Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. | ||||||
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. | ||||||
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board. |
|
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
Contents
- 1 Rfc: company-histories.com
- 2 RfC: The Points Guy
- 3 Use of blogs for sourcing height in BLPs
- 4 Dexerto
- 5 Sunstone (magazine)
- 6 Wiwibloggs and Eurovoix
- 7 Wikipedia reference search WP:WRS
- 8 RfC: TRT World
- 9 A Hidden Phase of American History
- 10 Status of the Golan Heights
- 11 DarpanMagazine.com
- 12 HuffPost for paid editing at Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, and other articles
- 13 range map generator
- 14 Harry Scott Gibbons
- 15 IAFD.COM
- 16 Fidelity Press
- 17 The Singles Jukebox
- 18 Fred Rogers' sexuality
- 19 Frontiers in Neurology - blacklisted or no?
- 20 https://biography.jrank.org
- 21 India Today or IndiaToday.com
- 22 Sources from the same organisation
- 23 Natalie (website) reliable for showing notability of Neptune (owarai)?
- 24 Fox News - sources for future discussion
- 25 Timeline.com
- 26 Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy
- 27 Hope Not Hate as a WP:SPS
Rfc: company-histories.com
company-histories.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • WhosOnMyServer.com
It seem another rip-off of International Directory of Company Histories. So, is this site had copyright problem thus WP:ELNEVER? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC). Matthew hk (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would treat this article similarly to Fundinguniverse.com, which was discussed in a recent RfC, and Reference for Business (referenceforbusiness.com), which is currently being discussed on this noticeboard. I'm adapting my comments from those discussions here:
- Cite the original reliable source, but say where you read it. Company-Histories.com is very similar to Answers.com (RSP entry) in that it contains text from established tertiary sources. In this situation, most editors would reference the original publication in the citation, but link the citation to the Company-Histories.com page, and also include "– via Company-Histories.com" at the end. You can see an example of this at Hypnales § References ("– via Answers.com"). If Company-Histories.com contains any pages that do not indicate that they were republished from established sources, then those pages would be self-published sources, which are questionable. Additionally, if you can prove that the content in Company-Histories.com is not properly licensed, then it's a copyright violation and all links to it should be removed under WP:ELNEVER. However, a cursory search did not find any pages on Reference for Business that weren't sourced from Gale publications and Gale is known to license their content to other websites.
- — Newslinger talk 12:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have viewed some link of fundinguniverse, which most of them are NOT using
|via=
and mis-citing fundinguniverse as source. Wikipedia should not encourage to cite pirate site which some academic journal web scrapper was black listed. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)- None of the domains mentioned in this discussion are blacklisted (i.e. listed in the spam blacklist or the global spam blacklist). Are you referring to something else? — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- What is the different of some academic paper database (as re-publisher) what were blocked due to concern of copyrights? Certainly someone can written a code as web scrapper to rip-off the content of fundinguniverse, Reference for Business.com and company-histories.com, and made a new site and then other people by good faith insert the link to wikipedia. Among those three sites that "re-publish" International Directory of Company Histories, only the parent company of Reference for Business.com had somehow stated they had been licensed. So, if these sites keep on emerging AND most of them did not declare they are licensed (so far only one declared), how to tell which one did not have the copyrights problem. Or just make it stop, only one or two such mirror sites (what had somehow declared they have license) are white listed , and converted the existing links of other sites to those "declared". Or just have a lengthy project of verify them one by one with the offline hard copy and add back many missing information? All of those site seem originate from one copy, that somehow intentionally skip the author of the original entry in the books. Those entries most of the time are updated by different person as well as in the back of the book, they stated where the previous version are located, so it is odd that "licensed" content are not declaring the author as a minimum. Matthew hk (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- None of the domains mentioned in this discussion are blacklisted (i.e. listed in the spam blacklist or the global spam blacklist). Are you referring to something else? — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also for Reference for Business .com, the owner of the site had stated they are licensed some content from other sites, which presumably included St.James Press, the imprint of Gale for the International Directory of Company Histories. However, company-histories.com did not made such claim. Matthew hk (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure if this noticeboard is the best place to ask about copyright infringement, since most of the discussions here focus on a source's reliability. There doesn't appear to be a noticeboard to discuss whether a source violates copyright, but Wikipedia:Copyright assistance lists Wikipedia talk:Copyrights (
