knowing that you were familiar with the previous example of Raymond Ibrahim. Eperoton was the one who cast final judgement on Raymond Ibrahim, remember? Is he in cahoots with us too? VR even challenged you to take him up on this noticeboard but you refrained from pushing the issue. You really think this precedent for removing obviously biased sources was hatched up a few days ago by me and VR? Check the talk-pages on Islam related articles and you'll see such sources routinely removed except on the persons own articles or when they are overlooked. These articles are meant to provide a holistic overview of various topics by reliable academics. They aren't meant for naked polemicism by unreliable authors and this hold true for religions other than Islam as well. For all your talk of being a progressive atheist, every single source you defend (i.e when you present sources at all) turns out to be either non-scholarly and extremely POV or misquoted with OR added in. By now you simply seem to be engaging on a quest to Right Great Wrongs which is quite unconstructive. 39.37.135.0 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
“Eperoton was the one who cast final judgement on Raymond Ibrahim, remember? Is he in cahoots with us too?”
Of course not, Eperoton is only a user you had invoked via private message in your support, and nevertheless has demonstrated good balance in his interventions.
“all your talk of being a progressive atheist, every single source you defend (i.e when you present sources at all) turns out to be either non-scholarly and extremely POV or misquoted with OR added in”
You should have said “all your talk … and every single source you defend turns out to be conservative”, it would have been much stronger and more effective. And indeed this is what progressive people do, they oppose the fact that a political or religious opinion may constitute a prejudice towards a person, independently of his/her views. The fact that not all of them are academics and some are just book authors is definitely not an argument for being considered unreliable. We are still talking and yet I have not heard one single argument why these right wing people that love to spend their time focusing on the rotten parts of a religion are unreliable “per se”.
“These articles are meant to provide a holistic overview of various topics by reliable academics”
I agree with the claimed approach (although journalists and authors can be very reliable too). And indeed I tend to be the one who fights to save content that you and Vice regent want to remove, remember?
--Grufo (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
"nevertheless has demonstrated good balance in his intervention"
Yes that's precisely why I called him and what unbiased editors do. He's an experienced and neutral editor. I most certainly did not invite him for "my support" although yes he did tend to agree that your edits were against WP. He's much politer than VR and I, no doubt. But he clearly cautioned you a number of times about the usage of the Quran, about secondary sources, about Ibrahim and much more, all of which you have chosen to deliberately ignore or pretend not to hear.
'conservative' Many of the sources above can very well be described as "Far-right" (note: Far-right does not necessarily mean neo-Nazi), so this is not just your garden variety conservatism were talking about Grufo. RS claim that many of these people are considered prejudiced against Muslims i.e anti-Muslim, their own denials notwithstanding.
"rotten parts of a religion are unreliable" Polemicism is by its very nature unreliable Grufo. Despite being authors Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source on Christianity in general, Israel Shahak not on Judaism and the sources above not on Islam. Simple. You have not really provided any evidence that these sources are reliable and the onus really is on you. Where are the academics and why not rely on them?
Regardless of how much you claim to have progressive leanings, the proof is in the pudding or rather your edits I should say. I'm sure you received your information on Islam from secondary sources as well. Which ones I do not know but can probably guess they would not be described as "progressive". Your claim that progressive people should not be biased towards people or authors who are known to have problematic views is a moral abomination as well. Should we really be completely unprejudiced towards people with anti-semetic/Racist/Islamophobic/etc views when they are discussing their pet peeves? In any case, this is not really relevant to WP. Eperoton has said in no certain terms that Raymond is unreliable as is his publisher. What more do you want? Do you dispute this?
"journalists and authors" Depends on whom your talking about. Might as well have said people can be very reliable too.
"who tends to fight to save content" Yes, yes I remember Saeed and your well cited edits over at Islam and Blasphemy. First impressions are lasting ones... and I've responded to your added or "saved" content on the various article talkpages as have others. We can keep that discussion there. 39.37.135.0 (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

“Many of the sources above can very well be described as "Far-right"”

As I said, a political position has nothing to do with being a reliable source or not. Being a reliable source means only doing the due fact-checking and stating the truth.

“Polemicism is by its very nature unreliable Grufo”

This is quite an empty sentence that can be read in many ways. Thanks to a lot of polemics we invented secularism, democracy, and many other things. And yet polemicism can also be an empty tool for not going behind the form without ever touching a content. It is interesting that rhetorical fallacies are often used in support of empty polemicism. I'll leave to the reader to check where and by whom rhetorical fallacies have been used in this multifaced discussion.

“Your claim that progressive people should not be biased towards people or authors who are known to have problematic views is a moral abomination as well”

I never said that, I think we all are biased. For example I am biased against who thinks that a political position is enough to judge the honesty of a source about a particular fact without any further check. And as I already mentioned before, in this particular case I have also the bias of suspecting that you and Vice regent want to create a precedent for denying the reliability of anti-Islamic sources “as such”, which I find unacceptable. To make a parallel, without anti-Christian western authors we would not have reached the progress and the freedom that we have reached so far.

“Eperoton has said in no certain terms that Raymond is unreliable as is his publisher. What more do you want? Do you dispute this?”

What I said so far applies also to Eperoton, who has not argued in favor of his statement enough for “a normal time”, let alone for an ongoing dispute, and I would have argued way longer than he did if I was him. And yes, of course I “dispute that”, since no exhaustive motivation was given. I never agreed with the removal of Ibrahim, I only happened to become minority in that discussion.

“I remember Saeed”

Again, I did not remove Saeed, I removed an ideological statement that used Saeed as support reference. I thought you had understood that by now.

