Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
RfC: Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources provided they are properly attributed? E.g. Anti-hate organisation Hope not Hate report that...
--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Survey
Discussion thread
Doesn’t this discussion belong on the noticeboard? And don’t we normally discuss the reliability of a source within the context of its use? Work permit (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay done. I'm not sure what you mean by
within the context of its use
though, it's whenever it is used. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)- Scroll up to the instructions at the top of the page. Reliability always depends on context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi A Quest For Knowledge, Please see my answer lower down diff. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Scroll up to the instructions at the top of the page. Reliability always depends on context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Work permit regarding need to evaluate context. Hope not Hate is apparently an advocacy group, so it seems WP:BIASED would apply to potential use of this as a source.DynaGirl (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- We can not give an opinion on reliability unless we know the specific context in which a source is being cited. For example, a source might be unreliable if cited to support a statistic, yet quite reliable if used to support a quote, or a paraphrase of the author's opinion. Also, be aware that reliability might not be the only issue ... WP:UNDUE WEIGHT can be a factor (ie a source can be reliable for verifying the opinion of it's author, but that leaves open the question of whether the author's opinion is important enough be mentioned in the first place.) Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with DynaGirl. It's an advocacy group, so it's not going to be a good source for facts. It's a notable and influential one, that gets results, so may be useful as an opinion in some cases, but that's hardly the classic use of reliable sources. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, a political pressure group with an angle can't really be considered as RS, particularly when it is highly likely there is no editorial oversight. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps. Contra The C of E, the publications of a political pressure group might be RS for the views of their spokesperson, or the group as a whole, and may undertake and report on research. Conisertaion of possible bias or balance would depend on the context of use.Martinlc (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, in reply to the specific question at the start, which was "Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources provided they are properly attributed? E.g. 'Anti-hate organisation Hope not Hate report that...'". That is not "proper attribution" -- "report" makes it sound like they're passing on news rather than opinions, and "anti-hate organisation" is an assertion in Wikipedia voice that they are what they claim to be. Others say otherwise. Maajid Nawaz (who persuaded SPLC to withdraw similar stuff) called one of their reports a "witch-hunt that conflates Muslim reformers and critics of Islam, with bigots". And, since context has been brought up: coincidentally I tried to remove a not-attributed-in-text hopenothate.org.uk cite from a BLP yesterday but Newimpartial quickly re-inserted it. I assume though that The Vintage Feminist has a different case in mind. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Peter Gulutzan: that looks like a pretty good example of a case where a group like Hope Not Hate would be perfectly fine. It's a totally non-controversial statement of fact that can also be verified by looking at primary sources - better sources might exist, but they're certainly reliable enough for something like "such and such published this book". Nblund talk 15:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it can be verified by primary sources, and one is already cited, adding unreliable sources adds nothing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Peter Gulutzan: that looks like a pretty good example of a case where a group like Hope Not Hate would be perfectly fine. It's a totally non-controversial statement of fact that can also be verified by looking at primary sources - better sources might exist, but they're certainly reliable enough for something like "such and such published this book". Nblund talk 15:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say notable for what they claim (many RS seem to use them in just this way "hope not hate said). But not RS for putting as if it is an irrefutable fact.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The Vintage Feminist, please note the instructions for this page:
Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:
- Source. The book or web page being used as the source. If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc. If it's an online source, please link to it. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
- Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: Article name.
- Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
I suggest/request that you delete the RFC template. Discussions here generally aren't tagged as RFCs, and you've already gotten about the best answers that you're going to get for a question that doesn't identify the Article or Content involved. Alsee (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Alsee, There now exists a list WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, the original idea for the list was mine and I was asked to contribute diff. I thought of adding Hope not Hate (the source mentioned in the RfC) but realized there was no discussion / consensus on the group. So I created this RfC to see what the community thinks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the RfC is closed. (I am adding this because RfCs frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Question was there a specific article or discussion that brought this up? I couldn't find it. Simonm223 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- IT DEPENDS. Only with a specific article and edit can one tell if a source is RS. An advocacy group would be a WP:BIASED RS type, good for their POV position and attributed items, but not for statements phrased as wiki voice. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- As an advocacy group, publications from this source should be assessed in accordance with Wikipedia's guideline on biased and opinionated sources when used to support article content. However, this source should not be used to determine notability in an AfD discussion. — Newslinger talk 18:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
RfC about the reliability of The Verge as a source for use in articles relating to tech, science, culture, and cars
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is The Verge generally considered a reliable news source for use in articles relating to technology, science, culture, and cars? --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes for technology, science, and cars. A quick check on Google News confirms The Verge has been sourced by unambiguously RS outlets on these topics (including Forbes, TIME, and the AP) indicating existing RS are satisfied with its veracity. In addition, it has a gatekeeping process, a physical personality, and is not primarily involved in persuasive or advocacy communication. Culture is a broad topic that could encompass just about anything but I would generally say yes to that, as well with situational qualifications. Chetsford (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Generally yes is this RfC out of the blue? or is there prior discussion regarding this topic that we should be aware of? Their Ethics Statement page seems to indicate a good editorial policy, and media bias fact check indicates that they have good factual reporting but that they have a centre-left bias (like most media outlets). I'm not seeing any other outlets accusing them of 'fake news' either.[1] Generally I'd consider them reliable for technology, science, and cars. As far as 'culture' goes, I would probably be careful to attribute anything they said that might be impacted by their political bias, though I would still consider them a reliable source (perhaps WP:RSOPINION when it comes to some political coverage). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Insertcleverphrasehere: You are correct that this is out of the blue. This source isn't like The Washington Post (see above), so figured that an RfC would be the best way to (hopefully) gather wider community consensus either way. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Depends on context - they seem a tech pop culture site, with opinions and sensation. A bit light on facts rather than being biased, and it specific topics in these fields rather than generally informative -- so it may not be appropriate for a specific context, or may not be the WP:BESTSOURCE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Generally yes for the topics of tech, science, culture, and cars, although I would qualify that as "pop" culture. They have a reasonably good editorial policy and reputation for fact-checking. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Generally yes as per ICPH and K.e.coffman. Established and relatively-reputable tech news source with clear editorial structure, fact-checking policies, no particular reputation for sensationalism or gossip-mongering... though as with many tech blog-type sites, we should be careful with posts that might seem overly promotional or based mostly or solely on press releases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes – Many technology articles I've come across on that site are regurgitated or corroborated in other reliable sources, such as AnandTech and Forbes. They are generally well written and highly accurate. I can't personally vouch for other topic areas such as culture, but I have no reason to be concerned. Throwing my hat into the 'yes' column doesn't mean I wouldn't suggest to an editor to bring any specific examples to RSN if they question one from Verge: all publishers/sites can have a few bad apples from time to time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comments I don't believe this question is answerable as asked. And while it is debatable (and is being debated) how much prominence should be accorded to an essay that summarizes RSN's prior discussion of sources "that are frequent topics of discussion regarding their reliability and use on Wikipedia", starting discussions/RFC's solely to generate such discussion, goes against the purpose and capabilities of this noticeboard. Therefore I request that this RFC be withdrawn. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree. The question is mostly answerable, though it probably would have been better to ask "Is The Verge generally considered a reliable news source", and it seems that !voters have responded to this error by captioning their !vote with 'generally' instead. Having a list that summarises RSN discussions is useful, and having discussions to add to that list is also useful. A lot of users that frequent this noticeboard would have used the verge before, or seen it used, and have an opinion on it. This is the place where it is going to be best to ask a question like this. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Clarified per suggestion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree. The question is mostly answerable, though it probably would have been better to ask "Is The Verge generally considered a reliable news source", and it seems that !voters have responded to this error by captioning their !vote with 'generally' instead. Having a list that summarises RSN discussions is useful, and having discussions to add to that list is also useful. A lot of users that frequent this noticeboard would have used the verge before, or seen it used, and have an opinion on it. This is the place where it is going to be best to ask a question like this. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Unanswerable and this should be withdrawn by the proposer. Some pieces might be reliable for some specific kinds of content. It is not reliable for any WP:Biomedical information per WP:MEDRS and is unlikely to be reliable for anything scientific. Some pieces will be opinion and only reliable if attributed to the author. This should be pulled as it is too general. (If the question was meant to be, "Is The Verge generally unreliable?" the answer would be "no", but that is not the question. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would argue that MEDRS overrides the reliable nature of any source when it comes to something doing directly with human health and medicine. So when people ask "is X generally reliable", this is not in any way implicit to override what MEDRS says. And of course, every source may have individual cases that make it unreliable, and we are presuming that that case-by-case basis is implicit when one asks "is X generally reliable". --Masem (t) 02:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, but people often read "science" broadly to include medical things. That's why I directly brought that up. :) In any case questions like this are a waste of time; as I noted we can sometimes say "generally unreliable; if used must be attributed and there needs to be some very good reason to use it" (a la Daily Mail) but it is impossible to answer the question posed. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would argue that MEDRS overrides the reliable nature of any source when it comes to something doing directly with human health and medicine. So when people ask "is X generally reliable", this is not in any way implicit to override what MEDRS says. And of course, every source may have individual cases that make it unreliable, and we are presuming that that case-by-case basis is implicit when one asks "is X generally reliable". --Masem (t) 02:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- See the top of this page. Article. Material to be included. Source. All three things are required to determine reliability. Any pop-culture source will be all over the reliability scale depending on what material it is being used for and where. I would also add that after long experience, when someone asks a general 'is source X reliable' it tends to turn out there is an article somewhere where someone is questioning that source. It makes it easier for everyone if editors just followed the damn instructions at the top. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the RfC is closed. (I am adding this because RfCs frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Their feature articles, long-form articles, and full-length reviews are almost always well-researched and written to high standards. I would consider any of their articles in these categories reliable. Their shorter articles should be treated similarly to most articles on Engadget and TechCrunch, generally reliable, as long as:
- Coverage of products, companies, or people involves some investigative research beyond regurgitated press releases, and
- Coverage of culture is written in a neutral journalistic tone, and not in the informal tone expected of an opinion piece.
- — Newslinger talk 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes - Both myself and the Video Games Wikiproject have evaluated and used it extensively in the past. There is a consensus there that it's generally a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Is Designers & Dragons a RS for: (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs?
Recently the question arose as to whether or not Designers & Dragons [2], a book on fantasy role-play games, is a WP:RS for (a) games and game companies, (b) WP:BLPs.
- Publisher: The book's publisher is Evil Hat, a fantasy game and t-shirt company located somewhere in the United States (no physical address is given on its website and I was unable to locate it via a reverse EIN search either). [3]
- Author: The book's author is Shannon Applecline. A bio purporting to be that of Applecline is here: [4].
- Reception: The book has been cited in about two-dozen master's degree theses and undergraduate term papers. [5] A check of JSTOR and Google News finds no scholarly journals or mainstream media which have reviewed it. It is cited once each in Empire of Imagination: Gary Gygax and the Birth of Dungeons & Dragons from Bloomsbury and Dragons in the Stacks: A Teen Librarian's GUide to Tabletop Role-Playing from ABC-CLIO.