"Copyright discussion"
) and Wikipedia:Copyright problems ("General help/discussion"
) as two possible venues that might be more helpful. Since there appear to be numerous sites that republish Gale content, it would be useful to make a definite decision on all of these sites at once. If these sites are considered copyright violations, then you can directly request blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure if this noticeboard is the best place to ask about copyright infringement, since most of the discussions here focus on a source's reliability. There doesn't appear to be a noticeboard to discuss whether a source violates copyright, but Wikipedia:Copyright assistance lists Wikipedia talk:Copyrights (
- I have viewed some link of fundinguniverse, which most of them are NOT using
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems — Newslinger talk 14:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reject as a copyvio. WP:SOURCES requires a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and this site has essentially no external mentions as to its quality, no "about" section, no masthead information, and no other reason to believe that it might have such a reputation. It's tempting, but it has all the hallmarks of a massive copyvio to harvest ad revenue. By Googling randomly selected excerpts, I was able to confirm it is a massive copyvio of the 2006 International Directory of Company Histories from Thompson Gale. Sorry. The RFC bot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
RfC: The Points Guy
Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Points Guy?
- Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
- Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
- Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
- Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail
— feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Option 4 or 3 for content involving credit cards, Option 2 for non-sponsored content. The Points Guy is a website with 20 full-time employees including 14 staff writers. They earn money via credit card referral links. Their Advertising Policy page lists out the companies they have a conflict of interest with, so we can assume that any articles that involve a company listed on that page are unreliable. As the website's disclaimer states that compensation from credit card companies may affect how these products appear on the website, we should consider any article containing mentions of such products to be default unreliable, and remove uses of such articles on sight. However, the site also covers news and reviews on airlines, travel and related topics, most of them written by staff writers. The Points Guy was added to the spam blacklist on 4 December 2018, following Newslinger's assertion that the site "consists solely of sponsored content". This is false: not all content on The Points Guy is sponsored. Taking the website's two most recent news articles, "American Airlines Further Restricts Service, Emotional Support Animal Rules" and "US Citizens Will Soon Need a New Travel Registration To Enter Europe", the articles themselves do not appear to contain any affiliate links, and their quality appears to be on par with other travel websites (Time Out, Lonely Planet et al.) or newer Internet properties that also contain native advertising (BuzzFeed, PopSugar, etc.). At least some of the current citations to The Points Guy seem to be appropriate, such as those on Lufthansa and O'Hare International Airport. Considering the existence of usable content on the website, blacklisting the whole website on the spam blacklist is inappropriate, but since there is no way to only blacklist sponsored content, I consider an edit filter (a la Daily Mail) to be the best solution: prevent editors from making mass/spam additions easily, but allow legitimate uses of the source. The filter should warn editors to ensure that the article they cite does not contain any references to credit card products or any company they have a relationship with. feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Option 3: i would go for 4, except that being paid to write favourable material does not mean they have fabricated it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not usable for sponsored material but reliable enough for straight reportage of fact. Collect (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Option 4 appears to be a reasonable compromise, considering that there are usable articles on The Points Guy, even though they are a small minority of the site's content and can be replaced with more independent sources in most instances. For example, the subject of "American Airlines Further Restricts Service, Emotional Support Animal Rules" was covered by the Chicago Tribune, Business Insider, and a local ABC News site. (I'm selecting option 4 because The Points Guy publishes mostly sponsored content, not false or fabricated information.)