May I ask you why you still refuse to create a Wikipedia account, especially given that your IP address always changes? --Grufo (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The source of the claim is Tahrir al-Wasilah, and this issue recieved extensive discussion on that articles talkpage over a decade ago. There are loads of translations but obviously all the parties who are translating the text have an incentive to spin it a certain way to either defend Khomeini or condemn him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Darwish also claims on the same page that "Khomeini didn't just make this stuff up. Mohammed was practicing thighing with Aisha at age six and consumated the marriage at age nine". Is this a mainstream scholarly view? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I get that it's the traditional date according to hadiths, but quoting it as is without question makes me suspect that this is not a particularly scholarly account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I don’t believe that anyone has ever claimed that Nonie Darwish is a scholar or that their work is academic in any way. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Tahrir al-Wasilah sounds like a WP:PRIMARY source. A reliable English-language secondary source would avoid the whole issue of "spin". The job of interpreting hadith and Tahrir al-Wasilah belongs to reliable, secondary sources. We need to mainly resolve whether Darwish a reliable source. (I could go into my own personal analysis of the WP:PRIMARY texts, but that would be WP:OR).VR talk 21:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The book publisher Thomas Nelson appears to be christian focused, and the book was largely ignored outside christian circles, with the only reputable review I can find originating in city journal. If we are going to make claims that Khomeini endorsed pedophilia we are going to need a better source than this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, coming back to Nonie Darwish, can you unambiguously clarify if she's a reliable source for articles on Islam in general. I think you can save us a lot of text here. (apologies if this comes off as a bit rude, the problem is on our end) 39.37.135.0 (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable for statements of fact about history. First, it's not the case that a source is assumed to be reliable unless proven otherwise. On the contrary, we need to establish "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". For a history book, we generally do that by looking at the author's scholarly credentials, such as peer-reviewed publications on the subject, or at the publisher. In this case, the author is not an established historian. The publisher specializes on religious content, and I don't see evidence that they have a reputation for fact-checked publications on history, as university presses or some other publishers have. As another editor noted, given the wealth of academic publications about Khomeini, if the statement is accurate, it shouldn't be hard to find it in a RS. Eperoton (talk)
  • Eperon, there are quite some syllogistic fallacies in your comment. First, we are not discussing Nonie Darwish' reliability as a source because not “proven otherwise”, we are discussing her reliability because Vice regent explicitly asked us to discuss about it. Second, she qualifies as a writer, not an academic, so measuring her academic achievements is out of place. Third, I have only heard so far discredit about her publisher or prejudices about her views as disappointed ex-muslim and yet I have not heard anything about her alleged lack of fact-checking or dishonesty. I have the diametrical opposite political views of Darwish, especially concerning her endorsement of the state of Israel, I would have zero interest in the average titles of the Thomas Nelson publisher, and yet I still defend her right not to be prejudiced for her beliefs and her right to be judged only on the facts. Fourth, the editor specializes exactly in history books together with Christian-focused books. --Grufo (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, to establish a source as reliable, we need to establish its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Being a writer doesn't establish one's book as being a RS for history, not does being published. The onus is on those who seek establish reliability, not vice versa. Of the things that we normally look at to establish reliability for a history text, I see none of them here. Where do you see that the publisher specializes in mainstream history books? The religious nature of their publications is stated explicitly in their mission: "Thomas Nelson is a world leading publisher and provider of Christian content. [...] Thomas Nelson is committed to one central mission: inspiring the world by meeting the needs of people with content that promotes biblical principles and honors Jesus Christ." Eperoton (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable, though I'm not opposed to in-line attribution. I agree with Grufo, GPinkerton, and buidhe here; just because a source is critical of Islam as an ideology, it doesn't mean it's Islamophobic (the same goes for criticism of other ideologies). There is a major difference between "demonizing" and "criticizing", and unless we know for certain that the author has a particular agenda here, I don't see why we can't use a book that's been released by a reliable publisher. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I only see one reason for reliability in your statement above, that the book has been published "by a reliable publisher". The publisher is Thomas Nelson (publisher) and their most famous book has been subject to criticism. They publish books on trying to prove the infallibility of the Bible. So I ask you once again, Stefka Bulgaria, are all books published by Thomas Nelson reliable?VR talk 11:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Defining a publisher that has been existing since 1798 as “unreliable” only because it focuses on Christian books is quite a bold statement. To give you a parallel example, the Vatican Publishing House is a very reliable publisher. --Grufo (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
G. P. Putnam's Sons is a reputable publisher, doesn't mean that Chariots of the Gods? isn't total nonsense. Non-academic publishers like the big 4, (which Thomas Nelson is a subsidiary of, as part of HarperCollins) are interested in what sells, not what is scholarly and accurate, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#Another_fringe_book_from_Simon_and_Schuster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Vatican Publishing House books may be reliable for views on the Catholic church, but I doubt we'd use in the article on evolution.VR talk 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Why? Unlike many other religions people, Catholicism accepted evolution as fact more than a century ago. GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
See this discussion I had with Roscelese. Stuff published by the Vatican Publishing House could be reliable for views of the Catholic church, but it would not be a reliable source for factual statements in most fields, like anthropology, evolution, Islam etc.VR talk 16:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
While I haven't read through the entire discussion here, between Darwish's questionable credentials and the questionable status of the publisher, there's absolutely no way we can cite this kind of statement to her. If it's true, why are these low-quality sources the only sources that talk about it? Shouldn't reliable sources have said somrthing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I found this book ("Refuting the Anti-Israel Narrative: A Case for the Historical, Legal and Moral Legitimacy of the Jewish State" by Jeremy Havardi; pubisher: McFarland) saying something similar to what Nonie Darwish claims:

"Sharia law dictates that there is no legal minimum age for marriage (beyond puberty), an opinion upheld by Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini lowered the marriage age to 13 for girls but permitted girls as young as 7 to be married, if a physician signed a certificate agreeing to their sexual maturity. The Ayatollah also stated that a Muslim man could "quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby" provided he did not "penetrate".

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
That quote contradicts what scholarly sources have said about minimum age for marriage in Sharia. I don't think Jeremy Havardi is a reliable source on Islamic jurisprudence. His book makes many mistakes when talking about Islam.VR talk 11:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
This controversy is also mentioned in Khomeini's book: "The book has been the target of some polemics by some critics of Khomeini, owing to certain passages which seem to sanction sexual practices with minors, including toddlers"; although the source for that passage doesn't seem to be currently working. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
You can't source wikipedia especially if that content is likely original research.VR talk 11:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
“You can't source wikipedia”: You have literally just done that. --Grufo (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe this is a link to Khomeini's book (Tahrirolvasileh) where he said this, but I'm not sure. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Nonie Darwish isn't a source - she's an author. The source we're talking about here is her book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, which appears to be published by a respectable publisher. A quick Google check tells me that it appears in the reference list of at least one academic monograph, Global Jihad in Muslim and non-Muslim Contexts by Jonathan Matusitz of the University of Central Florida, but I haven't read the book and can't see exactly how it was treated by that work. I'm not an expert in this field, but I'd be leaning towards saying that this looks like a reliable source, as far as our guidelines are concerned. GirthSummit (blether) 13:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Jonathan Matusitz seems like a pretty controversial figure himself, per the Orlando Sentinel:

Matusitz’s views on Islam have generated controversy before. In 2013, the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations accused him of teaching anti-Muslim bigotry and asked UCF to review the content of Matusitz’s courses. Later that year, he was the featured speaker at an event called “The Islamic Threat to America" in Viera. The American-Islamic advocacy group described the organization that sponsored the event as “an anti-Muslim hate group” and asked Brevard County not to allow it to use a commission meeting room.

The second incident is referenced in this Yahoo story which notes that the sponsoring organisation is ACT! for America which SPLC describes as a hate group. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit as said in WP:SOURCE? the reliability is affected by the author. And being quoted by an academic source is not an indication of reliability, as I have seen academic books use wikipedia as a source and we know that WP:UGC is definitely not reliable.VR talk 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent, huh? Which academic books use Wikipedia as a source? Just so I can make sure never to buy from that publisher... GirthSummit (blether) 15:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit This book and this book, both by Springer Publishing, and this book by Routledge. I have also seen this done by books published by various University presses. Once I find them, I'll message on User talk:Girth Summit.VR talk 15:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent, jings. Bit of a red flag. I guess I won't be able to avoid Springer entirely, but seriously, that's pretty poor. GirthSummit (blether) 15:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
This discussion of publishers is a red-herring; things are not automatically reliable when published by a particular corporation. GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkteron is correct, in the general sense - we don't just look at the publisher to determine reliability (I've seen some terrible rubbish published by otherwise respectable presses.) I've just looked into Thomas Nelson a bit further though, and it is giving me pause. The first sentence of their company profile runs thus: Thomas Nelson is a world leading publisher and provider of Christian content. Looking at their publications, they mostly appear to be bibles, bible study guides and the like, but they also have a non-fiction bookstore, which exclusively sells... well, I find it hard to describe. Let's call it Christian stuff. I'm starting to lean away from my earlier position - perhaps this is a piece of polemic, written by a campaigner, and published by a company given over almost exclusively to... Christian stuff. What we want is scholarship, and this is looking less like that to me now. GirthSummit (blether) 16:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Would not her books be considered biased sources? Per Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate" Dimadick (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Arb Break (Nonie Darwish)

Darwish's twitter account certainly is... something. "Is Corona the First (grand scale) Biological World War orchestrated by globalists and China? Sure looks like it" "Must read! Many white girls are seduced into transgender! Being a victim has become the only thing to aspire for in America today!!!!! White girls want the victimhood status so they choose to be transgender!" I would place about as much trust in her words as I would those of Alex Jones. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A quote from Darwish this 2018 journal article

... in Cruel and Usual Punishment, Darwish avows that Muslims “are incapable of feeling compassion toward non-Muslims. Acknowledging compassion to non-Muslim oppressed minorities is grounds for apostasy. A Muslim must stay hardened and unyielding”

I think literally suggesting Muslims cannot feel emotion is quite beyond the pale, especially considering the quote is from the exact same book we are talking about. Kevin Parker (New York politician) in a 2011 letter to chair Greg Ball (politician) asking to disinvite Darwish, cited her describing Islam as "not a true religion" and Obama as a "political muslim". Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The claim that Obama is a "political muslim" is from this article in Media Matters for America (RSP entry) by our old friend Max Blumenthal. While I have immense distaste for his current output, I think he is reliable in this instance as the article provides a audio log as well as a transcript. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
This definitely convinces me that Darwish' political position are among the most horrible political positions one can have today. It does not convinces me though that this would make her an unreliable source, especially considering the fact that she seems saying the truth about Khomeini endorsing pedophilia. Dan Fincke (an atheist), reports a quotation of Khomeini given by Maryam Namazie:

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.