Is this source RS for (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs? Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Undecided on "A", No on "B" - I'm undecided leaning towards "RS" for games and game companies. However, I don't believe this could surmount the high threshold required to source a BLP. Neither the publisher nor author have any non-fiction credits other than this book and the author has no known educational credentials, or wider journalistic / academic reputation, that would qualify him to conduct original historical or biographical research. I have been unable to find any physical presence for the publisher by which it could be held legally responsible for what it publishes, as it appears not to disclose its physical address and even a reverse EIN search turns up blank. With the exception of undergraduate papers and master theses (which are not, themselves, RS) instances of the book being cited by reliable sources are light and there's no examples of it being used to cite a biographical statement in a RS (only product descriptions). Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Given the lack of information on the publisher, and low profile of the author, I would say the book is not a reliable source, period. - Donald Albury 02:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Donald Albury, for the reasons stated. Not reliable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Being published by a game company I would suspect it fails the editorial control/reputation for fact checking and accuracy criteria. On the other hand several volumes have been published so that is enough to establish a reputation. On yet another hand, I see no evidence of other reliable sources making use of it, which is really the only proxy we have for its reputation and acceptance. Based on that I do not think it could be considered a reliable source for anything until we can get a better handle on its editorial control and fact checking. Jbh Talk 05:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Designers & Dragons is cited by many/all of the authoritative scholarly sources in the field (as WP:SECONDARY reminds us to check whether "the source has entered mainstream academic discourse"). Most recently, Designers & Dragons is cited extensively and with evident approbation in Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundations, the new academic text, published by Routledge, which for now is the leading text in the field. I can produce earlier citations of Designers & Dragons, but SCHOLARSHIP seems to be easily met by its role in unquestionably reliable sources, and SCHOKARSHIP is, as I understand it, the "gold standard for both BIO and CORP sources. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- What you say appears to be incorrect. It is listed in several chapter's bibliographies and as 'Further reading' but I see nothing directly cited to the work. Without that it is impossible to know what it was used for. So, yes, it was consulted but I see no indication in that work that it was used for historical information about gaming companies which is the matter at hand here. This paper used it for some historical information on D&D, TSR. Jbh Talk 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- The above statement appears to be misleading. The Routledge text employs chapter bibliographies rather than individual citations, based on its intended use in universities. Most of the chapter references are either primary sources or academic/theoretical sources. The repeated references to Designers & Dragons in the bibliographies give it pride of place as a secondary source in the field, as having "entered mainstream scholarly discourse". Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is an … erm … interesting … source analysis. I will however disagree. We can not infer anything other than several authors looked at the work. In particular there is no indication that the work was used for the history of game companies, which is what we are examining it for here, or is any way considered generally authoritative purpose by the academic community. My concern is that the publisher has no history of academic, or even non-fiction, publishing. Therefore I do not accept, without evidence, that the editorial standards they have for publishing games are adequate, particularly in terms of fact checking and accuracy, for an authoritative "academic" work. I just looked at the Amazon free sample of the work and it is no more than a narrative history. I see no citations for facts nor any indications that it is reliable beyond a single person's observations and musings. It is effectively an oral history – a good work but essentially a primary source. Jbh Talk 17:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- The above statement appears to be misleading. The Routledge text employs chapter bibliographies rather than individual citations, based on its intended use in universities. Most of the chapter references are either primary sources or academic/theoretical sources. The repeated references to Designers & Dragons in the bibliographies give it pride of place as a secondary source in the field, as having "entered mainstream scholarly discourse". Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- What you say appears to be incorrect. It is listed in several chapter's bibliographies and as 'Further reading' but I see nothing directly cited to the work. Without that it is impossible to know what it was used for. So, yes, it was consulted but I see no indication in that work that it was used for historical information about gaming companies which is the matter at hand here. This paper used it for some historical information on D&D, TSR. Jbh Talk 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Designers & Dragons is cited by many/all of the authoritative scholarly sources in the field (as WP:SECONDARY reminds us to check whether "the source has entered mainstream academic discourse"). Most recently, Designers & Dragons is cited extensively and with evident approbation in Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundations, the new academic text, published by Routledge, which for now is the leading text in the field. I can produce earlier citations of Designers & Dragons, but SCHOLARSHIP seems to be easily met by its role in unquestionably reliable sources, and SCHOKARSHIP is, as I understand it, the "gold standard for both BIO and CORP sources. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Being published by a game company I would suspect it fails the editorial control/reputation for fact checking and accuracy criteria. On the other hand several volumes have been published so that is enough to establish a reputation. On yet another hand, I see no evidence of other reliable sources making use of it, which is really the only proxy we have for its reputation and acceptance. Based on that I do not think it could be considered a reliable source for anything until we can get a better handle on its editorial control and fact checking. Jbh Talk 05:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Donald Albury, for the reasons stated. Not reliable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Given the lack of information on the publisher, and low profile of the author, I would say the book is not a reliable source, period. - Donald Albury 02:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it is for A and B - and a note that the user who opposed has been trying to argue for mass deletion of pages that rely on it as a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Given it is published by a games company, I would say no. There are issues if primary source and even SPS here. OK maybe they might be OK for historical information, about people or products that have no connection to the company. But outside that I would say they are not interdependent enough to be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed that each edition of Designers & Dragons is not RS for the publisher at the time, which is the one issue of independence. Also agreed that its relevance is for historical/factual information, not really for analysis.Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I believe it meets all three criteria. To clarify on the part of the publisher, there have been two editions of the book, published by two separate game publishers who I believe are fully independent from each other and are headquartered in different countries. The first edition of the book was published as a single volume in 2011 by British game company Mongoose Publishing. The second edition was greatly expanded and published in 2014 in four volumes by US game company Evil Hat Productions. The first edition consists of roughly 50-60 chapters, with each chapter consisting of a history of one game company that was known for producing role-playing games, including discussing the people who have been a part of that company, and games that the company is known for. The text is written as partial oral history and partial commentary on decisions made by the companies. The second edition expands on the information in the first edition by adding more than 20 additional chapters on other companies, and expanding on the information featured in most of the chapters from the first edition; most of the text is reproduced identically from the first edition. Shannon Appelcline himself has been a game designer/writer, and he currently runs RPGnet and publishes articles there - most of the information from the first edition of Designers & Dragons was and still is on RPGnet, written for fans of the website before Mongoose agreed to publish it as a book. I would say his design experience and research qualifies him as an expert in the field. The credits of the book list a few dozen industry professionals that he consulted for information to write the book with. Important individuals in the field are discussed in detail in the book, including in some cases talking somewhat about their earlier lives and schooling, personal lives, and careers before and after getting into the gaming field. BOZ (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Appelcline does not cite his sources inline in the text, but at the end of the Mongoose edition, he provides a bibliography of sources "built from thousands of primary sources including interviews, design notes, reviews, news articles, press releases, catalogues, forum postings and other non-fiction articles. It was also built with the assistance of hundreds of readers, fact-checkers and scanners." He lists over 30 magazines and similar publications ("a solid collection of RPG magazines dating back through the ‘80s and ’90, before the age of the internet made it easy for publishers to get information out to fans"), more than a dozen non-fiction books about the industry ("Any number of RPG books was consulted, primarily for insight into that game or its publisher. The following non-fiction sources were also used. Secondary sources like the Role-Playing Bibles tended to be used for date confirmation and references to primary sources, not for analysis.") several web resources ("The web proved an invaluable resource, particularly for companies in existence from the late ‘90s onward [and] a few of the web sites that I visited multiple times over the course of the project") and he lists several dozen fact checkers, most of whom worked for one or more of the companies he wrote about ("Whenever I finished an article, I tried to get one or more people associated with the company in question to comment on it. In one or two cases where I did not have sufficient company feedback, I got some help from fans as well. These people helped to make this book considerably more accurate and informative thanks to both corrections and insight generously given. Some were kind enough to comment on multiple editions of these articles over the years."). BOZ (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Which means his assertions are untraceable and uncheckable. The reliability of the source then comes down to, in my opinion, the reputation of the publisher, which for reasons I have previously mentioned, is inadequate. The deficiencies of documentation and publisher could be offset if the author had a reputation for, or training in historiography. He does not. There is no doubt the author put great time and effort into his work but, for the reasons I have stated, I do not believe it meets the Wikipedia's standards to be considered a reliable source for company histories or BLP. Jbh Talk 19:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please see instructions at the top. What article and what material is this being used to reference? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Only in death does duty end, sorry. It's used quite extensively in BLPs so I can't provide an exhaustive list, however, here are a few examples:
- M. Alexander Jurkat - used to cite entire article including professional licenses (attorney), bankruptcy, inspirations / favorite things, and employment history [6]
- John Harshman - used to cite educational credentials and place of residence [7]
- Fred Hicks - used to cite the entire article, including the BLP's employment history, employment status, favorite things, friendships, and inspirations. [8]
- Andria Hayday - used to cite date the BLP's employer terminated them [9]
- Jack Herman - used to cite most of article, including the BLP's legal disputes and details of his business contracts with other people [10]
- Shane Lacy Hensley - used to cite most of article, including place of birth, childhood hobbies, and detailed employment history
- Dale Henson - used to cite entire article [11]
- Chetsford (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Only in death does duty end, sorry. It's used quite extensively in BLPs so I can't provide an exhaustive list, however, here are a few examples:
- Not reliable for company histories nor for BLP per my arguments above. The publisher is not an established publisher of non-fiction works and therefore can not be assumed to have adequate editorial controls for fact checking and accuracy. What I have seen of the work (Amazon sample) it is written as an oral history and provides no backstop for facts presented beyond the assertion of its author. Jbh Talk 17:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Reliable for both Each of the four volumes provides a Bibliography citing the sources used. Many of the sources are, in turn, other publications such as magazines. There is also a fifth volume entitled "Designers & Dragons The Platinum Appendix" that also lists all the references used. For me, the books meet the criteria of a reliable source. The books have been published and are available to purchase in hard copy form, and they're available and stocked in book stores. In addition, the author is identified and the publisher identified. The books have been cited in academic sources and has been acknowledged in lots of other sources as a comprehensive history. For example, The Oxonian Review which has an editorial board.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC (UTC)
- Reliable for Games/Companies, unsure for BLP Designers and Dragons is extremely heavily used and referenced inside the RPG industry and generally hailed as the pre-eminent source for RPG histories. Shannon Appelcline is regarded as the premier historian of RPGs. The first edition was published by Mongoose Publishing and the second edition multi volume set was published by Evil Hat. Note that the author does not work for either of those companies, it was just the means of publishing. The work is generally referenced (not as specifically and heavily as Wikipedia but all sources are listed), but as for many communities the outside oversight is minor as it is for every smaller subject area. Most company information is heavily cross referenced to people who worked for those companies and additional third party sources about the companies. As for BLP I'd be a little more unsure but considering the number of people interviewed for the work and since Shannon used most major players in the industry, I'd say it's as reliable a source for BLPs of the prominent people in the RPG industry as any, but I'm open to an argument against it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Addition I would also like to add that since it covers all aspects of the tabletop RPG industry, it should NOT be used for notability determination, just fact checking and claim supports like any other text on an industry. The fact that a game is included in it doesn't make that game/company notable as it goes into details on a lot of obscure RPGs. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Borderline, reliable for non-extraordinary claims about game companies but not for BLPs. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the guideline governing the type of source it purports to be, since the publisher is not academic we ascertain reliability by citation patterns. As discussed above, it is cited only in sources that are themselves marginal—theses and tiny start-up journals—with the exception of the Routledge collection, which is edited by an associate professor and a PhD in Media Studies. In this, it's cited only a half-dozen times, albeit usually for substantial points of fact, and chapter 4, Tabletop Role-Playing Games, names it as one of two sources on which "the historical arc traced here draws in large measure upon". Balancing the fact that this is only one publication (and mostly one chapter) with the fact that precious little has been published in this field, I would cautiously say that this source seems reliable for unsurprising claims about its field, but that it hasn't been vetted widely or frequently enough to rely on it for BLP information. FourViolas (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Based on the description from HighKing, I'd have to say it counts as a RS for all purposes. That said, if there is an extraordinary claim I'd want a second independent source (though I feel that way about nearly all sources, some things like Nature or the WSJ I'd accept as a single source for all but the most outrageous of claims). Hobit (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Marginal at best, not suitable for BLPs or for establishing notability. The first edition was published by a game company, the second via Kickstarter. This appears to be an "in-universe", hobbyist work -- slightly better than self-published. Okay to use for non-controversial details once notability of the subjects is established via other means, but I don't see evidence of fact-checking or accuracy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Reliable for both I'm not seeing any evidence that the source is erroneous. We have numerous BLPs for people like footballers and pornstars which are supported by weak sources and, in general, we commonly use books and newspapers as sources even though these often contain errors and bias. All I'm seeing here is a case of prejudice against the field. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment it should be noted that the primary Wikiproject for RPGs, Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons, has determined it to be a reliable secondary source for their purposes. Not sure what that says. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it was added to the Resources list by User:JEB215 in 2015. The page was built by User:Drilnoth in 2008 using available sources at that time; Designers & Dragons and several other books were not written yet and so were added later. BOZ (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment on Notability A couple of editors have commented that Designers & Dragons may be an independent, reliable source for article content but not for WP:N. I believe this line of thinking reflects a misunderstanding about what WP Notability is: per policy, it is not supposed to be a measure of the importance of a topic, or of its encyclopaedicity (which is covered by WP:NOT), but simply a question of whether there are adequate sources to treat a topic; if there are not enough sources, it is not notable, but if there are enough sources, it is. (There may be some deletionists who disagree with this criterion, but the policy and guidelines are actually pretty clear). Of course, not all sources topics require their own articles, and some are best dealt with in sections of longer articles, but these are questions of encyclopaedicity rather than Notability.