- I note that the site's advertising policy doesn't reflect the full extent of sponsored posts on The Points Guy. The site receives affiliate commissions for promoting co-branded credit cards (e.g. a credit card jointly marketed by Barclays and American Airlines, or by American Express and Hilton Hotels & Resorts), but the page only discloses the relationships with the banks, not the airlines or hotel chains (except Marriott International). There are examples of The Points Guy articles that don't promote a partnered financial institution, airline company, hotel company, travel agency, or airport lounge, but these articles make up only a very small portion of the site's content. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- In my opinion, a better alternative to removing
thepointsguy.com
from the spam blacklist would be to addthepointsguy.com/news
to the spam whitelist. The majority of the site's "News" section is still promotional, but it's better than the rest of the site (which is exclusively sponsored content). — Newslinger talk 21:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)- I'd note that their "Reviews" section (
thepointsguy.com/reviews
) seem reasonable as well. Flight and lounge reviews written by their staff should be usable as sources for "Services" sections of airline articles (e.g. Alaska Airlines#Services, Ethiopian Airlines#Services, WestJet Encore#Cabins and services). I would prefer sourcing a fact to The Points Guy instead of the airline's website. Note: Based on their website, credit card "reviews" are under thethepointsguy.com/guide
domain; these can remain blacklisted. feminist (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)- Thanks for explaining. I've requested whitelisting of
thepointsguy.com/news
andthepointsguy.com/reviews
at WT:WHITELIST § "News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews). Please comment there if you would like to extend or change the request. - While I have strong reservations about using The Points Guy's coverage of subjects that it has a close financial connection with, I don't think there has been a comprehensive discussion about what counts as sponsored content, and how it should be treated on Wikipedia. As ad blocking becomes more prevalent, more publishers are turning to native advertising as a source of revenue, and there are many cases where it is unclear whether an article is sponsored, or merely non-independent. Other examples of sources that promote the products they review include Wirecutter and Sleepopolis. This is something that should probably be discussed more broadly. — Newslinger talk 00:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal (RSP entry) just published an article ("The Credit-Card Kingmaker") describing The Points Guy's financial relationships with banks, airlines (via co-branded cards), and hotels. Key quote:
His Manhattan awards party—which showered accolades on categories such as No-Fee Card of the Year and Best Hotel Loyalty Program—attracted guests such as figure skater Adam Rippon, Nobel Peace laureate Leymah Gbowee and pop star Bebe Rexha. For more than an hour, bank executives and their counterparts from hotel chains and airlines took to the stage to accept awards. The price tag for the black-tie affair was about $1.5 million, according to a person familiar with the matter. TPG paid about $250,000, the person said. The banks and hotels paid the rest.
- In my opinion, restricting only The Point's Guy's coverage of credit cards (but not other topics) would be too narrow of a scope. The site's financial arrangements prevent them from providing reliable coverage of any type of loyalty program, and I wouldn't trust the site's rankings or reviews of any topic except for uncontroversial, unopinionated information (i.e. "This hotel chain has 3,000 locations" is okay if better sources aren't available, but "This hotel chain is TPG's hotel chain of the year" should not be used for Wikipedia articles). — Newslinger talk 21:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. I've requested whitelisting of
- I'd note that their "Reviews" section (
- In my opinion, a better alternative to removing
- I don't really know which option this counts as, but I would not normally use this website at all. Popular does not mean authoritative or reliable, this is basically just a heavily monetized blog. Guy (Help!) 05:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note I have put the whitelisting discussion on hold, there seem to be some general reservations here (it is replaceable, it is reasonable, sponsored content). I prefer to wait to let this RfC run its course. We need to know now of the 'useable' information, how often it needs to be used, and whether we can handle that with individual whitelisting, or that blanket whitelisting is suitable.