On the other hand Kaveh Mousavi, another atheist who lives in Iran, reports this other quotation, adding that Dan Fincke's translation “actually waters down what Khomeini has said” and Khomeini endorsing pedophilia “is quite public knowledge among Iranians”:

Whoever has a wife under nine years old cannot penetrate her, whether she is his permanent wife or his temporary wife. But other forms of sexual pleasure are allowed, such as lustful touching, embracing, or rubbing the penis on the thigh of the girl, even if she is an infant still. And if the baby’s vagina is so badly damaged that the bladder and urethra “become the same”.he penetrates her before she is nine year old, and her hymen is not broken, he has only sinned, and if he has only sinned, but if he has, then she will be forbidden to him forever, and [he has to pay for her her entire life (I summarized here)]

It seems that these are all quotation from a speech, not a written document. But even just by google-translating this original page from the series of documents (Tahrir al-Wasilah) posted by Stefka Bulgaria it appears something like: A woman who has not reached puberty yet (i.e., she is not yet nine years old) takes no decisions in divorcing from her husband – implying that she can already be married when she is nine years old. But of course we cannot rely on Google Translator and I cannot speak Farsi. --Grufo (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The main issue is that all sources that are translating the Khomeini document are a. Ideologically opposed to Khomeini. and b. have no expertise on islamic jurisprudence. I think that her stating that "Muslims are incabable of feeling" (a statement that is obviously false to any rational human being) in the same book that the quote comes from means that an alternate source should be found, and regardless of the outcome of whether the text stays or is removed it should not be cited to the book. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health. In any case, if the pages posted by Stefka Bulgaria are really the original Tahrir al-Wasilah I think the question about Khomeini endorsing pedophilia is quite closed. I have nothing against finding different sources, but I am definitely against erasing the truth. --Grufo (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The Patheos piece states that: "Khomeini was by no means a lone voice on this. Actually, these views are still quite dominant among the Shia clerics I know of." and "on many issues Khomeini was a progressive for his time, and the fact that he seems so ancient and fundamentalist now is a testament of the great progress of the mentality of certain parts of Iran." but Patheos is a really marginal source for claims like this as it is a self-published blog. I would really want an impartial academic scholarly source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
“Khomeini was by no means a lone voice on this. Actually, these views are still quite dominant among the Shia clerics I know of” sounds like “Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applied to a dictator”. Pedophilia was already defined internationally at the time of Khomeini, so no, I would never agree that Khomeini “was a progressive for his time” – and let's not forget that he stopped an actual socialist revolution that was happening before him in that very same place that Patheos seems to describe as so backward. Italian neo-fascists still say to defend Mussolini “…But trains were always on time when there was him”. I am sure that with a little bit of research we can find something good that even Khomeini did. --Grufo (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Patheos considers Patheos "generally unreliable" and to be treated as WP:SELFPUB. I don't see any reason to consider either of the two pieces reliable.VR talk 01:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Vice regent:
“Grufo's comment here hints at Grufo not considering Nonie Darwish reliable”
Last time I checked I had a mouth to express my own opinions, I am quite sure I did not need to signal or “hint” them.
“Grufo do you still consider Nonie Darwish to be a reliable source? If yes, what is your reason?”
You might have missed it since it was an explicit statement and not a hint: So far yes, because she seems stating the truth and the only arguments used against her so far are her political opinions, or her positions against Islam's teachings, or what she believes the latter might provoke in people's empathy.
--Grufo (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo Per WP:RS, you need to demonstrate that Nonie Darwish has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", regardless of whether you think she is telling the WP:TRUTH. Do you believe Darwish is considered an expert in Islamic jurisprudence? Do you think Thomas Nelson (publisher) a reputable publisher on Islam related topics? VR talk 02:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
If Khomeini really didn't write this in his book and Nonie Darwish is making it all up, then Darwish's source would indeed be a problem. Is that the case though? An author doesn't need to be an expert in Islamic jurisprudence to make a note about what Khomeini wrote in his book. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Stefka Bulgaria There are a number of issues with using an unreliable source. The source may have fabricated part of the quote, omitted important qualifying information, or simply misunderstood Khomeini. In Islamic jurisprudence, clerics are asked if a certain action is forbidden. If they can't find a prohibition against the action in texts (Quran etc) they say "no". That doesn't mean they "approve" the action. Saying "Khomeini could not find any scriptural prohibition against sex with babies" is a lot different than "Khomeini approved of sex with babies." Yet another possibility could be that Khomeini was quoting opinions of more conservative clerics and not endorsing the position as his own (see this). A reliable source could be trusted to present Khomeini's objectively and accurately.
We keep making this discussion about Khomeini, when really it is about whether Darwish is a reliable source, at least on Islamic jurisprudence. You said earlier that your main reason for considering Darwish is a reliable source is because of the publisher Thomas Nelson (publisher). In light of this comment above, do you still think Thomas Nelson is a reliable source in the field of Islamic jurisprudence? VR talk 15:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
In case any Iranian is present here, there is a video with (I presume) Khomeini's speech ([28], it starts at minute 3' 20''). Vice regent, all your comments seem aimed at raising suspicion that Darwish might be an unreliable source, but you constantly avoid to convince that she is. --Grufo (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I just came across this discussion, and at first glance, thought my eyes were either playing tricks on me or I developed dyslexia because I could've sworn the title read User:Darwinbish.🐲 A few drops of Systane Ultra fixed me right up. Atsme Talk 📧 23:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: there is a discussion at Talk:Ruhollah_Khomeini#Darwish, where I went through a reference of Darwish and found that it wasn't saying what she claimed it was saying. Darwish either misquoted the text or made part of it up. I did a google search and found that text to be in random forums and anti-Islam websites, but not in any reliable sources. The possibility that she "copies and pastes randomly from the internet" was raised.VR talk 14:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The claim of Khomeini permitting sex with babies is promoted by anti-Islam/Iran sources. A simple search in Farsi would bring multiple explanations [29] as to who and why these false accusations are spread against him. For clarification, I will list some of the points being discussed in this discussion (sorry if my translations are not so good):
    • Regarding the marriage of a young girl, Khomeini regards 'satisfaction' of the two sides of the marriage as a pre-condition. Imam Khomeini's portal provides the original text:

      عقد ازدواج بین دو نفر باید با رضایت هر دو باشد، بنابراین اگر یک طرف را مجبور کنند و یا بدون رضایت او عقد ازدواج را جاری کنند، صحیح نمی باشد.

Translation by me: "The marriage between two should be accompanied by the satisfaction of the two sides. So, if one is enforced to marriage or the marriage is done without seeking the satisfaction them, the marriage is not correct."
Khomeini further clarifies the marriage. He explains that for a girl (or boy) to grant permission for marriage, they 1) should have reached 'puberty', 2) should be 'Rashid' - (This means, besides being matured, he/she should grown enough so that he/she recognizes good and bad). Again, Imam Khomeini's portal provides the original text as such:

برای انجام رضایت به ازدواج، باید دو طرف عقد (مرد و زن) بالغ و رشید باشند، بنابراین اگر دختر دارای رشد نیست نمی توان او را به عقد دیگری درآورد

Translation by me: "For satisfaction of the marriage parties to be sought for doing marriage, the two sides should have reached puberty and should be Rashid. Thus, if the girl is not grown enough, she can't be married to a man."
I am ready for further keeping on this discussion, if its need. Finally, I suggest avoid basing this discussion on such a bogus source -just see the title- when we have access to more reliable sources. --Mhhossein talk 15:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mhhossein, thank you for your intervention! At these two links #1 and #2 this post appeared:

I have a personal copy of al-Khomeini's TaHreer al-Waseelah, and this fatwa is found in second volume.