- So if Designers & Dragons is a reliable, independent source - which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it - then it is evidence of Notability based on the significance of the mention, same as any other RS. I do of course agree that no extraordinary claims should be based on the text in question, nor do I trust it's theoretical or analytical judgements very far, but it's factual accuracy is excellent. And the argument that boils down to "it covers so many games that none of them can be very important" simply runs contrary to what WP:N actually means; for example, the listing of very, very diagnoses in the DSM doesn't make any of them less Notable for WP. Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it While I certainly understand the spirit of your perspective, I would dispute that there can be scholarship in a field that is not a scholarly field. This is not a comment on the value or import of role-playing games, however, I don't believe their design or manufacture is a scholarly field. Scholarship "within the field" might be a reasonable touchpoint for the academic disciplines, however, I don't see evidence that role-playing games is an academic discipline. This is not to say that any entertainment topic is un-scholarly. Film, for instance, is both a topic of entertainment and a topic of scholarship (the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals about film, a large number of university professorships studying film, and a general recognition of the viability of the field of film studies). However, I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Is that why you didn't include the new Routledge text in your "reception" section of the RSN notice: because of your OR decision that it was not in a scholarly field? You should inform Routledge, then, and you might want to tell the publishers of the game studies journals, as well. Newimpartial (talk)
- the publishers of the game studies journals I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some so I could better acquaint myself and consider modifying my !vote appropriately? Chetsford (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any journals that are confined to RPGs, but the RPG form is certainly discussed within the burgeoning scholarship on game studies (or Ludology) in general. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe you could share some of those journals then? Chetsford (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- The obvious specialty journal for you to start with would be http://analoggamestudies.org . Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've checked SCOPUS and EBSCO and it doesn't appear to be indexed. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- That would explain why it didn't show up in the Google Scholar results. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- So this is not an indexed journal? To my original query of the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals did you have any examples of indexed journals? The question as to whether roleplaying games is an academic field comes down to several factors listed above, including are there scholarly journals? If there are, I'm hoping you can help us identify them. Keeping in mind that simply starting a website and calling it "journal" does not make it a scholarly journal in the spirit of WP:NJOURNAL. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't move goalposts. I was answering your direct question, "I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some...?" I was not answering your oblique reference to indexed film journals, nor was I offering an opinion on the specifics of any journal's editorial process. (I trust that WP editors can read websites and make their own decisions about editorial oversight.) RPGs are included in the overall field or ludology, specifically in the less lucrative part of that field dealing with "analog games". I have no interest in proceeding any further down this rabbit hole, none of which explains your non-inclusion of the Routledge text in your filing here at RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Is roleplay gaming an academic discipline? Sorry, I assumed when I said "scholarly journals" it was evident, vis a vis my previous comment the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals, what it was I was looking for (i.e. not just any publication or website including the word "journal" in their name but scholarly journals). If I expressed myself imperfectly, I apologize. In any case, Analog Game Studies would objectively not meet our WP:NJOURNAL criteria since we have set-forth that "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices". Therefore, IMO, on the basis of there being no scholarly journals on role-playing games, no or very few academics at accredited universities researching roleplaying games, no learned society dedicated to the topic of roleplaying games, and roleplaying games are not listed in the Classification of Instructional Programs [12] or the Joint Academic Coding System [13] I would maintain the position that roleplaying games are not an academic discipline. I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't move goalposts. I was answering your direct question, "I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some...?" I was not answering your oblique reference to indexed film journals, nor was I offering an opinion on the specifics of any journal's editorial process. (I trust that WP editors can read websites and make their own decisions about editorial oversight.) RPGs are included in the overall field or ludology, specifically in the less lucrative part of that field dealing with "analog games". I have no interest in proceeding any further down this rabbit hole, none of which explains your non-inclusion of the Routledge text in your filing here at RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- So this is not an indexed journal? To my original query of the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals did you have any examples of indexed journals? The question as to whether roleplaying games is an academic field comes down to several factors listed above, including are there scholarly journals? If there are, I'm hoping you can help us identify them. Keeping in mind that simply starting a website and calling it "journal" does not make it a scholarly journal in the spirit of WP:NJOURNAL. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- That would explain why it didn't show up in the Google Scholar results. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've checked SCOPUS and EBSCO and it doesn't appear to be indexed. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- The obvious specialty journal for you to start with would be http://analoggamestudies.org . Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe you could share some of those journals then? Chetsford (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any journals that are confined to RPGs, but the RPG form is certainly discussed within the burgeoning scholarship on game studies (or Ludology) in general. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- the publishers of the game studies journals I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some so I could better acquaint myself and consider modifying my !vote appropriately? Chetsford (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Is that why you didn't include the new Routledge text in your "reception" section of the RSN notice: because of your OR decision that it was not in a scholarly field? You should inform Routledge, then, and you might want to tell the publishers of the game studies journals, as well. Newimpartial (talk)
- which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it While I certainly understand the spirit of your perspective, I would dispute that there can be scholarship in a field that is not a scholarly field. This is not a comment on the value or import of role-playing games, however, I don't believe their design or manufacture is a scholarly field. Scholarship "within the field" might be a reasonable touchpoint for the academic disciplines, however, I don't see evidence that role-playing games is an academic discipline. This is not to say that any entertainment topic is un-scholarly. Film, for instance, is both a topic of entertainment and a topic of scholarship (the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals about film, a large number of university professorships studying film, and a general recognition of the viability of the field of film studies). However, I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding BLP sourcing: I should have made it clearer above, but when Appelcline lists his "fact-checkers", these were not just random people who happened to work at the company. Many of the people written about in the book – not anywhere near all, but many – were among the 120-or-so fact-checkers listed. My understanding of how the material for the book came to be is that Appelcline would write an article about one company and the games and people associated with it by reading interviews, news articles, non-fiction books about the industry, magazine articles, websites, etc, and compile the information together based on that, and send the article to one or more people who were significant to that company in some way for feedback and to act as a fact-checker. Let's say he were writing about "Happy Fun Time Games" which was started by John Smith; he would send the article to Smith and I imagine he might get a response something like: "I actually started HFTG in my basement in 1985 while I was at Blah University in Colorado with my friend Jim Johnson who was working as a lawyer in Tennessee at the time. He left the company in 1994 to go back to BlahBlah Law school, so I hired Robert Thompson to take his place after he was let go from Goofy Games, and he left in 2002 to go into photography in Georgia. Johnson sued us and won for licensing rights in 2003. I took time off from the company from 2004-2006 to play golf, and then I came back. Other than that, it looks like you got everything right, so great work!" He would then publish the article online, and after a while there were a few dozen such articles online, so Mongoose agreed to publish these articles as a book, and the editor in the credits is Charlotte Law, and that is how Designers & Dragons came to be. The question then is, since we have people approving of what was written about them and about people they know, does that make the source more or less reliable? I suppose some people will argue that no one knows you and your friends better than yourself, while other people will say that giving input that way just gives people the opportunity to lie about themselves and people they know, so me asking this may or may not put us closer to a consensus. BOZ (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- This thread is likely to be closed in the near future, and it may be difficult to determine the consensus here as so many differing opinions have been offerred. Wikipedia policy is determined partly by consensus discussion of what should and should not happen, and partly by practice of what does happen. Chetsford has put a lot of effort into arguing that while Designers & Dragons could possibly be used as a reliable source under the right circumstances, that a subject's inclusion in this book should not be taken as an indicator of notability, and he even tried for some reason to have it documented as such and as one of the perennial source discussions despite this being the first and only discussion of the source on a noticeboard that I am aware of. So as far as documenting practice, this noticeboard discussion came out of Chetsford nominating almost 20 tabletop gaming-related (mostly RPG, but not all) articles for AFD. Of those, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy Imperium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen and the Art of Mayhem, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Cross (role-playing game) have been closed as delete, and as a few similar articles are also likely to be – but please note that none of them were sourced to Designers & Dragons (or sourced at all, for that matter). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Roleplaying Game and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Abranson were both sourced to Designers & Dragons, and both were closed as Keep. Five more pending AFDs are also on articles sourced to Designers & Dragons, and from a look at each of them it seems likely to me at this point that they will all close as either Keep or Merge. Merge is not Delete, and does allow for some of the sourced content to be moved to another article. Since policy on Wikipedia reflects practice in part, I am urging whoever closes this discussion to not explicitly rule that Designers & Dragons does not contribute to notability. If you cannot find that it in fact does contribute to notability, then please leave it as an open question for now. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the above that there is no consensus it is RS, nor is there a consensus it is not insofar as BLPs are concerned. I would say there is probably a consensus it is RS for non-biographical facts. Just in point of clarification of my nominations regarding RPGs, I've nominated 19, of which 4 have been deleted, 4 kept, 2 merged, and 9 are either open or have had to be relisted. I'm not sure which involved Designers & Dragons. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I explained here already regarding which of your AFDs involved Designers & Dragons as a source, but if my explanation was not clear – three were closed as Keep, one as Merge, and three remain to be closed but are unlikely to be closed as delete unless there is a last-minute push in that direction. That is not enough evidence on its own to say that the book definitely does contribute to notability, but my point here is that it does show some practice-based evidence that it may contribute to notability, thus my request to the closer that the book should not be ruled as clearly a non-contributor to notability, and thus leaving that an open question at worst. The majority of your recent game-related AFDs do not involve this source, so I was not discussing them here, as this discussion is about just one source, and not about your success rate which you keep touting as some important metric. But since you brought it up, on your chart, lets just say that four of the seven "red" unsuccessful nomination results on the current version of the chart involved Designers & Dragons as a source, while none of the "green" successful nomination results involved said book as a source. So, let's just say that your success rate when it comes to articles sourced by this book is… underwhelming at best. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it appears we agree that there is a consensus it's fine for articles about games and game companies and no consensus as to whether it is or is not RS for BLPs. Since the Keep/Delete decision in each AfD was not based solely on the status of Designers & Dragons but rather on an holistic evaluation of all the sources in the article, as well as arguments for the subject's inherent notability on the basis of various awards, this centralized discussion in which Designers & Dragons is the exclusive subject of analysis is probably a better judge of the community's opinion. In any case, I think discussions at RSN usually just fade away 9 times out of 10 rather than being formally closed. Best - Chetsford (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I explained here already regarding which of your AFDs involved Designers & Dragons as a source, but if my explanation was not clear – three were closed as Keep, one as Merge, and three remain to be closed but are unlikely to be closed as delete unless there is a last-minute push in that direction. That is not enough evidence on its own to say that the book definitely does contribute to notability, but my point here is that it does show some practice-based evidence that it may contribute to notability, thus my request to the closer that the book should not be ruled as clearly a non-contributor to notability, and thus leaving that an open question at worst. The majority of your recent game-related AFDs do not involve this source, so I was not discussing them here, as this discussion is about just one source, and not about your success rate which you keep touting as some important metric. But since you brought it up, on your chart, lets just say that four of the seven "red" unsuccessful nomination results on the current version of the chart involved Designers & Dragons as a source, while none of the "green" successful nomination results involved said book as a source. So, let's just say that your success rate when it comes to articles sourced by this book is… underwhelming at best. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the above that there is no consensus it is RS, nor is there a consensus it is not insofar as BLPs are concerned. I would say there is probably a consensus it is RS for non-biographical facts. Just in point of clarification of my nominations regarding RPGs, I've nominated 19, of which 4 have been deleted, 4 kept, 2 merged, and 9 are either open or have had to be relisted. I'm not sure which involved Designers & Dragons. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just adding that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillfolk was closed as Keep as well, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Britannica as merge. The three remaining AFDs involving Designers & Dragons as a source have been relisted, and as noted above, at this time look more likely to be Keep or Merge rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just adding for the record that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubicle 7 was closed as No consensus (delete 3; keep 10). BOZ (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Likewise, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic McDowall-Thomas was closed as no consensus. The last AFD in question was relisted for a second time earlier this week, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy, with most respondents split between either Keep or Merge/redirect, and only the nominator and one other arguing to delete. So, to reiterate, with all the AFD results noted above going "merge" at worst, and most as keep or no consensus (aka, default keep), I will again dispute the notion that the community should consider Designers & Dragons to be not a RS or contribute to notability. It was not the only source in question on those articles, so it alone does not determine notability, but the failure to get a single delete result among the 7 articles that used this source tell me that the community does consider it enough of a RS that contributes to notability (along with other sources) that consensus could not be found to delete any of those 7 articles. BOZ (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Most certainly reliable. No idea why this is not considered a reliable source. It is every bit as reliable as any other source compiled by a specialist historian of a subject. The fact its publisher is a games company is neither here nor there. Inclusion in it does not make a game, product, company or individual inherently notable, of course, but as a source for facts on the tabletop RPG industry it is certainly a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Appears Reliable. I found this source popping up in some scholarly ghits and I've found no evidence of negative claims against it, so, at least for now, I have no reason to doubt its general reliability. Certainly it's an appropriate source for WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes for A and B. First referring to Evil Hat as "T-shirt company" is akin to calling Microsoft a "company that sells mice and keyboards". It is an attempt to weaken the status of a publisher. No one that has any familiarity with Evil Hat would call them a T-Shirt company. They sell books and games and happen to have branded t-shirts. Secondly, the scholarship of these books (there are now five) rests in the hands of the author, Shannon Appelcline who is also the editor-in-chief of RPGnet and historian for DriveThruRPG/RPGNow. While he has no page himself he is mentioned in over 900 Wikipedia pages. Third. The book was originally published by Mongoose Publishing and is based on his articles at RPGNet. Web Warlock (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes for both, with the caveat that it's a book about the history of RPGs, not about people's biographies outside RPGs. It's a respected series in multiple volumes. It's a genre piece, but so is, say, a book on history of Physics. BOZ seems to know quite a bit about it. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Survey
Since the above discussion is becoming more detailed than anticipated, for ease of overview (but not to replace or substitute for the above discussion as per WP:NOTAVOTE), I have created the following summary table of the position of individual editors as a GF attempt to represent an interpretation of their opinions. Please feel free to edit or modify it directly if I have misrepresented you (edit - or remove yourself entirely if you do not want your opinion presented in summary format or to add yourself if you're not represented but contributed above). Chetsford (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Editor | Reliable for Games or Game Companies? |
Reliable for BLPs? |
---|---|---|
Chetsford | Maybe | No |
Jbhunley | No | No |
Cullen328 | No | No |
Donald Albury | No | No |
BOZ | Yes | Yes |
Simonm223 | Yes (non-extraordinary claims) |
Yes |
Newimpartial | Yes | Yes |
HighKing | Yes | Yes |
Slatersteven | No (except on rare occasions) |
No (except on rare occasions) |
Canterbury Tail | Yes (facts but not notability) |
Maybe |
FourViolas | Yes (non-extraordinary claims) |
No |
Hobit | Yes | Yes |
K.e.coffman | Maybe (facts but not notability) |
No |
Andrew Davidson | Yes | Yes |
Necrothesp | Yes | Yes |
Reyk | Maybe (non-controversial facts, but not notability) |
No |
Praemonitus | Yes | Yes |
Webwarlock | Yes | Yes |
GRuban | Yes | Yes |
- Thanks - you might want to put a "ping" next to each of their names or something to give them a chance to make sure they agree with your interpretation. BOZ (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent point - done. Chetsford (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine but I should note that I agree with FourViolas' qualification that it be used mostly for non-extraordinary claims. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I did in fact say no, I just accepted there might be rare occasions when it might have not been "not RS". But these do not outweigh my overall concerns about its neutrality and independence.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Slatersteven - I apologize and have amended accordingly. If I've still got it wrong, please feel free to edit it as you see fit. Sorry again. Chetsford (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent point - done. Chetsford (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
When are Reliable Peer Reviewed Reviews Properly Deleted From the Bibliography in Favor of Just Two Preferred (but Older) Reviews?
I'm seeking input regarding my effort to include citations to reviews published in peer reviewed medical journals regarding Abortion_and_mental_health
As you will see on the history and talk page, a number of editors believe that only two reviews, a 2008 review by the APA and a 2011 review by the NCCMH should be discussed or cited in the article. In fact, numerous other peer reviewed reviews were published in the time frame and over a variety of conclusions and critiques of prior reviews. The most recent review, Fergusson (2013), was specifically designed to test a conclusion offered in the NCCMH review by means of a meta-analysis.
My efforts to simply cite these other reviews to identify their existence, even without discussion, have been reverted with the explanation that the dated APA and NCMHH reviews are the final word and that no other literature reviews should be cited or discussed until such time as the APA or NCMHH acknowledge them as superior.
Specifically, my edit here simply states:
- Numerous systematic reviews on the associations between mental health and abortion have been conducted.[13][4][14][15][16][6][17][18][19] Each has also been the subject of criticism by other reviewers.[14][16][20].
All of the cited reviews are published in highly respected peer reviewed medical reviews. I believe anyone researching the issue would appreciate having a list of reviews included in the bibliography, but the other editors appear to want to include only those reviews which reflect their POV. Moreover, I believe that reviews subsequent to the APA and NCCMH review that critique those reviews are relevant and deserve not only citation but discussion which affords them due weight. Here is one example of my attempt to do so, discussing Fergusson as the most recent review. It was completely reverted, even though the stated objection was that I gave it undue weight...which implies my edit should at most be abbreviated, not deleted.