(Taken from my personal copy of al-Khomeini's TaHreer al-Waseelah (Damascus: Sufaarah al-Majhooriyyah 1418 A.H.), vol. 2, pg. 221 - 222)

Click here for the Picture (file too big to upload) --> http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4414/khomeinitahreervol2pg22.jpg

مسألة 12 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواما كان النكاح أو منقطعا ، و أما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة و الضم و التفخيذ فلا بأس بها حتى فى الرضيعة ، و لو وطأها قبل التسع و لم يفضها لم يترتب عليه شى‏ء غير الاثم على الاقوى ، و إن أفضاها بأن جعل مسلكى البول و الحيض واحدا أو مسلكى الحيض و الغائط واحدا حرم عليه وطؤها أبدا لكن على الاحوط فى الصورة الثانية ، و على أي حال لم تخرج عن زوجيته على الاقوى ، فيجري عليها أحكامها من التوارث و حرمة الخامسة و حرمة أختها معها و غيرها ، و يجب عليه نفقتها مادامت حية و إن طلقها بل و إن تزوجت بعد الطلاق على الاحوط ، بل لا يخلو من قوة ، و يجب عليه دية الافضاء ، و هى دية النفس ، فإذا كانت حرة فلها نصف دية الرجل مضافا إلى المهر الذي استحقته بالعقد و الدخول ، و لو دخل بزوجته بعد إكمال التسع فأفضاها لم تحرم عليه و لم تثبت الدية ، و لكن الاحوط الانفاق عليها مادامت حية و إن كان الاقوى عدم الوجوب .

Ruling #12: It is not permission to have intercourse before (her) being 9 years old, be it in nikkaaH (permanent marriage) or temporary marriage. And As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and thighing, there is no problem in it even with a suckling infant. If he does have sexual intercourse before nine years of age and does not penetrate, there is no penalty, but he has committed a sin. If he does penetrate causing the vagina and urethra openings to be one, she will become forever haram for him, but this is as a precaution. And it is more probable that her status as his wife is not removed. And the rulings of inheritance, and the prohibition of a fifth wife or marriage to her sister applies. And it is waajib upon him for her maintenance as long as she is alive, even if he divorces her and even if she marries after divorcing her as a precautionary measure. And it is waajib upon him for blood money for the penetration and the amount is equivalent to that of an individual. If she is a free-woman, the amount is half that of a man, plus the dowry that she became entitled to through the `aqd and penetration. If he penetrates his wife after the age of nine, she does not become haram to him and there is no evidence that blood money is liable, but as a precautionary measure, he should maintain her as long as she is alive, although it is more probable that this is not obligatory."

Source:
al-Khomeini, taHreer al-Waseelah, vol. 2, pg. 241, Kitaab al-Nikaah, Ruling # 12

Could you tell us what you think? --Grufo (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo: See your response- it is available in three languages. Not all what you find on the net is reliable. --Mhhossein talk 11:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I can only use Google Translate for that. It seems to neither confirm nor deny the controversial passages, since the text seems to be a summarization of Khomeini's words. In my opinion it actually seems to go towards the direction of confirming the controversial passages, since it quotes at least some parts of them. Is there a way to have the original whole Khomeini quote instead of a summarization? --Grufo (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: Roscelese commented that Darwish is not a reliable source for this kind of statement. I'm only pointing it out cause the comment is buried deep in the discussion.VR talk 18:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I see no proof that Nonie Darwish is reliable, let alone objective, and the publisher doesn't even pretend to be neutral in these matters. They are "dedicated to acquiring, developing and promoting authors whose content inspires, informs, and transforms the lives of readers", which is fine--but not when you are using these books to write an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

DND

Is dnd.com.pk reliable? The way it wrote this bio, it looked quite amateurish, like many of those unreliable sources like CelebsWiki, StarUnfolded, etc. However its About Us page claims to be an " international award-winning News Agency, accredited and certified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan..". Kindly help. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well this [[30]] makes it clear the (anonymous) online editor also writes stories. Thus thre is no clear delineation between writing and editing. Thus is (to a very large extent) an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This provides a bit more information on the people writing and editing that website. They claim they are "international award-winning News Agency, accredited and certified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting."VR talk 14:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
They can claim all they like, its does not make it true.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I tried googling this claim but could not find any mention of it in reliable sources.VR talk 15:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Frankly the the fact they do not list what they are was enough to tell me its either an outright lie or (at the very least) an exaggeration. Certainly not enough to overcome my doubts about their "editorial policy".Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments @Slatersteven and Vice regent: guys. I'm going to remove it from the article. Looks unreliable enough. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Poker publications

We have many articles on poker players, but only a handful of the most famous ones have coverage in mainstream media (i.e. major newspapers). The rest are sourced exclusively to poker publications, which is fine as long as they are reliable. The following are sources I see being used most frequently:

I'd like to ascertain the reliability of these and other sources so we can create a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker and add it under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Topic-specific pages. Note that this is solely an evaluation of whether the site is reliable, not whether it can be used to demonstrate notability; it's very possible for a website to be usable for a listing of facts such as tournament winnings but perhaps it doesn't include significant coverage of anyone. Feel free to add other common poker-related sources (whether reliable or unreliable) so we can evaluate them together. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Could we simply edit WP:NSPORTS so that it covers Poker players? If Snooker is a sport, then Poker certainly is. King of Hearts, could you please look over the criteria for other sport on that page and give us you opinion about what criteria we should use for poker? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
That is orthogonal to the issue being discussed here; WP:NSPORTS is mostly a set of requirements that athletes need to meet to be presumed notable. Personally I am not in favor of adding yet another sports-related SNG. Instead, poker players should just be evaluated against the GNG, but perhaps with sources which are not mainstream but nonetheless reliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Please don't place RfC tags on things that are not properly formatted RfCs. You are supposed to discuss the issue first and only post an RfC if editors cannot agree. See WP:RFCBEFORE.
Starting to look at your list of sources, is Bluff a printed magazine or something that looks like a magazine but is actually an app? It's a little concerning what happens when you click on "contact us". --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I think Bluff is now defunct, but it used to be available in print (this looks like a cover, they wouldn't put a fake barcode on a virtual-only publication). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we can say that Bluff is reliable for poker information, then. Moving on, CardsChat News has an editorial policy[31] that makes me inclined to say that they are reliable for poker information. More later, must sleep now. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Highstakesdb is reliable for most things. It appears to be a 3-person blog. I would consider it reliable for tournament results. Any website that got that sort of thing wrong wouldn't say in business very long. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems OK so far. Note that Hendon Mob has been discussed before without a conclusive result. I would say that it and the WSOP site are reliable for citing statistics. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I meant to go through every source on the above list, but I have too much to do on a project that actually pays the bills. I am going to leave it at this: In my opinion, pretty much every poker source is reliable for statistics and tournament results unless a web search turns up dozens of people complaining about them making stuff up. If the stats/results are on a couple of site, even better. Simply put, if they didn't get that right they would have no customers. None of them are reliable for determining whether a person is notable for poker playing. For that you need at least one non-poker site that talks about that person. Finally, I think that King of Hearts is well-qualified to make these determinations and has no obvious bias, so unless someone complains just go with what he says. Sometimes you just need a poker fan who keeps up with the sport and also understands how Wikipedia works. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, that requirement would kill 80-90% of poker player articles. When you say that they are not reliable, do you not trust the quality of their reporting, or do you just think that the coverage is too "in-universe"? What you're saying is similar to WP:AUD, which exists so that a small-town business can't become notable just by being covered in the local news.
There are two aspects of notability: whether there is sufficient well-sourced content to write about the topic, and whether the topic is subjectively "important" enough for Wikipedia. The first aspect is obviously the most prominent one, and underlies WP:GNG, while the second has its roots in WP:NOT (especially WP:IINFO) and exists to cull topics that would otherwise overwhelm us because they pass GNG too easily, like small-town businesses (WP:AUD), small-town politicians (WP:NPOL), and events (WP:NOTNEWS). I don't think we have such a problem with poker players, so I would consider one notable as long as we have something to write about them. For that, determining which publications are reliable for sourced prose will determine which publications are reliable for establishing notability. IMO a poker player who has received coverage in widely read national or international poker publications is of greater encyclopedic interest than a small-town business that hasn't been written about outside its town.
Also, I wouldn't blindly trust a site that publishes statistics just because "if they didn't get that right they would have no customers". Famous Birthdays is a deprecated source on WP:RSP, yet they're still in business. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
By "not reliable for notability" what I mean is that any article about a poker player or poker-related topic that is only discussed on specialist poker websites isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. See WP:GNG Once an article has passed that bar, there is no problem with using specialist poker websites as sources for content.
Let's look at one example: Blind (poker). Clearly that page need work; zero citations. But is it notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? certainly. [ https://www.google.com/search?q=poker+blind&tbm=bks ] shows that a bunch of books talk about the topic. They just haven't been added to the article as citations.
OK, once we have determined that there should be an article on poker blinds, it is perfectly OK to use poker websites as sources about the topic. It would then be up to the person editing the article to decide which sources are good. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon It seems to me that your concern is more about the indepencence of the publications rather than the reliability. Much like we deprecate articles about companies or executives in many niche "trade magazines" as they tend to simply write what they are told (advertorials) instead of applying much editorial discretion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:GNG does not prohibit using specialized publications. Being involved in the same field does not mean that the publication is not independent; otherwise, we wouldn't be able to use, say, Politico or The Hill (newspaper) to establish notability for a politician because both are "involved" in politics. Therefore it is important to determine which poker publications have sufficient editorial oversight and fact-checking. Once that is met, I see no reason to disqualify such sources from satisfying GNG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Is The Media Fund a reliable source?