An additional frustration is that even my efforts to more fully report what the APA 2008 review stated, have also been reverted, apparently because other editors insist that their approval is required for including material even from their own preferred sources. If there is consensus that some reviews, like the APA review, are reliable sources, is it appropriate for editors to delete material from even these sources which include statements that limit and qualify their other statements? In this case, the APA report states that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that abortion is the sole cause of mental health problems but acknowledges that "some women" do have mental health problems, especially if they also have other risk factors, such as aborting a wanted pregnancy. Is it appropriate for editors to delete content from one of their own preferred sources simply because it would undermine the editors' overly broad claim, unqualified, assertion in the lead that "abortion does not result in mental health problems," a viewpoint that goes farther than the actual language of the APA's review much less Fergusson's meta-analysis and other subsequent reviews.-- Saranoon (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Commenting as an involved editor. The title of this thread is an indication of some of the problems here. The situation isn't that complex:
- There are numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the subject of abortion and mental health.
- The major expert bodies in the English-speaking world—the American Psychological Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—have each reviewed the topic, synthesized the available information, and concluded that abortion does not increase the risk of mental-health problems.
- Saranoon (talk · contribs) is insistent on highlighting a single paper, by Fergusson et al., to downplay those conclusions.
- So this is a clear issue of undue weight, rather than reliable sourcing. Reputable expert bodies are unanimous in saying X, and a single paper says Y. Saranoon wants to present X and Y on essentially equal footing. We generally give precedence to position statements and professional guidance from major medical expert bodies over the contents of a single paper, and all the more so when several major medical expert groups are unanimous. (If someone could get Saranoon to stop using what is obviously a sockpuppet account, that would be nice too). MastCell Talk 22:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Looking into this, that latest review has a few dozen citations. But as far as I can see, every subsequent publication that actually addressed the same question disputed the conclusion of that review, except for a couple of publications by the original authors. This definitely seems to be the viewpoint of a small minority. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it doesn't look like a problem for this noticeboard, as it is a matter of WP:NPOV (balance versus undue emphasis) rather than being a matter of WP:RS. But to give my opinion here, I should think that a single study disagreeing with the consensus should not collapse a continuing consensus. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Looking into this, that latest review has a few dozen citations. But as far as I can see, every subsequent publication that actually addressed the same question disputed the conclusion of that review, except for a couple of publications by the original authors. This definitely seems to be the viewpoint of a small minority. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a question about objecting to a "single study disagreeing with the consensus should not collapse a continuing consensus." First, because none of my cited sources are studies, but rather each is a review which examine a large number of studies.
- Secondly, there is not a "single" review which has reached different conclusions than the APA and NCCMH reviews, there are at least four, three of which have specifically criticized shortcomings in the APA and NCCMH reviews. These four reviews are: Thorp, et al, (2003) Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey; Coleman (2011), British Journal of Psychiatry; Bellieni et al, (2013) Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences; and Fergusson, et al (2013) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry.
- None of the above four reviews are given any weight in the present article. (Fergusson was cited and discussed since about July 2017 but was only recently expunged) Moreover the fact that the Royal College of Psychiatrists published a position statement 2008 acknowledging that abortion may post mental health risks to some women is also not reflected in the article, not even in the history section.[14][15][16]
- While a question of how much weight should be given to these various reviews and opinions is certainly relevant, the fact that ALL the reviews that critique the APA and NCCMH reviews are being suppressed in the article means that we first need to verify that they are indeed reliable secondary sources before we can then address the question of how much weight should be given to them.
- As I stated at the beginning of this post, in my proposed edit I simply had two lines citing these four reviews (and others) as being reviews of the subject and noting that these (and others) disagreed with each other. My proposed sentences did not give any more or less weight to any of the cited reviews. It merely created a bibliography of the relevant reviews from reliable secondary sources. This is what MastCell and Binksternet have reverted...any citation to these reviews at all.
- If it were just a question of there would be no objection to citing of these reviews, only an objection in regard to devoting too many paragraphs to them. The only rational objection to citing the reviews at all is if they are not reliable secondary sources.
- I have yet to see MastCell or Binksternet articulate a clear argument as to why the sources I cite are not reliable secondary sources. Instead, they seem to argue that no matter how many other reviewers publish peer reviewed reviews in reliable sources, the discussion is over and the "consensus" is finalized by the APA (2008) and NCCMH (2011) reviews and that any subsequent reviews reaching different conclusions or articulating specific critiques of those earlier reviews should be completely suppressed. Obviously, the peer reviewers and editors at several major medical journals disagree, since they supported publication of these subsequent reviews as a worthy contributions to the literature. So whose opinion should matter more? Wikipedia editors who favor one POV and the suppression of views that run counter to what they believe is a "consensus", or medical journal editors and peer reviewers? Indeed, it would seem that with so many reviews taking different positions, the claimed "consensus" is not as complete some Wikipedia editors believe.
- In short, the question of how much weight should be given to each review is different from the question of which reviews are published in a reliable secondary source. If we can all acknowledge that the ALL the sources I've cited above are indeed reliable secondary sources, and it is therefore time to move onto weight...fine. Let's do that. But in doing so, let's also acknowledge that these sources, because they are reliable secondary sources, at least deserve some weight, even so little as just being included in the list of citations of recent reviews.--Saranoon (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Death Certificates
So I have a question about using a death certificate as a reference. The edit in question is this inclusion of someone's death certificate into the Oom Yung Doe article. To me it seems like there are obvious problems with the edit:
- WP:PRIMARYCARE seems to say not to use public records in this way ("Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.")
- Including the actual certificate seems like a clear instance of doxxing on the family in question (BLP policy states not to rely on any source that includes private information about any living persons, presumably including relatives of a deceased individual).
So one question I have is, does that sound accurate to everyone else? To me the policy is clear, but there's at least one editor who disagrees with my interpretation. This has been discussed before on the noticeboard, but when I looked over the archives I didn't find an overwhelmingly clear consensus. Here are the recent ones I found (about the acceptability of death certificates or more-or-less-identical primary sources based on public records):
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_150#Ancestry.com: One editor noisily emphasizing that he thinks public records are reliable sources and a few different editors disagreeing with him and pointing to policy (i.e. consensus in my view is that it's an inappropriate primary source)
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182#Is_a_medical_examiner's_report_a_reliable_source_for_a_cause_of_death?: All agree the ME's report is reliable, with some extensive caveats (i.e. that it's confirmed by several secondary sources)
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Personal_data_on_findmypast.co.uk: Some people say reliable, some say unreliable, no conclusion
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_157#Social_Security_Death_Index: Much discussion, no real conclusion
To me this is weird because the policy seems pretty clear... but at the same time the policy doesn't specifically list death certificates in among the other public records that are given as examples, so maybe I'm missing something?
-Subverdor (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- While the policy does not mention death certificates, it would seem to apply to them. Not every name is unique and there is the possibility of error when using this source. Also, if something has not been mentioned in secondary sources, there is no reason to add it to an article. TFD (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please note that WP:PRIMARYCARE is an explanatory supplement, it isn't policy. Policy is at WP:OR/WP:PRIMARY, and importantly at WP:BLPPRIMARY. An iPhone-photo of a document, uploaded by an anoymous user to Wikipedia, is not published for the purposes of Wikipedia and so fails the former. As it contains personal information about still-living persons (home address etc.), it fails the latter and is a serious violation of privacy. I've nominated it for deletion on its Wikimedia page. --IamNotU (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- So technically speaking, if the document were published per Wikipedia's definition and personal information about living persons has been redacted from the published document, it would be considered a valid source, correct? --Squash1978 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- In most of the US death certificates are part of the public record and are freely accessible to any member of the public (and in fact, there are websites that compile death certificate info). A death certificate is most certainly not DOXXing. It is definitely a PRIMARY document, and publication status varies (e.g. a photo of one would be one thing - availability on a website - another).Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- So technically speaking, if the document were published per Wikipedia's definition and personal information about living persons has been redacted from the published document, it would be considered a valid source, correct? --Squash1978 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- The issue with "published" isn't availability, it's vetting from a supposed authority. A Wikipedia editor who's just digging up public records, and figuring out what happened, can make mistakes. An academic authority who digs up records and does research, and then publishes a book or an academic paper revealing the results of their research, can *still* make mistakes, but the theory is that it's a lot less likely because they're an expert. The idea behind Wikipedia is that it's supposed to be based largely on that type of expert academic research. Therefore it has a high level of accuracy and people who have differing viewpoints have to back up their viewpoint by showing an expert who agrees with them.
- It doesn't always work out that way obviously, but that's the intent behind the policy: to ensure a high level of accuracy. A "secondary source" is the published expert opinion. A "primary source" is generally to be avoided (or used carefully) because relying on them too much can lead you to make mistakes. Redacting information and putting your primary source in redacted form on a web site doesn't do anything to address the fundmentals of the issue. -Subverdor (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I've posted about this at FTN, but the issue applies equally as well to this board, so I figured readers here should also give it a look. Basically, this boils down to WP:FRIND and its connection to WP:PROFRINGE: there are no sources out there that meet WP:FRIND for all but a handful fo these entries, leading to pro-fringe original research and synthesis on the part of editors who have constructed and added to list of cryptids over the years.
Until recently, we had a major problem with this stuff all over the platform. This list is something of a holdout, and is fiercely defended by fringe proponents, similarly to what some of you have encountered when editing on related pseudosciences like Young Earth creationism and ufology (I've personally been threatened and seen off-site lobbying now relating to the topic). You might want to check it out. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- NO it does not, using fringe sources is not OR or synth. OR is when you say something that you have worked out and Synth is when you use more then one source to draw a conclusion neither of them make.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Nor is this even an RS issues, this is a fringe and NPOV issue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, yes, this is indeed an RS issue that very much involves WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE, most specifically WP:FRIND's "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." No such reliable, independent sources can be found to date to place the the vast majority of items on the list, which we've now discussed repeatedly. I'm not sure where the disconnect for you here is but if you've got further comments on this matter, please do us all a favor and produce reliable sources backing these claims at either of the pages above. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Is Evolve Politics an unreliable/unsuitable source?
Several editors have removed references by Evolve Politics [17] on pages such as Jeremy Corbyn and Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party claiming that it is an unreliable source such as here. I regard this as groundless as the site is a member of IMPRESS, a UK government approved press regulator. I would be interested to hear opinions as to whether it is or is not an admissible as a source in these contexts. G-13114 (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Being a member of IMPRESS is probably by itself an indication of non-reliability (just by looking at the list of publications that are members). The more notable regulator in the UK is Independent Press Standards Organisation - however being regulated by a UK press regulator is not an indication of reliability - The Sun, and Daily Mail are cases in point.Icewhiz (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- But those publications have multiple IPSO rulings against them, the Daily Mail especially so [18]. The fact that EP have submitted themselves to an independent arbiter with powers to sanction them for any inaccuracies shows that they take journalism seriously. G-13114 (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- It shows evolvepolitics.com is purporting to be a newspaper (as opposed to a partisan blog which is what it appears to be from looking at the site and the editorial process) - which is a fairly easy claim. as for amount of complaints, nobody reads evolvepolitics - per Alexa's ranking it is ranked 213,498 globally and 8,477 in the UK. the Daily Mail, Alexa's ranking in contrast is 140 globally and 55 in the UK (and this is in additional to their print circulation, which evolvepolitics.com does not have). So with a nearly non-existent (and very partisan) readership, it is not surprising there aren't any complaints (or are there? didn't really check). It is easy to say evolvepolitics.com does not have much of a reputation (positive of negative) at all.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- But those publications have multiple IPSO rulings against them, the Daily Mail especially so [18]. The fact that EP have submitted themselves to an independent arbiter with powers to sanction them for any inaccuracies shows that they take journalism seriously. G-13114 (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Tend to agree, what we need is to see what their reputation is As far as I can tell no worse then most other press RS..Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Trouble is, as they're only three years old, they're probably too young to have gained much of a reputation either way. G-13114 (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- True, which means we have no valid reason to reject them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Trouble is, as they're only three years old, they're probably too young to have gained much of a reputation either way. G-13114 (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Being member of IMPRESS is not a reason to consider that source is reliable also there is a issue of WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Also I didn't found any proof of editorial control it seems too as every author is independent its kind of WP:SPS platform --Shrike (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Precisely. Worth noting that Evolve Politics provides money based on how many clicks an article gets, like The Canary. Lends itself to issues regarding tabloidisation, clickbait and sensationalism. (All of this & more is mentioned here). I would argue this would make it unsuitable on Wikipedia, especially in BLPs. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Both of which are symptoms of organisations which are forced to operate with very limited resources. So wikipedia can only use sources which are well resourced? Well that would certainly limit the bredth of opinion allowable to be expressed on wikipedia articles wouldn't it? The fact that both have voluntarily signed up to a press regulator indicates that they take accuracy in journalism seriously, and cannot be dismissed as 'fake news' sites even if they sometimes make mistakes. G-13114 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. On the current frontpage, apart from the promoted ads that look like articles (typical of clickbait and fake news sites), all but 4 of the dozens of articles are by one author, Tom D Rogers, whose Twitter account describes him as the "Senior editor" but who has no other profile that I could see on the web apart from a couple of articles on the conspiracy website GlobalResearch.
- Second, as it claims not to exercise editorial control over content, it is basically a platform for bloggers, of the same status as an SPS. I can't recall any other reliable source refering to Evolve as a source, which is a good sign of a RS, and a quick google search seems to confirm that. Here are what other sources say about it: Press Gazette: its founder, a university student, left to work in PR;[19] Press Gazette: Impress fined it for making a false claim;[20] Press Gazette: "Evolve writes its stories with an unashamedly left-wing bias" and "Left-wing news website Evolve Politics has joined press regulator Impress to silence critics who claimed it had been peddling fake news";[21] The Guardian: "run by just two people in Nottingham and Peterborough" and "Critics say [its business model] creates a strong incentive to exaggerate or even falsify stories, but Turner insisted the site’s editors were careful to fact-check contributions";[22] New Statesman: "fiercely partisan website" and The Canary's "payment method, also used by Evolve Politics – a slightly less sensational news site – is derided by some for creating a financial incentive to write “clickbait”"[23] and "hyper-partisan"[24]. The Sun, though itself not a RS, highlighted the fact that it quoted a 9/11 Truther as a chemical weapons expert.[25] So, all in all, I'd say no, not a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Surely most of the objections you're raising here could be said about many other sources like the Spectator etc, e.g. partisan, and operating as a collection of writers. It's certainly true to say that it is a fairly low budget operation, with very limited resources. But then it that is a reason for disqualifying it then we are biasing our coverage in favour of outfits which have resources, and therefore likely to have a slanted POV. The fact that EP has voluntarily signed up to a press regulator indicates that they take accuracy in journalism seriously, and cannot be dismissed as 'fake news' even if they make some mistakes, which is probably inevitable when they are a low budget operation. G-13114 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
As for the biased argument. Well in this context we could take on board what is said at WP:BIASED which is:
- "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."
So in other words, in this context as the "mainstream" media is so overwhelmingly biased against Jeremy Corbyn and the left in general, and outlets like EP and The Canary are some of the few outlets which take a pro-Corbyn stance, we could argue that it is necessary to include their views in order to reliably present all of the viewpoints? Certainly it cannot be reasonably argued that a Corbynite viewpoint is a fringe point of view as the Labour Party under his leadership won 40% of the vote at last year's general election. It can however be argued that this vast swathe of pro-Corbyn opinion is not represented by the mainstream media, and in order to reliably represent the views of a large chunk of public opinion, we need to include outlets like EP.
We should also bear in mind WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which states:
- The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
So in the the context of the particular claim being supported by EP which was disputed here I fail to see how this is an inaccurate source for the claim being made. It is a legitimate analysis of source material from a reputable polling company. So in this case what exactly is the objection to this particular claim being made apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? G-13114 (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Berghahn journals
I have never heard of this publisher before. [26] Do they publish peer-reviewed journals? I found this paper [27], which could form the basis of a Wiki article about the San Barnabas Topo Chico neighborhood in Monterrey, Mexico. Topo Chico was a recent G11 deletion and was a 2010 G3 deletion. San Barnabas Topo Chico was an old settlement at the site of the mineral spring, became a tourist attraction, had a tramway built to it, and is now a part of Monterrey. Is the article I posted a reliable source? Does Berghahn publish reliable sources in general? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- They claim to be [28].Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Ascription of motive by official of one nation to action by another nation
In an article about relations between two nations, can a statement by an official of one nation (quoted by a news agency) regarding the motives of the other nation with respect to some event/action be directly included or do certain conditions apply? Humanengr (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Could you please be more specific with regard to the exact nature of the reliability dispute? Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please follow guidelines of this board to receive an answer --Shrike (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- This isn't really a RS question. A news agency in country X (even a despotic, non-free country) is typically reliable for statements of officials by country X. The officials of a country are usually not regards as RS for fact, but their attributed statements may be DUE for inclusion. As for whether they should be included - they often are if country X is a side to the event, otherwise often not - but it depends on coverage of the stmt in RS (to assess DUEness) - this is more of a NPOV/n question than RS/n.Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Quote:
In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia’s parliament’s defense and security committee, said “The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States. … The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.”[1]
Article and section: Russia–United States relations#2017
Humanengr (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Reuters is easily a RS for a quote by Alexei Pushkov - the question here is whether it is WP:DUE - which is a NPOV/n question, not a RS/n question.Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thx, follow-up if I may re the RS aspect: Given that this statement is obviously expressing an opinion by a Russian politician and not offered as statement of fact, would any secondary RS be needed for any reason? Humanengr (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not for passing WP:V. For establishing it is WP:DUE to include this senator's opinion - then yes - the typical way to establish this on a well discussed topic (on an obscure topic - almost anything is DUE.... On something as well discussed as Russia–United States relations - you need to show that other sources relate to this) is showing a multitude of sources discussing this (either SECONDARY or TERTIARY - both are good for showing relevance) - but that's not a RS/n question.Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thx, follow-up if I may re the RS aspect: Given that this statement is obviously expressing an opinion by a Russian politician and not offered as statement of fact, would any secondary RS be needed for any reason? Humanengr (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I seem to recall this very question being asked here before.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Opinion editorials used for reliably sourced opinions
It is my understanding that per WP:NEWSORG, it it inadvisable to use opinion editorials for statements of fact. Currently at Danny O'Connor, we have arguably promotional content that is being sourced to an opinion editorial endorsing him in the Columbus Dispatch. See this. These strike me as the types of claims that would require better or additional sourcing, but other editors have argued that because the content is in the Cleveland Dispatch, it's reliable. It's an op ed, though. Someone un-gaslight me, s'il vous plaît . Marquardtika (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- No it does not say that it says we should use them with care. I am unable to view the source however, but note that the claim is sourced to another source anyway so all a bit academic.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've looked at the article. The other source used for much of the material is a primary source. It's from the "about us" section of the candidate's former employer. I've removed some of the material. I don't think this is a case where an opinion article and a primary source are adequate, even with attribution. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipolicy says the editorial is fine for attributed statements. Considering that the attribution is attributed to the very same people (The Editorial Staff of the Columbus Dispatch) responsible for making sure the news content is factual and accurate, it should be fine. Can you explain why you think otherwise? Carter2020 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've looked at the article. The other source used for much of the material is a primary source. It's from the "about us" section of the candidate's former employer. I've removed some of the material. I don't think this is a case where an opinion article and a primary source are adequate, even with attribution. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- We should not use the source. Note that news articles would require better sourcing for the candidate's biography. TFD (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- The original poster is correct that op-eds generally should not be used to support statements of fact in Wikipedia voice. That is not what we have here. It is perfectly acceptable to cite editorials "for statements attributed to that editor or author", as we have here. Carter2020 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Question for TFD: Policy says we can use the source for attributed statements. Why do you say we should not? Carter2020 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Partly because then it's a question of weight. If there are no sources about these parts of this man's career other than a single editorial and a primary source from an employer he worked for later, then it probably shouldn't be in wikipedia. Also, "according to the Columbus Dispatch" is awkward and incorrect. It would be "according to the Columbus Dispatch's editorial board", not the newspaper in its actual newsgathering role. Using such "attribution" is really an end-run around usual policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Question for TFD: Policy says we can use the source for attributed statements. Why do you say we should not? Carter2020 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- The original poster is correct that op-eds generally should not be used to support statements of fact in Wikipedia voice. That is not what we have here. It is perfectly acceptable to cite editorials "for statements attributed to that editor or author", as we have here. Carter2020 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Carter2020: please stop re-adding this material against WP:CONSENSUS. When you write "According to the Columbus Dispatch..." that makes it seem as if it is according to the newspaper's news reporting, which it is not. It is according to an opinion editorial in the newspaper. Those are very different things, and it is misleading to attribute things as you have done. Please follow the advice of all of the other editors here and cease re-adding this material. Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Marquardtika's point is pretty subtle, but I do understand where s/he is coming from. It seems like an easy issue to solve. Why not write: "In its endorsement of O'Connor, the Columbus Dispatch wrote that..." This combines in-text attribution with a clear indication that the statement in question is part of a political endorsement rather than a news story. MastCell Talk 17:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Skabook
Is Skabook.com a reliable source? The site seems to be operated by a journalist and author. I read the about page covering her credentials and she seems legit and an expert in the relevant field as it relates to Draft:Stanley Motta and the early recording industry of Jamaica. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- If fails rs per Self-published sources. The writer does not meet the definition of expert in this case. TFD (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The Star (Malaysia)
Is The Star (Malaysia) RS for information about Maria Amor Torres? The last time this newspaper was discussed seems to be in 2008, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20#The_Star_(Malaysia). At that time it was judged reliable, but it has since been taken over by the Malaysian government. This has come up at Talk:Maria Amor Torres#Beauty queen. It's an important question because this is the only independent reliable source anyone has been able to find about this subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- The specific reference is:
- "Former beauty queen visits Malaysia in search of humanitarians to feature in her TV show". The Star. 14 March 2015. Retrieved 5 November 2015.
- The information in dispute is labeling her a "beauty queen", which the reference supports with
Some 2,000km away in the Philippines, Maria Amor, who grew up in a middle-class family, was crowned Miss Luzon
. --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment What is a beauty queen - is it anyone who has ever won any beauty pageant, regardless of how minor and how long ago? This source indicates that she won Miss Luzon, so might be reliable for a claim that so is 'the former winner of the Miss Luzon beauty pageant', but I think using it to say in Wikipedia's voice that she is a beauty queen is a bit of a stretch. GirthSummit (blether) 10:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. Problem is, there's no evidence that a "Miss Luzon beauty pageant" existed when she claims she received it. Her websites, when they bother to mention it, say 2012 [29] [30]. Some earlier publicity shows she was claiming the title before 2012 or earlier?. She was also running beauty pageants of her own at the time, as indicated in her bios on her websites. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Sperling's BestPlaces
Several articles on cities (including Austin, Texas, Columbus, Ohio, and San Antonio, Texas) cite information on religion to Sperling's BestPlaces (link for Austin). Is this a reliable source that can be used for this information? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
This IP keeps claiming Middle Easterners were considered white in South Africa. This is fine if he can provide a source, but he can't. (The only source provided indicates that some people from the northern Levant, e.g. Lebanese and Syrians, were considered white; it does not follow from this that Egyptians, Yemeni, Sudanese, Kuwaitis, Saudis, and all people from the Middle East were considered white.)
Of course if he adds a source that's great, and he can re-add this content. But I am skeptical of his claims because anecdotally, I have read accounts of North Africans in South Africa who were classified as "coloured" (a broad category that included not only mixed-race black people, but various nonwhite groups).
A good compromise might be to add "Syrian and Lebanese" rather than "middle eastern" to the description of white south africans, since this is actually supported by a source. Steeletrap (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- should be at the NPOV notice board.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
University of Chicago Press
- Boyer, John W. R. (2015). The University of Chicago: A History. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226242651.
- University of Chicago Law School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A number of editors have expressed concern over this source, published by the University of Chicago Press, cited as a reference for information added to University of Chicago Law School. The author, John Boyer, is six-term Dean of the College of the University of Chicago, a Distinguished Service Professor of History, and is a noted expert on the history of academic institutions; the book is based on 17 years of his own work and is also extensively footnoted and referenced. The information for which the source is used as a reference is basic details of the law school's history, facts such as "John D. Rockefeller financed the cost of the new building at $250,000, and its cornerstone was laid by President Theodore Roosevelt."
The argument against its use is essentially WP:SELFPUB - that a publisher associated with the University of Chicago cannot be considered independent of a law school affiliated with the same college, and also probably that its author, Dean of a separate school under the same banner, cannot be considered independent. Personally I believe that the Press should be considered editorially independent in general, and even if not then Boyer is certainly an expert on the subject to a degree that overrides self-publication.
But I'm not myself any kind of expert on source selection, so I'd appreciate some outside input. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Reliable: author and publisher, have reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and are certainly not going to sacrifice it, here. It's not selfpub in the least. It is also "independent" of the subject (the subject is history, the author did not personally participate in history they are writing about, nor did the editors), but even if someone wanted to argue that, non-independent sources are allowed RS in articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Concur. Recognized expert, reputable press more than offset the fact that it's published by the university's own press.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agree too. We consider most university presses (and University of Chicago Press would not be an exception) as reliable. We generally see them as independent from authors tenured at the same university (there might be an exception if the professor was also involved in the press in an extraordinary fashion - but that would be a very rare exception).Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Almost concur, this would pass the self published test, but I think there could be an issue with COI. If I were to write a history of the Slater family (but ended it the year before I was born) it would still not be independent of the subject. But (as I said) even taking that into account it passes all tests for being reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
peer-reviewed articles and books by Stephen G. Wheatcroft
In Mass killings under communist regimes there is a concern that Wheatcroft's journal articles and books are not a "reliable source" for material on which Wheatcroft appears to be a major authority. Discussion at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes where some opine that " Either Wheatcroft (as he admits in the sourced material) is not an expert on one of the areas, and is making comparisons based on figures he doesn't understand, or that he is deliberately misleading people."
The issue appears to be Wheatcroft saying Stalin killed a heck of a lot of people, possibly hitting Hitler levels, though the claim is properly ascribed to Wheatcroft in the article. Many thanks for views on Wheatcroft as meeting WP:RS, as this is a reliable source issue only. Collect (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC) '
- I think the problem is that the Wikipedia article incorrectly ascribes a claim to Wheatcroft when he mentions claims by other people. Wheatcroft wrote, "other scholars...have nevertheless accepted comparisons in which the Stalinist system is presumed to have killed two or three times as many people as Hitler's regime." This translates into "according to Stephen G. Wheatcroft," the number of people killed by Stalin "perhaps exceed Hitler's." TFD (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- And as he is an acknowledged expert in the field, and the statement is made by him, then it is perfectly valid to give that claim ascribed and cited to the work by Wheatcroft. The sentence in the Wikipedia article therefore meets WP:RS. That is how Wikipedia works, not by asserting what editors here "know" to be "truth." Collect (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- You realize that there is a difference between saying what "other scholars" believe and what oneself believes? If I say, according to some people, global warming is a hoax, it does not necessarily mean that I believe it is a hoax (that is I may or may not agree with them.) TFD (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- What The Four Deuces said; (edit conflict) The sentence currently there essentially say that Stephen G. Wheatcroft said that the deaths perhaps exceeded those caused by Hitler, which isn't the case per the quote above - he said that other scholars think they did. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thus "Wheatcroft states that some scholars believe the death toll exceeded that of Hitler" is the edit you would support? That appears to be what you are suggesting. Collect (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- That sentence would actually be supported by the source and thus acceptable per WP:V, unlike the sentence currently in the article Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- No. Wheatcroft does not say that. He says "It is only when we get into the broader categories of causing death by criminal neglect and ruthlessness that Stalin probably exceeds Hitler". He does not discuss comparisons made by other scholars, he admits that, if we define mass deaths very broadly (the idea he personally objects to) the total number of deaths caused by Stalin may exceed the deaths caused by Hitler. However, he immediately makes a number of reservations that make impossible to use this article as a source for this type statement.