Note: not the california organization described in The Media Fund. This one is in the UK.

See [ https://themediafund.org/about-us/how-the-coop-works/ ].

Paragraph in Daily Mail where [ https://themediafund.org/news/daily-mail-most-unreliable-paper/ ] is used as a source:

The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research,[1][2][3][4][5] and for copyright violations.[6] The Daily Mail has won a number of awards, including receiving the National Newspaper of the Year award from the British Press Awards eight times since 1995, winning again in 2019.[7]
Reference list

References

  1. ^ Jackson, Jasper (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
  2. ^ "Daily Mail: Most Unreliable Paper For 3rd Year In A Row". The Media Fund. Retrieved 8 July 2020.
  3. ^ Collins, Lauren (April 2012). "Mail Supremacy". The New Yorker. Retrieved 12 January 2016.
  4. ^ Goldacre, Ben. "The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
  5. ^ Goldacre, Ben (2008). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate. ISBN 9780007240197.
  6. ^ Fletcher, Martin (29 April 2016). "What it's like to fall victim to the Mail Online's aggregation machine". New Statesman. Retrieved 2 July 2017.
  7. ^ Brown, Mariella (3 April 2020). "Winners of the National Press Awards for 2019 revealed – Society of Editors". Retrieved 20 June 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable enough to call the Daily Mail unreliable? Interesting meta question. This refers to a blog article referring to IPSO but without a specific link. Maybe we can find it at the source and use that? Here are yearly reports but I'm unsure how to read them. We have four others there that are without doubt reliable sources, if there is nothing better as alternative we can just remove it. --mfb (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
When this type of source is raised at RSN it is usually because editors want an article to say something but cannot find a good source. In this case the Daily Mail had more complaints upheld against it that any other paper but no media (except the Media Fund) chose to mention this because its record was only slightly worse than The Times and most of the other major newspapers aren't even included in the complaints system. To answer the question, I don't see any evidence of fact checking or other standards that would make the source reliable. I find it ironic to throw out Wikipedia's policies for content inclusion in order to say that the Daily Mail has a poor record for accuracy. But then I don't think this has ever been about the Daily Mail's reliability. TFD (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Canadaland

canadalandshow.com HTTPS links HTTP links is used 54 times as a source. Canadaland is a partly crowdfunded news site and podcast.

  • In 2015, Simon Houpt of the The Globe and Mail wrote a long article about the site and said that its editor has a track record of playing fast and loose with facts.
    • This article also cites some other evaluations such as Montreal Gazette blogger Steve Faguy stating that Canadaland has a habit of sensationalizing and editorializing.
  • Head of the CBC News Jennifer McGuire wrote an editor's blog about Canadaland. She wrote that Canadaland had deliberately made false assumptions and left out important facts.
  • In 2017, Canadaland published a fake obituary of Conrad Black. Christie Blatchford's National Post article detailed the incident: The problem is, it wasn’t a story or a column; it was a pretend obituary, fake news in the current lexicon. She concluded that It was, in short, a cruel and juvenile piece that no newspaper would ever publish, let alone with such relish. It shames the profession.

I'm a bit concerned that this is used as source about politics and other media outlets. Do you reckon that despite these controversies this is now a generally reliable source? --Pudeo (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be concerned too. That concern would lead me to not rely on this source for fact. I'd be cautious using it if at all which might be too generous Littleolive oil (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't use it either. (t · c) buidhe 09:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. — Newslinger talk 19:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, and have never heard of Canadaland until today. It certainly doesn't have the track record to be considered as a generally reliable source. PKT(alk) 20:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to PKT's view, I'd say Canadaland is reasonably well known in Canada as a podcast producer; among media people in Canada its news website is also well known. Canadaland's Thunder Bay podcast was praised by NPR's All Things Considered [32], IndieWire[33], CBC [34], and NOW [35]. At player.fm, Canadaland currently has two podcasts listed in the top 10 English-language Canadian podcasts by popularity [36]. As for its news reporting, my own impression is that Canadaland has high journalistic standards; for example, it publishes corrections/clarifications when any of its reporting is shown to be inaccurate. Opinion is distinguished from news reporting; for example the "obituary" of Conrad Black mentioned above is headlined "For Future Use: An Obituary For Conrad Black" [37] and labelled "OPINION", and makes clear that Conrad Black is not actually dead. The piece may be in poor taste but it is in no way fake news (defined as deliberate disinformation). Canadaland first became well known for its reporting on the Jian Ghomeshi scandal and has broken numerous stories relating to Canadian media [38]. News reporting by Canadaland does meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Some more information indicating Canadaland is considered a reliable source:
  • 2018 Toronto Star news article: "... Canadaland, an independent news website known for its coverage of the media." [39]
  • 2018 CP news article: "The statement was first published Saturday by the website Canadaland." [40]
  • 2020 CP news article: "Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer pointed Monday to a report by Canadaland that red flags were raised in 2018 by auditors..." [41]
  • 2020 National Post news article: "... information first revealed by the news site CANADALAND." [42]
  • 2017 Toronto Star column: "As Ashley Csanady, host of the political podcast Canadaland Commons, put it on the air this week..." [43]
  • 2020 CTV News story: "... shortly after Canadaland, which has reported extensively on WE, first broke the story on Twitter." [44]
  • 2020 CBC News story: "The website Canadaland reported on Morneau's familial ties to the WE Charity on Friday morning." [45]
  • 2014 Columbia Journalism Review: "... the freelancer who helped break the scandal, Canadaland's Jesse Brown ..." [46]
  • 2015 National Post news story: "... in an interview with the media watchdog website Canadaland on Wednesday." [47]
  • 2020 National Post news story: "In early 2018 she began a column for Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media, but was dropped at some point later the same year, according to CanadaLand." [48]
  • 2017 Montreal Gazette arts interview: "This is familiar territory for the podcast [i.e. Canadaland], which has been looking to tell Canada’s unheard stories since 2013, and has since expanded into a mini-media empire of free content primarily funded by voluntary donations with four weekly programs – which form Canada’s most popular podcast network – six full-time employees, a stable of paid freelancers and a news website known for breaking its own stories." [49]
Mathew5000 (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Given Mathew5000's demonstration of UBO, editorial control, and positive comments from other outlets, I'm is at worst a weakly reliable source. I've come across it on a couple occasions myself where it seemed like it might be useful, well-sourced, and balanced for those purposes (though I don't believe I wound up using it). Those cases when I considered using it involved discussion of other local Canadian media outlets. Jlevi (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As a rule, we should almost never be sourcing any content in Wikipedia articles to any podcasts; I can, in theory, imagine that special cases may occasionally exist where we have to use a podcast for reasons unique to a particular situation, but we should be minimizing that as much as possible. Just because a podcast is popular and well-known is not, in and of itself, evidence of whether its content is reliable or not — I'll grant that Canadaland has occasionally scooped the media on real stories, but there are at least as many examples of it messing stories up as there are of it getting stories right. Most of Mathew5000's links certainly offer verification that Canadaland exists — but almost none of them actually speak all that strongly to whether its content is reliable or not, which is not the same thing as existing. I'd be on the side of no, Canadaland should not be accepted as an RS. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bearcat: We aren't talking about information in Wikipedia being sourced to a Canadaland podcast, but rather to a news article on Canadaland's website. That's my understanding, anyway, based on the mention at the top of this thread of canadalandshow.com having been used 54 times as a source (canadalandshow.com HTTPS links HTTP links). Have a look, for example, at how the Canadaland news story "Toronto Star Suspending Internship Programs Indefinitely" is used as a source at Toronto Star#Internship program suspension. The links I posted above, to Canadaland being cited by the National Post and various other Canadian media, do more than verify that Canadaland exists. They show that other Canadian media treat Canadaland with some respect, for example reporting information that was first reported in Canadaland, or specifically describing Canadaland as "an independent news website known for its coverage of the news media" (which connotes that its reporting has a favourable reputation, not just that the website exists). Mathew5000 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
If we are using Daily Hive as a source—which we are, frequently—then Canadaland is at least as reliable. Daily Hive is at least half advertorial-style content and has been critiqued before for at-times shoddy journalism. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Daily Hive isn't a source we should be using, though. Obviously it gets used — a lot of people either don't understand or don't care what is or isn't a reliable source for our purposes, and will try to use just any web page they can find that technically supports the content (we even see people try to source stuff to iTunes, Netflix, Breitbart and YouTube!) — and it's not easy to always catch every attempt to use a bad source right away. But that doesn't mean it's a source that should be getting used. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We need to take into account the fact that Canadaland's main focus is media criticism, so when we cite the Globe & Mail, the CBC, and Christie Blatchford in opposition to them, these are all outlets and individuals that have come in for sustained criticism by Canadaland. The fact that they have wide public acceptance does not mean that they are impartial in their assessment of Canadaland. By the same token, if critical mentions in the media are sufficient basis to discount a source, then given that Canadaland's primary purpose is to document the failings, omissions, and biases in these and other media outlets in Canada, one could just as easily argue on the basis of that documentation that the Globe & Mail, the CBC, and certainly Christie Blatchford are themselves not reliable news sources.
I would be curious to know how many of the people who discount Canadaland have actually consumed much of their journalism. I've been following them for years and find them quite reputable. I would venture to suggest that anyone who has 'never heard of Canadaland until today' should perhaps not be weighing in on their reliability. The only solid basis for discounting Canadaland is to cite specific instances of stories which they both got wrong and then refused to correct. We should be extremely wary of basing our judgement on a vague sense that they're problematic, especially when that vague sense might well have been created by Republican PR firms hired by WE. Standingwolf (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC) — Standingwolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nikkei