- That sentence would actually be supported by the source and thus acceptable per WP:V, unlike the sentence currently in the article Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thus "Wheatcroft states that some scholars believe the death toll exceeded that of Hitler" is the edit you would support? That appears to be what you are suggesting. Collect (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- And as he is an acknowledged expert in the field, and the statement is made by him, then it is perfectly valid to give that claim ascribed and cited to the work by Wheatcroft. The sentence in the Wikipedia article therefore meets WP:RS. That is how Wikipedia works, not by asserting what editors here "know" to be "truth." Collect (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- In addition, whereas Wheatcroft does discuss opinia of other authors in his article, it would be totally incorrect tro use his summary of their opinia and ignore Wheatcroft's own position. Currently, the MKucR article uses some facts presented by Wheatcroft and his summary of opinia of some other authors, but it essentially ignores what he himself thinks of this account. Meanwhile, his major point is that it would be fundamentally incorrect to equate murders, executions, manslaughter as a result of criminal neglect etc into a single category, and that is especially important what we speak about Stalinis repressions that were much more complex phenomenon than people think. If we ignore this major idea, any attempt to use Wheatcroft as a source as cherry-picking, which is against our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just checking, does Mass Killings under Capitalist Regimes exist yet? Because that article is currently the poster-child for Wikipedia failing WRT WP:NPOV and WP:DUE at such epic levels that I long ago stopped even trying. I'd assume any source cited primarily by that article and not elsewhere is, at best, of dubious reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Anti-communist mass killings exists. Mass killings under colonial regimes redirects to "Genocide of indigenous people" . see also WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Capitalist_regimes One issue is that "Communist regimes" tend to call every other regime "Capitalist" which rather makes a mockery of the title. The first article fully covers your cavil, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just checking, does Mass Killings under Capitalist Regimes exist yet? Because that article is currently the poster-child for Wikipedia failing WRT WP:NPOV and WP:DUE at such epic levels that I long ago stopped even trying. I'd assume any source cited primarily by that article and not elsewhere is, at best, of dubious reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Re "One issue is that "Communist regimes" tend to call every other regime "Capitalist" " The same argument works for "Capitalists" too, Western sources tend to call "communist regimes" every regime that reject free market, or has different policy towards freedoms, of accepts help from some communist states to resist neocolonialist expansion. "Communist regimes" is a veeery vague term too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Alas for you, we go by what "reliable sources" call the regimes, and the article does not appear to include theocracies and other non-democratic regimes as being "communist" but only uses ones which generally have used the term "communist" or "Marxist" or "Maoist" to describe themselves. You may note that the word "communist" in the title is in lower case. Collect (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Re "One issue is that "Communist regimes" tend to call every other regime "Capitalist" " The same argument works for "Capitalists" too, Western sources tend to call "communist regimes" every regime that reject free market, or has different policy towards freedoms, of accepts help from some communist states to resist neocolonialist expansion. "Communist regimes" is a veeery vague term too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Some reliable sources. Even not a significant minority. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I would like to make a list of reliable sources for Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hello! Project, and assessment on which sources are reliable would be appreciated. There may be some overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga.
Reliable sources: These websites are generally accepted as reliable sources and post news, sales rankings, and press releases.
- Asahi Shimbun (http://www.asahi.com)
- Billboard Japan (http://www.billboardjapan.com)
- Kotaku (http://www.kotaku.com)
- Mainichi Shimbun (http://www.mainichi.jp)
- Model Press
- Natalie
- NHK (https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/japan/)
- Oricon (http://www.oricon.co.jp)
- Sports Hochi (http://www.hochi.co.jp)
- Sports Nippon (http://www.sponichi.co.jp)
- Tokyo Sports (http://www.tokyo-sports.co.jp)
Situational (restrictions apply when using as a source)
- Anime News Network (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com): news and reviews are reliable, but database information is user-submitted
- Eiga: news is reliable, but movie ratings are user-submitted
- Arama! Japan: occasionally conducts exclusive interviews with artists, and Ronald Taylor, the administrator, is a notable contributor to The Japan Times. However, guest articles/reviews are user-submitted and some articles have shown to be biased or use sensationalist wording. Arama! Japan also used to be a user-submitted collaborative gossip blog titled Arama They Didn't, a spin-off of Oh No They Didn't.
- JPopAsia: occasionally conducts exclusive interviews with artists, but articles are fan translations
- The Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp): use for current events and interviews; known factual errors in some reviews
Unreliable sources
- Asian Junkie: personal self-published gossip blog
- Tokyohive: (discussed on WikiProject Anime and manga) Translates news from major media news outlets and they are part of 6Theory, who also owns Allkpop, which is considered an unreliable source on Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea (discussed here).
- Stage48 (for AKB48): Wiki
- Hello!Online (for Hello! Project): Non-notable fan translation blog
- New School Kaidan: Non-notable fan translation blog
- Maji de 2ch and Minus Kakugo: Self-published fan translation blogs that translate comments from anonymous Japanese message boards, which are not notable enough to use as a means of general opinion or review
- IMDb (http://www.imdb.com): All information is user-submitted
Not sure
- Barks: music news and concert reviews
- Friday (http://friday.kodansha.ne.jp): tabloid magazine
- Josei Seven: tabloid magazine
Any input would be appreciated! lullabying (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are a few others on WP:VG/S. --Izno (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I'll keep that in mind. I noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan has no list of acceptable sources like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, which is why I suggested to build one. lullabying (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you didn't list Asahi Shimbun ☆ Bri (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that's why you're here to remind me! I'll include that. Thank you! lullabying (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you didn't list Asahi Shimbun ☆ Bri (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I'll keep that in mind. I noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan has no list of acceptable sources like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, which is why I suggested to build one. lullabying (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- No A "list of reliable sources"? How about everything from a Japanese university press? Is this just English sources? I tried to bring Frédéric's Japan Encyclopedia here five years ago and had a dog of a time convincing folks it was unreliable, as a result of it being published by Harvard University Press (technically, it is only the English translation that was published by a university press, and the translator was not a Japanologist). I've seen outright crap being published in Japan Times, but you're not going to convince the majority of the community that it is "unreliable in general", while telling non-specialist editors that it is "reliable in general" will inevitably lead to us calling the Man'yōshū Japan's "oldest anthology of domestic poetry" and the like. I'm going to need some convincing that this is a useful idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you have any sources you'd like to include, feel free to share so we can discuss. The sources I listed here are mostly online and some of them are in Japanese. lullabying (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're never going to get a comprehensive list of all the "reliable sources", and it really depends on context. In general, Wikipedia is not the place for the kind of information that is found in a lot of the sources you listed (the anime and pop culture sources include a lot of information that would be more at home on fan wikis, and even general newspapers have their usability as "reliable sources in general" brought into question by WP:NOTNEWS); you can cite them, generally speaking, for encyclopedic information they happen to verify, but you can't "pillage" them like you can reputable print encyclopedias. As for online sources I think are generally usable, ".ac.jp" URLs are a pretty good indicator, but even there I don't want to add "web pages with a URL ending in .ac.jp" to any kind of "list of reliable sources, because such lists are not generally useful for Wikipedia's purposes. My personal favourite source, period, is the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten, which is a fairly authoritative encyclopedia on all aspects of the literature of Japan before 1868, and Keene's History of Japanese Literature would be a close second if it were technically a single work that had been written from start to finish and published as one work. But I don't think trying to create a list of "reliable sources" is useful; the best part of Keene's work (Seeds in the Heart) is so monumentally large that it was bound to include a fair number of misprints and errors, so telling editors who don't know better (can't read Japanese and access the sources that correct him) that it just "is" a "reliable source" is going to create more problems than it solves. Ditto NKBD, which is old enough that a lot of its information about who owns this or that manuscript is almost certainly out of date. Telling folks that certain sources are generally not reliable might be useful, but I don't think anyone who would use such a list is not already aware that IMDb (for example) is not reliable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Other WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources have a list of reliable sources and they seem to have no problem with it. It's also perfectly normal for people to revisit sources to see if they're still valid as personnel and accuracy changes, and none of these sources are chosen without reason. lullabying (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I can't speak for video games, but honestly WP:KOREA need to get their shit together (virtually every article on pre-1948 Korean history violates MOS:KOREA#Romanization, etc.), so they're not an example to be upheld. And you still haven't addressed my Japan Times and Japan Encyclopedia concerns above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- For Japan Encyclopedia, it's a controversial source because it's been criticized for being inaccurate (1, 2), and it also may be outdated since it was published at least a decade ago. However, if you don't trust my opinion on it, you can reopen a discussion on whether it should be considered valid. I don't see why The Japan Times would seem unreliable as there's plenty of vetting for the writers and it's been known to not be very biased. The purpose of having a reliable source list is to set a standard of what sources not to use, as I've seen a lot of articles that cite fan translations and non-notable blogs. lullabying (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Google the quote I provided (initially mangled, but have now corrected) above. I don't want to have to fight non-specialist editors over whether the MYS or the KFS is the "oldest anthology of domestic poetry" just because I can't find a "reliable source" that explicitly states that the latter is and the former isn't, as a result of scholarly sources generally not discussing Japanese poetry in terms of "domestic" and "foreign" but rather "Japanese" (which does not mean "domestic") and "Chinese" (which does not mean "foreign"). If you make sweeping statements like "Japan Times is reliable" you set us up for "Japan Times says X but Donald Keene says Y" messes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Let's try to stay on topic on verifying which sources are reliable, and then we can compile a list from there. Can you provide examples of why The Japan Times should not be considered a reliable source? lullabying (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- It published an article (technically a book review of an abridged kinda-translation of the MYS) calling the MYS Japan's "oldest anthology of domestic poetry", referring to the great MYS (etc.) scholar Susumu Nakanishi and "Susumu Nakahashi", using the phrase "in the eighth century during the Nara Period" (implying the author wasn't aware that Nara period took place entirely within the eighth century), etc. The dates given in this article for Hitomaro's birth and death look suspiciously like what our article on him said before I (largely) fixed it. These kind of errors are okay for a newspaper targeted at a general readership to make, but when you as a Wikipedian start telling other Wikipedians that JT simply "is reliable" you invite conflicts and people claiming that a "reliable source" in English is superior to an "obscure Japanese source" that "Hijiri88 says is reliable" per WP:NONENG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I see; then I will consider putting The Japan Times under "situational" regarding reviews. It looks like the review you posted doesn't have an author listed, so if possible, we can make it so that contributors to reviews need to be named. However, for the most, I've seen that they've been accurate about reporting other news such as entertainment and interviews. lullabying (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- But you see, per my criticisms of Seeds in the Heart and the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten above, all sources are "situationally reliable". You can't just say "Source X is reliable", or even "Source X is an example of a reliable source". And the review I linked has been altered since I first checked it. I recall there being a Disqus comment giving similar criticisms to mine above, which has been removed, and one of the two instances of "Nakahashi" was subsequently corrected without comment; I also recall a reviewer's name being listed, but that might be my misremembering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Without speculating on why the author's name was removed, or copying it onto Wikipedia, or linking the mirrors per WP:ELNEVER, a search for mirrors (Google the "oldest" quote I've given a few times) reveals the original author's name (first initial "E", just to prove that I did). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just did a more thorough check, and it seems that author's name has been taken off the online edition of every article he wrote for them before his current regular column began in 2016. Still no idea why, just thought I'd point out that the lack of an author's name attached says nothing about whether the review was an example of an entry that is unreliable and can be recognized by the lack of a credited writer, since it seems to have been removed for reasons entirely unrelated to accuracy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will suggest having The Japan Times as a source for current events and interviews only then and leave it out of anything that has to do with historical/traditional/academic articles then. Thank you for your input. lullabying (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I still think that, regardless of any concessions, this idea is a bad one. Telling editors what sources "are reliable" is only going to cause fights, if it has any effect at all. And this is the wrong forum anyway: if you want to introduce a new subpage for WP:JAPAN, the discussion should take place at WT:JAPAN, not RSN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's already a list of "reliable sources" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Reference library regardless of discussion. I still think it's possible to compile sources and separate them into categories such as historical, cultural, entertainment, economics, etc. I will also take your suggestion of discussing the situation at WP:JAPAN once this conversation gets archived. lullabying (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's unclear why you put "reliable sources" in quotes given that those words don't appear anywhere on the page. At least some of them are indisputably reliable for almost everything one would want to cite them for, so if you meant to use scare-quotes to imply that you think they are not reliable, or somehow less reliable than the pop culture websites you list above, I would ask you not to take that dismissive tone anymore. Anyway, all or virtually all the entries on that list are books that have already been published; they are not attributing reliability or unreliability to everything that might appear at some point on this or that website, as you are doing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- There's already a list of "reliable sources" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Reference library regardless of discussion. I still think it's possible to compile sources and separate them into categories such as historical, cultural, entertainment, economics, etc. I will also take your suggestion of discussing the situation at WP:JAPAN once this conversation gets archived. lullabying (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I still think that, regardless of any concessions, this idea is a bad one. Telling editors what sources "are reliable" is only going to cause fights, if it has any effect at all. And this is the wrong forum anyway: if you want to introduce a new subpage for WP:JAPAN, the discussion should take place at WT:JAPAN, not RSN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will suggest having The Japan Times as a source for current events and interviews only then and leave it out of anything that has to do with historical/traditional/academic articles then. Thank you for your input. lullabying (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I see; then I will consider putting The Japan Times under "situational" regarding reviews. It looks like the review you posted doesn't have an author listed, so if possible, we can make it so that contributors to reviews need to be named. However, for the most, I've seen that they've been accurate about reporting other news such as entertainment and interviews. lullabying (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- It published an article (technically a book review of an abridged kinda-translation of the MYS) calling the MYS Japan's "oldest anthology of domestic poetry", referring to the great MYS (etc.) scholar Susumu Nakanishi and "Susumu Nakahashi", using the phrase "in the eighth century during the Nara Period" (implying the author wasn't aware that Nara period took place entirely within the eighth century), etc. The dates given in this article for Hitomaro's birth and death look suspiciously like what our article on him said before I (largely) fixed it. These kind of errors are okay for a newspaper targeted at a general readership to make, but when you as a Wikipedian start telling other Wikipedians that JT simply "is reliable" you invite conflicts and people claiming that a "reliable source" in English is superior to an "obscure Japanese source" that "Hijiri88 says is reliable" per WP:NONENG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Let's try to stay on topic on verifying which sources are reliable, and then we can compile a list from there. Can you provide examples of why The Japan Times should not be considered a reliable source? lullabying (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Google the quote I provided (initially mangled, but have now corrected) above. I don't want to have to fight non-specialist editors over whether the MYS or the KFS is the "oldest anthology of domestic poetry" just because I can't find a "reliable source" that explicitly states that the latter is and the former isn't, as a result of scholarly sources generally not discussing Japanese poetry in terms of "domestic" and "foreign" but rather "Japanese" (which does not mean "domestic") and "Chinese" (which does not mean "foreign"). If you make sweeping statements like "Japan Times is reliable" you set us up for "Japan Times says X but Donald Keene says Y" messes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- For Japan Encyclopedia, it's a controversial source because it's been criticized for being inaccurate (1, 2), and it also may be outdated since it was published at least a decade ago. However, if you don't trust my opinion on it, you can reopen a discussion on whether it should be considered valid. I don't see why The Japan Times would seem unreliable as there's plenty of vetting for the writers and it's been known to not be very biased. The purpose of having a reliable source list is to set a standard of what sources not to use, as I've seen a lot of articles that cite fan translations and non-notable blogs. lullabying (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I can't speak for video games, but honestly WP:KOREA need to get their shit together (virtually every article on pre-1948 Korean history violates MOS:KOREA#Romanization, etc.), so they're not an example to be upheld. And you still haven't addressed my Japan Times and Japan Encyclopedia concerns above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Other WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources have a list of reliable sources and they seem to have no problem with it. It's also perfectly normal for people to revisit sources to see if they're still valid as personnel and accuracy changes, and none of these sources are chosen without reason. lullabying (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- You're never going to get a comprehensive list of all the "reliable sources", and it really depends on context. In general, Wikipedia is not the place for the kind of information that is found in a lot of the sources you listed (the anime and pop culture sources include a lot of information that would be more at home on fan wikis, and even general newspapers have their usability as "reliable sources in general" brought into question by WP:NOTNEWS); you can cite them, generally speaking, for encyclopedic information they happen to verify, but you can't "pillage" them like you can reputable print encyclopedias. As for online sources I think are generally usable, ".ac.jp" URLs are a pretty good indicator, but even there I don't want to add "web pages with a URL ending in .ac.jp" to any kind of "list of reliable sources, because such lists are not generally useful for Wikipedia's purposes. My personal favourite source, period, is the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten, which is a fairly authoritative encyclopedia on all aspects of the literature of Japan before 1868, and Keene's History of Japanese Literature would be a close second if it were technically a single work that had been written from start to finish and published as one work. But I don't think trying to create a list of "reliable sources" is useful; the best part of Keene's work (Seeds in the Heart) is so monumentally large that it was bound to include a fair number of misprints and errors, so telling editors who don't know better (can't read Japanese and access the sources that correct him) that it just "is" a "reliable source" is going to create more problems than it solves. Ditto NKBD, which is old enough that a lot of its information about who owns this or that manuscript is almost certainly out of date. Telling folks that certain sources are generally not reliable might be useful, but I don't think anyone who would use such a list is not already aware that IMDb (for example) is not reliable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you have any sources you'd like to include, feel free to share so we can discuss. The sources I listed here are mostly online and some of them are in Japanese. lullabying (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
"For Japan Encyclopedia, it's a controversial source because it's been criticized for being inaccurate (1, 2), and it also may be outdated since it was published at least a decade ago." It seems to be useless. The encyclopedia was written by a single "expert" writer, who was not Japanese and who died back in 1996. The book has not been updated since (making it outdated), was never seriously edited, and attempts of fact-checking revealed errors and inaccuracies in hundreds of articles. The book (and its inaccuracies) were also republished by Harvard University Press. The publishing house was criticized for not fact-checking the material, even when it contained inaccuracies about former faculty of Harvard University.
Not only has this source no reputation for fact-checking, but it raises some questions about the editorial practices of its publishers. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Dimadick: That issue was discussed in excruciating detail on this board in September 2013. I opened the thread in response to some argumenting with CurtisNaito (talk · contribs), and Nishidani (talk · contribs) (in my first interaction with him) was a major contributor. I forget if you were there, but I did ping someone who had already tried, and failed, to bring it to the community's attention. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just checked. It was here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would recommend against making a list of potential reliable publications for this project specifically. These kinds of lists are generally produced for topics that are both modern and niche, such as video games, animanga, and webcomics. I don't believe it is useful to have a list of potential reliable publications for a topic so old and diverse as an entire country. However, if people do go about making such a page, then go ahead, I suppose. I think it could create a separate space to discuss and archive discussions about a specific subject matter. I think it is more effort than it is worth, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, none of the above has the slightest relevance for anyone writing about historical Japanese art for example. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: [31] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, exactly - there are far better sources easily available, without having to battle with ads. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's already a list of "reliable sources" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Reference library. In this case, we can make separate list of sources for different categories such as historical, cultural, entertainment, economics, etc. lullabying (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's unclear why you put "reliable sources" in quotes given that those words don't appear anywhere on the page. At least some of them are indisputably reliable for almost everything one would want to cite them for, so if you meant to use scare-quotes to imply that you think they are not reliable, or somehow less reliable than the pop culture websites you list above, I would ask you not to take that dismissive tone anymore. Anyway, all or virtually all the entries on that list are books that have already been published; they are not attributing reliability or unreliability to everything that might appear at some point on this or that website, as you are doing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- There's already a list of "reliable sources" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Reference library. In this case, we can make separate list of sources for different categories such as historical, cultural, entertainment, economics, etc. lullabying (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, exactly - there are far better sources easily available, without having to battle with ads. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: [31] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- In the case of Barks at least, from the looks of things, it does seem reliable: western sites like ANN and Japanese sites tend to cite them as well. They also do interviews and live reports, and they seem to be done by an actual company that's also JASRAC licensed. The only thing that might be a point against it is that its news articles don't seem to have bylines, though this is a common practice in many other Japanese websites (even reputable ones) as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
sciencebasedmedicine.org
Is this an SPS for the purposes of WP:BLPSPS? Yes? No? Depends on the article and who wrote it? On one hand SBM has an editorial board, on the other hand SBM describes itself as a blog and says referencing is not alway required[32]. What about articles written by Gorski himself? Here is an example from the article Ben Swann where an SBM article written by Gorski is used as the only source for potentially controversial material about a living person "Swann has propagated conspiracy theories about the discredited view that vaccines can cause autism.[1]
I have recently seen different editors say SBM is not an SPS[33], that it is not an "ordinary" SPS[34] and even an editor contradicting themselves[35][36][37]
Searching noticeboards turns up more controversies about use of SBM as a source[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] but I am not aware of any consensus on weather SBM is an SPS.
References
- ^ Gorski, David (11 July 2016). "Reviewing Andrew Wakefield's VAXXED: Antivaccine propaganda at its most pernicious". Science-Based Medicine.
Tornado chaser (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog:@MPants at work:@JzG: Pinging editors whose diffs I cite. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. Definitely RS. Gorski and Novella are impeccably credentialed, they have recruited other published experts in their fields to write for it, it's possessed of an editorial staff, has a reputation for fact-checking and correcting errors, and is widely cite by other publications as reliable. It's a generally reliable source in the most general sense, not even just an expert blog. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Is it really "potentially controversial" when his videos about that exact conspiracy theory still exist online? --tronvillain (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Also, the relevant portion of WP:RS is probably
"Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff."
--tronvillain (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)- SBM may meet the requirements of WP:RS, but does it count as self-published under the stricter requirements of WP:BLPSPS, which prohibits ALL use of SPS, even expert SPS, as sources for information about living people? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's an online magazine, with a full staff including editors and writers and an editorial board just like Time or Rolling Stone, so no. Just because the founders still frequently write for it doesn't make it self published, and even if you want to argue that their writings are, they're still inarguably qualified experts whose writings on the topic have been previously published, and thus still RSes for claims of fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- SBM may meet the requirements of WP:RS, but does it count as self-published under the stricter requirements of WP:BLPSPS, which prohibits ALL use of SPS, even expert SPS, as sources for information about living people? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Also, the relevant portion of WP:RS is probably
- You should probably read Science-Based Medicine and the sources there, if you want to understand what it is.
- Yes there are a few discussions there where altmed POV pushers come to a board and moan. They have never found consensus to reject it, in the way that it is widely used. The Greger thread for example, is one of several filed by Greger fans at several boards, and was finally worked through via the very well attended RfC at the Greger article which found SBM, used as it was used, just fine. The same thing goes on with Quackwatch.
- By the way Tornado chaser, please read Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_2#flu_shots for an example of that SYN problem I mentioned to you - that is entirely typical when people do what you tried to recommend at WT:BLP (as they should do). Please note the actual sourcing and content at Vani_Hari#Promotion_of_pseudoscience. This is a problem the community has already solved in practice many, many, many times.
- This posting is frankly absurd, since as you know due to your participation there, we have been discussing a proposal to eventually post as an RfC to address BLPSPS. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Your proposal at the BLP talk page has been controversial, there is no guaranty any RfC will pass, and we must follow current policy until/unless an RfC to change it passes. Current policy prohibits the use of self-published sources as sources of information about living people, at least when the content sourced to the SPS is stated in wikipedia's voice. You have used the fact that SBM is an SPS as an argument for changing BLP[43][44], but reverted me when I tried to remove it at Ben Swann per BLPSPS, saying that it's "not a blog per se"[45], do you consider SBM an SPS or not? If SBM is not an SPS then it can't count as an example of a need to change policy, if it is an SPS, then why did you restore it at Ben Swann? Rather than making my post "absurd" the discussion at BLP is all the more reason to determine if SBM is an SPS or not, given that you have been using the fact that SBM is an SPS as an argument in that discussion.
- As for the Greger article, the content cited to SBM there was ok because it was attributed to
GorskiHall, not stated in wikipedia's voice, like it is at Ben Swann. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)- I know exactly how these sources are used. The source at Greger is Hall, not Gorski, btw. This is the living consensus of the community; the writing needs to catch up. That is what is under discussion at WT:BLP. There are people there (including you at some points diff, diff, diff, and i am now bored so will not find more)) saying that BLPSPS says that any use of not-by-the-subject SPS is not OK in with respect to a BLP. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- as to what it is, again read Science-Based Medicine. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- i have been describing the strange animal that SBM is. It is not "some blog"; it actually has peer review and a publishing process for some pieces. It has aspects of a blog so when people describe it as a SPS there is a "hook". It is widely recognized in the real world as a strong source for what it covers. I think it should be used that way in WP for what it covers; I recognize that with BLPSPS as it is, some people will demand it be used only with attribution or try to remove it altogether. Use with attribution is good enough for me; what I want to eliminate is the timewasting arguments where people say "no not-by-the-subject-SPS ever" which is a dead letter in the actual life of the editing community, when it comes to this sort of thing. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- by the way we have the same boring argument about Quackwatch to the extent that a box has been created about it -- SBM is used the same way:
- -- Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog:@MPants at work: I get that SBM is reliable in general, but we have higher standards for BLP than normal RS, my question is about whether SBM is an SPS or not,
"It is not "some blog"; it actually has peer review and a publishing process for some pieces."
"some pieces" what about the other pieces? How does one determine what SBM articles are self-published, and what ones go through the publishing process. - I do not interpret BLPSPS in its current form to prohibit some use of attributed third-party SPS in BLP articles, so when I said "no third-party SPS ever in BLP" I was referring to third party SPS used as sources of things stated in wikipedia's voice, but I see how that was less than clear. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Little of what you have written about this has made sense to me and I am not interested in engaging with you further. You will !vote on the RfC when it comes, as you will. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Because SBM is a generally reliable source, I would treat it exactly like any other generally reliable source for BLP claims. If it's a contentious claim that is disputed in other RSes, then it absolutely requires attribution, and must be weighed carefully. So for example, if they called Lee Smolin a crackpot for his work on Loop quantum gravity (I know it's outside their field, but it's my go-to example of a legitimate, academic fringe theory), I would not include that unless several other RSes also called him a crackpot, and even then, I would prefer one much more on point, and would even still absolutely attribute that claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog:@MPants at work: I get that SBM is reliable in general, but we have higher standards for BLP than normal RS, my question is about whether SBM is an SPS or not,
- -- Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Fans of pseudoscience have always hated SBM. We have consistently found it to be RS, because it has an editorial board, fact checking, credentialled writers, and these writers soecialise in the field of critiquing pseudoscience. Its partly a matter of WP:BALANCE, offsettign uncritical sources about bullshit with reality-based and generally fully referenced critique. Note also that most SBM writers have their own separate non-RS blogs and the distinction between the writing in both sources is obvious.
- Quackery fans also hate Quackwatch. Again, this has repeatedly been found to pass RS based in part on the fact that RS also consider it RS. It is cired as a resource by respected third parties. Obviously fans of homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, chiropractic, antivax and the sundry other forms of health fraud will not rest until every reality-based critique is purged. Lets not be part of that. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Most of the responses to this thread say that SBM meets RS, which I always thought it did, the question I posted here was is SBM, or some of its articles, self-published? This question is distinct from whether it is RS, and has not been clearly answered. Are SBM or some of its articles SPS, or do they all undergo a sufficient publishing process to call them non-SPS? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Whether it's an SPS or not, it doesn't include the claim that appears in the WP article
Swann has propagated conspiracy theories about the discredited view that vaccines can cause autism
The SBM article isn't even about Swann. It mentions him only once in passingIndeed, antivaccinationists seemed most displeased when the “CDC whistleblower” documents were released to the public by Carey and other bloggers because examination failed to find evidence of a coverup, no matter how much antivaccine-sympathetic journalists like Ben Swann tried to make them.
You can plainly see these two claims are very different. --38.122.25.42 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)- This is a separate issue, and should be discussed at Talk:Ben Swann. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Huffington Post India
I noted that Huffington Post is listed as generally reliable in the perennial sources list. But does that pertain to Huffington Post India (dot-in not dot-com)? Is it under the same editorial "umbrella"? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about the editorial practices of the various international editions, but take business-related news from Huffington Post with a grain of salt. The Post is fully owned by Verizon Communications. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
RfC on reliability of InfoWars
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This RfC on the reliability of InfoWars asks editors:
- Is InfoWars a generally unreliable source?