We currently have around 1,600 citations to Nikkei, including around 600 to the main Japanese language newspaper per www.nikkei.com HTTPS links HTTP links and over 1,000 to the English language Nikkei Asian Review per asia.nikkei.com HTTPS links HTTP links. I think that the Nikkei Asian Review is generally reliable. However I am unfamilar with the domestic papers reputation. The Economist has some interesting views from the FT purchase.

Nikkei journalists themselves have a reputation for knowing everyone and everything that matters—but holding their punches on controversial stories. One former reporter, Shigeo Abe, who spent 25 years at the paper before leaving to set up Facta, a monthly investigative business magazine, says its journalists are overly timid due to their fear of legal action and losing ad revenues from the big companies they cover.

This is corobborated by a quote from the New Yorker, also related to the FT purchase.

Japanese reporters, and those who work for Nikkei in particular, have a reputation for going easy on the country’s corporations

There's also some interesting criticism in this piece from the Irish Times, which aside from the previously mentioned criticisms also states that the paper was uncritical of Abenomics, again similar in Quartz. I think from this that Nikkei is the gold standard source for Japanese financial reporting and generally reliable, but it's reporting is considerably less hard hitting than one would expect from Western newspaper, but this criticism is one that could be applied to most Japanese newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think how hard they hit comes into consideration when assessing reliability. In any event Nikkei is generally reliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

etymonline

There are over 2,500 references to this site. The About page indicates it's a one-man psudonymous amateur project. Am I misreading this? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Nope, its how it reads to me, an SPS if ever I saw one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don’t think we should be citing it, it’s sometimes wrong. For example, it claims Hun is a Turkic word when this is not known or even the most common theory among specialists. It’s somewhat opaque in its sourcing too. It’s also definitely a one man project. (I use it as a convenient source in my private life, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good source for Wikipedia).—Ermenrich (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2020‎ (UTC)
Just to clarify: I'm generally in agreement that unless it can be shown to be wrong (in situations where a lot of other dictionaries might be wrong according to specialist literature), Etymoline should receive a better sourced needed tag rather than being removed entirely.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should rely upon it, though I also have the sense that in any particular case, assuming that it's correct unless there's specific evidence to the contrary is a low-cost kind of error. In practical terms, I'd rather replace citations to it with {{cn}} tags than delete entirely the text sourced to it. (During the AfD for our article about it, I did a little work and !voted to keep, on the basis that it's wiki-notable even if not solidly reliable.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I've been known to use it for quick ref-desk answers and in my own private uses, but it does not have the provenance necessary for use in articles. There's literally nothing there that shouldn't instead be cited to better dictionaries (OED or Merriam-Webster) and it's only use seems to be "I'm too cheap to have an OED subscription to look this up in the actual source" (which is why I use it in less critical applications). In short, I like it, it's a cool project, but there's no way it's a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. --Jayron32 18:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The author might well be a subject-matter expert that qualifies as an exception to the self-published rule. His library of dictionaries with which he sources his work is far more vast than anything I ever imagined for myself. (I have been a collector and user of dictionaries for decades.) I checked quite of few of his entries against some of my own print dictionaries and found his etymologies to be accurate to the printed dictionaries, including "hun". I got an insight into his technique and level of scholarship at this link. I'm familiar with the old dictionaries he refers to in that essay. I once had a Johnson 1755 but was convinced to part with it for $500 cash. I still miss it; it was unique and distinct from other modern dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary (which I also used to have and sold, though kept the magnifying glass, LOL) is rather verbose and obtuse for the average reader, and even some scholarly ones. After reading his About page and several of his current essays, which you can find on the right side of the About page, he definitely is a researcher and very precise. He has a degree in history, he's published, he's worked as a copy editor — all key elements you would expect in a subject-matter expert for etymologies (his humble and self-deprecating manner notwithstanding). He's obviously a deep-dive researcher: "To write the Chester County books I immersed myself hours every day for years in censuses, old maps, letters, diaries, accounts, glass-plate photographs, deed books, minutes, newspaper morgues." Normal Op (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
An English etymological dictionary is not a good source for something like Hun. For actual scholarly opinions on the origins of the name Hun, you can see our Huns#Name and etymology which is well sourced and includes not a single Turkic derivation that has widespread support. I bring this up mostly because Etymonline is used as a source in the ongoing battles with Pan-Turkism here.
Also, I don't think that he can qualify as a self-published expert. He doesn't seem to have any credentials. Plenty of people amass large quantities of books on subjects.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Transclusions of {{OEtymD}} should be checked and the template deprecated or revised if consensus is that etymonline is not reliable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable and should be removed on sight—an obvious self-published WP:RS fail. This is an amateur website from an individual without a formal background in historical linguistics. Its entries are works of synthesis, and should not be trusted. The OED is widely available, as are various other etymological works produced by philologists. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Legit linguists use it frequently, but they characterize it as "a good place to start, but not to stop" (much like Wikipedia). Someone with access to the OED should replace existing citations with it, instead of indiscriminately replacing them with {{cn}}. Nardog (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is indeed self-published, but I've seen it cited by other sources that are credible. (It's not pseudonymous by the way; the author is Douglas Harper.) I remember it being widely cited (up until recently, at least) as a source on Dictionary.com. You can see evidence of this through this type of Google search. Linguist Daniel Midgley often lauds the source on his podcast Talk the Talk; here's one of many examples where Midgley lists the source in an episode's show notes. I actually emailed Midgley about this about five months ago. He contended that Harper had a Patreon post where he addressed questions as to his credibility and "has looked up every word in many sources, including the OED, Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, and some others. From what I've seen, it seems pretty solid. I use it. I haven't seen any clangers. I try not to make it my only source. The OED is better, perhaps, but not everyone has access to it." Midgley admitted that he really knows nothing about Harper's personal credentials. Wolfdog (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree it would probably be better to cite the actual references he uses instead of him. Quite often the OED has the same information as is being cited, but I don't think the reference should be removed, just tagged with {{better citation needed}} until knowing which of his sources was used and the citation replaced. Removing the citation or just replacing it with a {{cn}} makes it harder for subsequent editors to track down an appropriate source to back up that fact since they no longer have his list of sources as a starting point. Umimmak (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The "Better source needed" tag is the correct course in my opinion. EtymOnline is better than nothing since it's usually pretty okay, but in general we should prefer the OED and similar sources with editorial oversight. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with replacing the citations with better sources, or—if no RS is at hand—adding {{bcn}}-tags as default solution, since etymonline is an SPS by an amateur who is obviously highly competent, but has no credentials based on earlier peer-reviewed publications that could "heal" the SPS-issue. If someone feels compentent enough to contest a dubious etymology, but has no source for the correct solution, they may replace the citation with a {{cn}}-tag or even remove the complete information, but a removal spree as default procedure would create more harm than benefit. –Austronesier (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreeing that we should prefer other sources. It's got occasional inaccuracies, but my impression is that there aren't more of them than you would expect in any "properly" edited popular dictionary (which is an impressive feat for the mostly one-man project that it is). I don't see a need for blanket removal of existing citations. If any editor has reliable enough grounds for believing this dictionary to be wrong, then presumably they should be able to produce a reliable enough source with which to rewrite the text in question. And obviously, Etymonline shouldn't be used for words like "Hun" where there exists a lot of scholarly literature. – Uanfala (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe

What is the reliability of claims cited to the "Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe"? "about us" German Wikipedia article Apparently (not mentioned on their website) it is a project of Gudrun Kugler, a Roman Catholic Austrian anti-abortionist, theologian, and (far-)right-wing politician for the Österreichische Volkspartei. It seems to be cited on the listed as an external link on the Anti-Catholicism article, on Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era, and possibly elsewhere for statements of fact. Their neutrality and thus their reliability seems prima facie dubious. Should the external links remain in place? GPinkerton (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No. I just looked at it in respect of the current dispute on ANI. The lead item on the website was sourced to the mayor's facebook page. The site is attempting to weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians. It meets none of the reliable, verifiable, independent norms we expect. Cabayi (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Cabayi and GPinkerton, this is Wikipedia:Systemic bias, so reporting on church vandalism disqualifies it as reliable? Unfortunate, the "mainstream media" does not pick up those type of stories. Also, news sites regularly report on Facebook posts or Tweets from political figures and or celebrities. But, a local mayor documenting church vandalism is just a "narrative". Cabayi, I find you statement "weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians" quite frankly despicable, as a Christian I'm offended. I find numerous NGOs, charities, and issue specific news sites cited in Wikipedia, apparent this is where you draw the line. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@E-960: Church vandalism is a very long way from persecution of anyone. Wikipedia represents a global mainstream perspective, not that of an aggrieved(-feeling) minority. Your taking offence to a quite anodyne remark is completely irrelevant. GPinkerton (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
E-960, you're misrepresenting what I said. I don't accuse the local mayor of weaving - it's clearly intoleranceagainstchristians.eu weaving multiple minor incidents into a larger narrative. Only by aggregating trivia can the website make a supposed anti-Christian story.
If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the [...] conspiracy". It's an excellent piece on the value (and to whom) of exaggerating the importance of events. Cabayi (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Cabayi, I understand and I do not agree, one citation comes from a NGO the other form an established charity which also has a news website. They are not weaving a "narrative" how many time did I see a news blurbs about site vandalism (related to other groups), these are treated as a crime and statistics are documented by the police and often compiled and analyzed by NGOs. But, in this case when this NGO is compiling and analyzing stats on church vandalism it's a "narrative". Again, I don't agree with that view and its not a "conspiracy theory" when in 2019 you have 3000 reported cases of vandalism in churces. --E-960 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The question is actually about using it as a link in the list of "External links". The site is basically a curated database of cases which provides links to the sources of information like here. One should use these linked sources as RS. However, this in not "a link to avoid" because it maybe useful for a reader of this page. Hence I think this link might be restored. My very best wishes (talk)
    It's just a tiny little bit disingenuous to claim that what that actual sources say looks like a fire started by a short-circuit is an instance of a case of intolerance and discrimination against Christians. No, we should NOT link to that.Vexations (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not about one news story about a short circuit or a graffiti, the sites document issues facing Christians. --E-960 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we should hold "External links" to a lower overall standard than inline sources; if the former can't in principle be promoted to the latter, there's often something wrong. A polemical aggregator with no established reputation for accuracy or fact-checking is not a WP:RS (and this would apply just as much to a random communist's website recording "instances of discrimination against atheists"). We shouldn't point readers to such things, whether by footnote, endnote or "External link" bullet point. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That's because Wikipedia:External links and WP:RS are very different guidelines. Here is overall idea: some links in section "External links" may not be necessarily reliable sources, but they should be provided if they link to information that may helpful for a reader, even if it may not be sufficiently reliable. For example, providing a link to Uniprot (another curated database) from a page about a specific protein is fine, even if the reliability of Uniprot as a source can be debatable. But of course not all links are good. Hence WP:ELNO. "Random communist site" may or may not be OK, depending the site and specific WP page. That one? I am not so sure. If it would be a notable resource we have a page about, I would be sure. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
What's the difference between say Amnesty International and Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe? Both report on the issues they see fit, compile data form individuals as well as government sources. But a report by one would be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia, while the other not. We should treat all NGOs the same, if both are registered and official NGOs. --E-960 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The legal status of an NGO is not what grants it credibility. You can be batshit crazy and still register an NGO. The quality of reporting is what makes the difference. Amnesty international also has its own problems, as it is very biased in terms of issues such as capital punishment. They should not all be treated the same by virtue of all being registered NGOs, in stead - their track record of publications should be analyzed for reliability and biases, with their acceptibility on wikipedia determined on account of how well they fare when judged by those factors. As for an NGO that hasn't made a name for itself - one should be careful and opt to find corroborating sources. If none exist, the validity of their claims becomes questionable. This has nothing to do as to wether or not they report on church vandalism, it has everything to do with establishing credibility. Of course, I would welcome any evidence you could provide that could prove this NGO's credibility as an RS. NGOs should be held to the same standards, but that standard shouldn't be "is it registered?". Goodposts (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Some NGOs are notable, recknowned, have an editorial staff, work with recknowned experts and other bodies, etc. Others are small propaganda advocacy orgs with dubious reliability. It really depends. As for external links, they have to be relevant to the topic and controversial links are usually not preserved. As aforementioned, some are usable as sources with WP:ATTRIBUTION despite doing advocacy. For both sources and external links, WP:CONSENSUS still matters on a per-article/per-topic basis. In this case it would be better to use a less partisan source; Wikipedia is also not for WP:PROMOTION. —PaleoNeonate – 20:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
My very best wishes, Vexations, Goodposts and PaleoNeonate, I find some of the arguments presented here as evidence of Wikipedia:Systemic bias, right of out the gate, User:Cabayi starts to throw around not too subtle jabs that my views regarding the Christian marginalization in Europe are akin to conspiracy theories, and User:GPinkerton bluntly accuses the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe of having far-right ties because Gudrun Kugler is a ÖVP politician (apparently the party of the current Austrian prime minister Sebastian Kurz is far-right). If you are going to be so blatantly bias and use such non-neutarl language to descibe my arguments as the two editors above mentioned you are pushing nothing more then Cultural Maxistim talking points, utilizing the same approach taken by the Bolsheviks, who called themselves the "majority", even though they were not, and took power through a coup not a democratic vote, yet always presented themselves as the voice of the people, and viciously attacked everyone including moderate democratic voices in Russia (everyone not on the left is a radical right-winger). Also, please focus on the 2019 report here [50], which was put out the the NGO not some individual news articles. Finally, this NGO is frequently cited by religious news sites [51] or [52]. --E-960 (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Btw, the U.S. Helsinki Commission held a briefing titled The State-Sanctioned Marginalization of Christians in Western Europe [53],[54] and BBC posted this article on the issue of Christian persecution in the Middle-east [55], quoting that in the West "political correctness had played a part in the issue not being confronted." --E-960 (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
If I am correct in assuming that by "Cultural Maxistim" you meant "Cultural Marxism", then I hope you know that the concept of "Cultural Marxism" is in itself a conspiracy theory. Furthrmore, you mention the Bolsheviks - while you are correct that their name is derived from the russian word for "majority", it does not reffer to a majority of the russian population, but rather a majority of representatives at a congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party. The Bolshevik faction held a majority in the congress and as such managed to pass a motion regarding party membership over an opposition faction, whose proposition was supported only by a minority of representatives and as such were labled "Mensheviks" (from the Russian word for "minority"). Not that it really matters though, because the entire argument over Bolsheviks is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Goodposts (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Good point about the cultural marxism conspiracy theory, —PaleoNeonate – 02:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. Special pleading and personal attacks are not convincing. Being a registered NGO is not a sign of reliability. No evidence of credible reputation has been presented, while several warning signs have been brought up here.--Hippeus (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
No pleading, just blatant Wikipedia:Systemic bias. --E-960 (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Systemic bias should not be used as a club to include sources that are unsuitable for Wikipedia standards. I worry that this website has been added as a form of WP:ADVOCACY to promote a certain narrative. Vandalism isn't necessarily motivated by anti-christian sentiment. (t · c) buidhe 00:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable per Hippeus. There could in principle be a reliable website on this topic, but as Cabayi pointed out, this isn't it. XOR'easter (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. "The Scottish Justice Committee has proposed a new hate crime bill, which extends the current hate crime law covering race, to include other "protected characteristics" such as religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity." Sorry, guys, but stopping people from engaging in Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia and the like is not oppressing Christians, it's oppressing bigots. You can certainly be a Christian and not be a bigot - most Christians in the EU manage it just fine. And that kind of idiosyncratic interpretation of "oppression" also disqualifies it as an external link. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Dating