- Should the use of InfoWars as a reference be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist?
- Should InfoWars be used for determining notability?
- Should InfoWars be used as a secondary source in articles?
- Should an edit filter be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use InfoWars as a reference?
— Newslinger talk 07:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes in that order. Infowars is well known to be far right political propaganda. It does not have a reputation for responsible fact-checking or accuracy. Reyk YO! 07:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes,
noHELL no, no, yes Is this really in dispute? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Modified since a number of commenters seem to find question 4 worse than 3, but using IW to establish notability (for BLP, for example...) honestly sounds much worse to my ear. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC) - Seriously? Yes, yes, no, no, yes. Obviously. Canonical fake news. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Addendum: this has been on my list of "fuck, no" sources for a long time, I have purged easily a thousand inappropriate uses of InfoWars, Prisonplanet and other Jonescruft from articles. Yes we definitely need an edit filter. And honestly? Blacklist it. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- JzG, "infowars.com" is on the global blacklist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not seeing on m:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- JzG, "infowars.com" is on the global blacklist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Addendum: this has been on my list of "fuck, no" sources for a long time, I have purged easily a thousand inappropriate uses of InfoWars, Prisonplanet and other Jonescruft from articles. Yes we definitely need an edit filter. And honestly? Blacklist it. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, never, yes. I wonder that one can even raise these questions.--Lebob (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, not on your life, yes - it's nice to have another clear expression of community consensus on this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- No Infowars is not an RS, thus should be considered generally unreliable. As such of course its use should be prohibited. As it is not reliable it should not (generally) be used as a source, secondary or otherwise. And yes a filter may well be useful so we do not have to revisit this. However as long as it is independent of the subject I see no reason why it cannot be used to establish notability. Like it or not Infowars is highly used and read (and that is what notability means, it has been noted), and thus what it says is clearly notable, thus what it covers is.Slatersteven (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding notability, please note that the general notability guideline requires reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 07:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- True, but we were asked separate questions so I gave separate answers (without letting the preceding ones influence the answers).Slatersteven (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Do you even have to ask whether they are unreliable? Does the following seem like a reputation for fact-checking?: "the site has regularly published fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims. ... InfoWars, and in particular Jones, advocate numerous conspiracy theories particularly around purported domestic false flag operations by the U.S. Government (which they allege include the 9/11 attacks and Sandy Hook shootings)." We should avoid using this as a source, at all costs. Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I started this RfC because there is only one prior discussion on WP:RSN regarding InfoWars (here), and it's from 2011. Please see this discussion regarding WP:RS/P for context. — Newslinger talk 08:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sheesh, facepalm, not a prayer, oh my god!, good idea - in that order. Edaham (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes in that order. InfoWars must be the epitome of fake news. I'd prefer to add snark as Edaham, but won't on the infinitesimally small chance it would be misinterpreted. I first thought this was someone's idea of a joke. Jim1138 (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes Infowars needs a new level at WP:RSP for unreliability. This RfC seems to serve not too much purpose, except for establishing a consensus for an edit filter. Not sure the kind of people who think that it is appropriate to cite infowars would change their behaviour upon seeing an edit filter, but eh. Better if we added say Breitbart to this discussion, so one can get a consensus for an edit filter for that too Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's already an edit filter. You didn't even try linking to InfoWars. wumbolo ^^^ 09:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- There isn't an edit filter, but it is on the global blacklist. Makes sense people wouldn't know though - only added in February 2018, and apparently due to spam on the beta cluster, not due to reliability Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hahahaha, Obviously, Obviously not, Never In the name of all that is holy, It's on the blacklist. I hope that's clear? Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Adding the usual caveat that Infowars (like any source) can be reliable in certain specific situations... such as when quoting Alex Jones in the Infowars article itself. No source is ever 100% unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes - Now, a serious question: Should The Onion be considered a reliable source for facts? O3000 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Obvious answers are obvious - Bb above is correct, and Infowars is fine when treated as a SPS. Adding that this edit filter is super annoying in discussions where one is actually talking about Infowars itself, and it's probably superfluous to add a notification for a black listed site. GMGtalk 10:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes' - Jee whiz! PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes (though reliable for Infowar's opinion or possibly for the topic being conspiracy theory related), Yes per WP:FRIND, very weak indication of notability (does show subject is a conspiracy theory), No, Yes - I take a wider view of notability - e.g. if lots of conspiracy nuts refer to something it is often an indication that that something is a notable conspiracy theory (though to write about it - one would need reliable sources). That being said, Infowars is a notorious conspiracy site and shouldn't be used for anything other than possibly as a PRIAMRY source for a conspiracy theory which is in itself problematic per WP:FRIND.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Yes, No, No, Yes 'nuff said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes yes nope nope yes Obviously not reliable. –dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Yes, No, No, Yes - essentially the only thing it could be considered a reliable source for would be "InfoWars said x" - even for statements Infowars has made about InfoWars its reliability seems highly questionable. --tronvillain (talk) 09:27, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, No, No, Maybe A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Yes, Maybe, Maybe, No I am in full agreement it is not a reliable source, and should be replaced with more RSes. But it is not the case it should never be touched. If I want to know what the take is on a controversial topic that is from the side(s) that are not being presented in RSes, I would need to likely read InfoWars to figure that out, as in such cases InfoWars is more a polar opposite of Snopes in this type of documentation. Thus, if we are dealing with a controversial topic that must be covered now (keeping in mind recentism and not#news), and it is not a controversy that has been fully dismissed (eg we're not talking about disproven conspiracy theories), then InfoWars may be an appropriate source for describing the stance of one side of the controversy as an RSOPINION source (requiring immediate attribution in prose), if no other RSes are other describing the controversy from the same take as InfoWars. It may even be the case like PizzaGate where InfoWars had a significant role in it, so knowing the theory was debunked, we'd still referencing their articles that it published as a point of reference, as long as BLP and other factors are kept in mind. Such a use would be using InfoWars as a secondary source on the topic of the controversy, so as such, that's why I say "maybe" to it also being a factor towards notability - however, if InfoWars was the only place talking about a topic like this, then no, that doesn't make the topic notable. To that end, no, we can't blanket ban the site. I do expect this to be an extremely narrow use case (and if we were following not#news better, one that would likely never then come up), but definitely one that can exist. --Masem (t) 13:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes per it's obvious; do we need an RFC for the Weekly World News too? Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes in that order. Is there a question somewhere in here, counselor? StrikerforceTalk 14:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Kill it. Kill it with fire. Lets see... Infowars claims that the government kidnaps children and makes then slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that Temple of Baal arches will be put in multiple large cities around the world, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government committed the largest act of terrorism its own citizens experienced, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell... Sounds legit to me! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes easiest RfC I can remember participating in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
LaurelYYNNY - piling on. Maybe an RfC that doesn't need to run 30 days... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)- Comment Could we get a speedy close per WP:SNOW? At most the only question is whether to make a filter; the rest seems settled. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes per everybody. I'm also wary of using it as a source for statements it has made about itself. They've literally made a business out of being an unreliable source, they should simply not be used at all. If it's an important detail that InfoWars said something about a thing, surely a better source can be found for that information. I'm also in favour of blacklisting and/or edit filtering - while it may be annoying in legitimate conversation, there's almost no instance where linking to the site from Wikipedia is valid, and any and all instances would require very careful scrutiny. The annoyance is net positive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Instance of valid linking to Infowars for context. GMGtalk 17:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Granted, but that's not an instance of valid use as a source. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- YYHHY Sad that we actually had to run this RFC, but I oppose closing it earlier than a week. We need to leave it open long enough that we can refer to it later, and 9 hours just isn't enough to establish a reliable consensus (some people may have been asleep or at work for the whole thing so far). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes. No brainer. A la WP:DAILYMAIL but there is no valid use (unlike DM which is good for sports); can be used only with attribution and the use must have very good justification from other sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes. Saying that Infowars is an unreliable source is the understatement of 2018. Most unreliable sources are so-designated by virtue of lack of resources or good faith sloppiness. Infowars should be characterized as a disinformation organization.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- YYNNY. I would echo Ivanvector's concern about using it as a source even for things it has said about itself.GirthSummit (blether) 17:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes. Echoing comments above, InfoWars is a business founded on the concept of disseminating falsities. In my opinion, we should not be linking to it under any circumstances, not even for its own claims, all of which require context and fact-checking from a reliable source. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes Late. It is a shame we have to run something like this to stop something so blatantly corrosive to the common good with the brutish monetisation of fake, and it stands out. 6 months has past, we need a quicker way to surface these. Inject it with a poison, like the lyric says. scope_creep (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, no, no, yes Piling on per reasons above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, without a doubt, never, not on your life, absolutely - This is kind of like asking "should we declare that the sky is blue?" Of course! InfoWars sis not more suitable as an encyclopedic source than The Onion.- MrX 🖋 11:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- InfoWars is a completely and utterly unreliable source and anything to prohibit and prevent its use as a source or citation should be implemented. Why is this even in question? Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: The same question had occurred to me and I considered requesting this be snow-closed immediately; but SarekOfVulcan answered that question pretty handily above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
I know this is snowing to be treated like the Daily Mail, but I want to express my concern that we're at this point of even questioning the inclusion of Infowars due to the fact we are trying to cover highly controversial materials far too soon and with too much reliance on overly detailed 24/7 news sources. I know it looks bad for WP if we do not cover these types of controversies at all in the short term, but we often go into far too much detail on these events in the short term that begs why we aren't including InfoWars who propagates this stuff alongside the normal body of RSes. Part of the reason we're here is that we are simply far too detailed on controversies as they are happened, when we should be writing for these as if we had 20/20 hindsight. Try to imagine writing about Pizzagate 5 years from now and consider the state of the current article. I think it would be far different and treated much more as a blip for an encyclopedia rather than the level of coverage that we have now. In such a case, then Infowars as even a source for it wouldn't likely be necessary and we wouldnt be asking these questions. --Masem (t) 17:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not just controversy, it is why we have the concept of not news. We rush to headlong into creating articles before we even know what really happened. (you should have seen the mess that was 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting, practically is was a live news feed).Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's questioning InfoWars: this looks to be purely a formality so that we can implement a blanket ban like we did on the DM and point to this as community consensus.
- Regarding WP:NOTNEWS: You know I'm on board with you on this one. Compare the articles in to to and observe how they decline in quality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Noting that infowars is actually already on the global blacklist so the blanket ban is technically already in effect Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've increasingly been of the opinion that Wikipedia has been far too lax about WP:NOTNEWS lately. And WP:SCANDAL too. We're supposed to be a repository for information of lasting relevance about our subjects, not the cut and thrust of the 24 hour news cycle, no matter how many clicks salacious details of sex scandals and political brinkmanship bring in for major media outlets. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Which is why I have argued that this needs to be tightened, not in enforcement but as a policy. But this is not the correct venue for such matters.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, this is an argument for elsewhere, I'm just trying to point that we're here discussing if InfoWars is a reliable source due to the fact that our articles on stories where InfoWars may even be possible to use basically fail NOT#NEWS. How to fix that is beyond this discussion, but let's be aware of this RFC as a demonstration of the starting point for a larger discussion. --Masem (t) 18:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- How to fix it is trivial. Make Wikipedia an encyclopedia instead of a breaking news website by disallowing all sources that are younger than 3 days as sources for including material. (I can live with a shorter period for removal of material). This would be accompanied by a prominent announcement so that the reader knows that his encyclopedia -- like all other encyclopedias -- is always slightly out of date and an encouragement to both read and post to Wikinews with for anything late-breaking.
- The hard part is getting consensus for such a change. There are two many people addicted to making this something other than an encyclopedia by including breaking news. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, this is an argument for elsewhere, I'm just trying to point that we're here discussing if InfoWars is a reliable source due to the fact that our articles on stories where InfoWars may even be possible to use basically fail NOT#NEWS. How to fix that is beyond this discussion, but let's be aware of this RFC as a demonstration of the starting point for a larger discussion. --Masem (t) 18:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Which is why I have argued that this needs to be tightened, not in enforcement but as a policy. But this is not the correct venue for such matters.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've increasingly been of the opinion that Wikipedia has been far too lax about WP:NOTNEWS lately. And WP:SCANDAL too. We're supposed to be a repository for information of lasting relevance about our subjects, not the cut and thrust of the 24 hour news cycle, no matter how many clicks salacious details of sex scandals and political brinkmanship bring in for major media outlets. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Noting that infowars is actually already on the global blacklist so the blanket ban is technically already in effect Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone interested in seeing just how unanimous this is can take a look at User:MPants at work/sandbox, where I standardized the bolded !votes. Seeing that many lines start the exact same way has a certain impact to it, I think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Was too obvious that I did not !vote. —PaleoNeonate – 10:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- ...says the editor who recently started a thread about UFO-research.com... ;) GirthSummit (blether) 17:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Are they two any good. scope_creep (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Sources for Islam
Are these two sources reliable for Islam-related information?
- IslamWeb
- "In this site, there is a committee of specialists that is responsible for preparing, checking and approving the Fatwa. This committee comprises a group of licentiate graduates from the Islamic University, Al-Imaam Muhammad Bin Sa’oud Islamic University in Saudi Arabia, and graduates who studied Islamic sciences from scholars at Mosques and other Islamic educational institues in Yemen and Mauritania. This special committee is headed by Dr. ‘Abdullaah Al-Faqeeh, specialist in Jurisprudence and Arabic language." Source
- MuslimMatters.org. Scholar Yasir Qadhi is part of the team and serves as an advisor. Source
– Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 21:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- It depends on what Islam-related information they are supposed to support and which articles in the sources are used. Bear in mind that - just like Christianity and Judaism - no group of scholars speaks for all adherents of the religion. Also, where possible you should use English-language sources, not that they are more reliable, but because it makes it easier for readers to follow the sources to learn more about the subject. TFD (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Economist on changes in public trust in various US media enterprises 2016 -> 2018
This Economist article. The subtitle is "Trust in mainstream American newspapers has grown, even among conservatives". But the partisan divide is 'mind-blowing. Just something to keep in mind as we work. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)