I am interested in knowing what editors think about the effect of deprecating sources. I haven’t been able to find an explicit answer in policy though there are some hints. If a source A is deprecated at time , what effect does that have on our ability to use articles in A that were published at time ? More particularly, suppose source A has been examined by the community at times and at each time has been found to be reliable. Suppose that at time t_{n}}"/> a further examination of A found it to be unreliable. Does this latter decision affect the usability of articles published at a time prior to when the source was regarded as reliable?

The hints in policy related to this come from wp:Deprecated sources which says:

"Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not". This suggests that once a source is deprecated, existing links to that source should not be removed without taking into account the specific circumstances related to it.

"Looking forward, however, the addition of new references from deprecated sources is extremely rare". New articles published by the source after it is deprecated should not generally be added to Wikipedia.

"Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia". Common sense is a nebulous concept. Common sense would seem to allow links to articles that were published during a period when that source was regarded as reliable.

Burrobert (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It might be more helpful if you're more specific. For example, which deprecated source are you looking to relitigate? --Calton | Talk 10:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
It's a general question. The list of deprecated sources is continually changing so it would be helpful to work out what the general principle, if any, is. It would also be useful to know that there is no general principle and that adding articles that date to a period when the source was reliable isn't specifically proscribed and may even be welcomed. Burrobert (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Burrobert is making an error in logic. He is assuming that if a source is found to be reliable and later found to be unreliable the reliability of the source must have changed. It is far more likely that the consensus changed with new editors, new arguments, and new examples.
To answer Burrobert's question, a source is only considered reliable before a certain date if the consensus of the latest discussion specifies that it was reliable before a certain date. Newer consensus overrides older consensus if the two differ. If the two agree, older consensus adds weight to the newer consensus, as in "We have has 432 RfCs on the reliability of [ https://www.zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]. The results ranged from No to Hell No." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I referred to a new vote deciding that a source was unreliable after it had previously been deemed reliable. I didn’t make an assumption about the reason for the change - whether this was due to a change in the nature of the source, change in the views of editors or other. It may be true that “it is far more likely that the consensus changed with new editors” but I didn’t include that assumption or its negation in my question.
Your answer to the question itself, ("Newer consensus overrides older consensus if the two differ") seems fairly clear and means that all references for a deprecated source back to the year dot become suspect unless the decision specifies a date. I note that the Daily Mail which was established in 1896 was deprecated in 2017 but "some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". On the other hand there was no such qualification in the deprecation of the Daily Express, first published in 1900 and The Sun, founded in 1964. Therefore all articles from these latter two publications, including reporting on Buddy Holly, "Ben Hur", space monkey, Mafia, Hula hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go, U-2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy, Chubby Checker, "Psycho", Belgians in the Congo are suspect. Burrobert (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
fwiw, the Daily Express isn't deprecated. (Though it'd be a fine candidate for deprecation.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. Perhaps I was distracted by the note that it “is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail”. Burrobert (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

CB Insights

I see that we use CB Insights quite a bit for private company data. i.e. data about companies that are not public (e.g. startups), and any private acquisitions etc. Since private company data is hard to come by, there are a handful of reliable sources e.g. Crunchbase, CB Insights etc.

I found that this morning CB Insights, an article that I had created somewhile ago, was tagged for an AfD. Hence, my question if CB Insights is a reliable source specifically for pointed private company data (e.g. investment / funding value etc).

Ktin (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Looking at The Financial Times it seems that they rely on CB Insights data but don't actually seem to report much on the company that owns the database (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aft.com+"CB+Insights"). This suggests that it is a reliable source, but leaves a problem for notability at AfD. I see that the CB Insights page cites a Forbes article specifically on CB Insights, but that somebody has tagged that as an unreliable source, which is rather surprising, and also a question to be raised here. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    Andreas Philopater, Agree. That's what is leaving me conflicted - in the private markets (i.e. where the companies are not listed / public) reporting, CB Insights is used quite definitively for transaction data e.g. investments, valuation etc. Now, someone has marked CB Insights as a candidate for deletion, and I am struggling to explain. Ktin (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Religions a reliable source?

Is MDPI's journal Religions (website) a reliable source? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Questionable1 says MDPI journals are "hit and miss". JzG's User:JzG/Predatory implies that good journals would appear in "ISI JCR" and "DOAJ". Religions is listed at ISI JCR and listed at DOAJ. And I don't find it listed at this version of Bealls list. But the script at User:Headbomb/unreliable seems to flag it as "borderline source which often (but not always) fails higher sourcing requirements".VR talk 03:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As it says above, you should provide the article used as a source, the information it supports and the article it is used for. The North Toronto Town Crier for example is probably a good source for local restaurants that have just closed down but for the Middle East peace process or inter-planetary travel not so much. TFD (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The stats are not encouraging (IF 0.45 and dropping), it's safe to say that it's not going to be considered generally reliable., so it will depend on the authors and the specific content as TFD says. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Beall never listed journals when he could list publishers instead. Beall listed MDPI in 2014, but removed it in 2015. The main issue with MDPI, much like Frontiers, is that their editorial boards are pressured to accept crap and mediocre articles. So it'll always be a borderline source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306&oldid=1144963913"