- thepointsguy.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • WhosOnMyServer.com
- (for tracking) --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Option 2 for non-credit card content, Option 3 for credit card content: As noted by others, TPG has several credit card sponsorships and generally places the sponsorship disclaimer appropriately. The news section sometimes has factual reporting but one can usually find the reliable outlet from which TPG sourced its coverage. They sometimes use social media posts but not as egregiously as tabloids tend to do. The site probably should not be on the blacklist and the news section certainly should not be on the blacklist. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm with Collect on this one, Option 1 for non credit card-related facts looks fine to me, but avoid for anything having to do with credit cards, and they're clearly both conflicted and willing to bend the truth. EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- For anything credit card related they are clearly unreliable and should not be used - a warning edit filter (which is option 4 if I understand it) seems correct. I am not seeing the sort of evidence of editorial controls (e.g. fact checking, retractions, etc) I'd want for other coverage. However, reliable sources do attribute news to them so I would go option 1 for non-sponsored news and option 2 for other information (e.g. airport/lounge/airplane reviews). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Option 1 generally, though of course context is vital — for example, they may say something medical that’s even right, but are not an authority in that area. They are open and prominent with Advertiser disclosure, so I give then points for that and would use that disclosure in any specific question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Option 2 ... I was asked to comment on this issue by Legobot; to do so, I tried to research the reliability of the content published by The Points Guy. I failed to find an adequate number of evaluations that I could cite. The highly respected Forbes magazine speaks highly of them but more as an Influencer than as a highly reliable source of information. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thepointsguy/#1b3613f73933 I found no sources that claim that the site publishes false information. But at this point, I do not have full confidence in The Points Guy. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Points Guy is a Forbes.com contributor (RSP entry), and the link in your comment is The Points Guy's description of itself. A Forbes.com contributor's self-description is a self-published source, which is not usable for establishing credibility or reliability. — Newslinger talk 13:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I won't argue that Newslinger. Another interesting point. The reliable publication Entrepreneur (magazine) says: The Points Guy "remains successful today, with the help of additional revenue streams via parterships with companies such as Capital One" https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/324042 |publisher=Entrepreneur
- If the site has such a partnership, why is Forbes magazine paying Brian Kelly to review Capital One credit cards?? Capital One Venture Rewards Review, The Points Guy, Contributor https://www.forbes.com/sites/thepointsguy/2019/03/21/capital-one-venture-rewards-review/#1c876c81b9f7
- AND Forbes makes this admission in another article: "Forbes has partnered with The Points Guy for our coverage of credit card products. Forbes and The Points Guy may receive a commission from card issuers". https://www.forbes.com/sites/thepointsguy/2018/12/10/capital-one-transfer-partners-available/#4b23d83f49a4 Peter K Burian (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps Option 3 is the best choice: Generally unreliable for factual reporting. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Points Guy. — Newslinger talk 10:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Use of blogs for sourcing height in BLPs
I want inputs regarding the reliability of four sources provided below:
1) Can we source the height in BLPs using blogs like this one (of Campaign (magazine))? When I initially used the aforementioned blog, its author (Sandeep Goyal) seemed reliable enough for sourcing the height of Manushi Chhillar. But at a second glance, his WP article seems like a hack job of a COI editor, and it also deceived me in citing his source.
2) Can we use this article of IBT to source her height?
3) Can this article of Vanity fair be used to source her height?
4) An anon user wants to use (this attack page) for Manushi Chhillar's height. But I've reverted them, as their tabloid-like source has neither an author nor it mentions the unit of height. Was I correct to delete their source?
PS: The first three sources are reporting her height as 1.75 meters (or 5 feet 9 inches), while the last one mentions it as "1.7" "5.7". Pinging Ymblanter, as they were the one who pointed out the dubious nature of the first source. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC) [fixed mistake – the source mentions "5.7" - NitinMlk (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)]
- I'd trust the Vanity Fair Italy article. A person's height is unlikely to be a subject of dispute. However, blogs falling under WP:SPS should never be used for sourcing a living person's height, unless the blog was written by the subject herself and her claimed height is unlikely to be controversial. feminist (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." This should be all the justification needed to remove that source and replace it with others...likewise, is it REALLY that important to quibble over 0.05m? Buffs (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've already replaced the source 1 with the source 2 at Manushi Chhillar, as the above listed 2nd & 3rd source are reliable for the relevant details (in my opinion). So, from now onwards, this thread is more about clarity regarding the sourcing in general.
- Buffs, the first source is not self-published: it was published by the Indian branch of Campaign (magazine). So the relevant policy here might be WP:NEWSBLOG instead of WP:SPS. Having said that, the about us page of Campaign India states: "
The site publishes interactive and user-generated content, including videos, blogs, podcasts, polls and galleries, offering readers the opportunity to comment on, contribute to and debate over industry issues.
" So it seems the Indian branch of Campaign magazine might not be reliable in general. Hence inputs regarding the reliability of Campaign India are welcome. BTW, 0.05 m might not be a big deal, but reliability of content is surely important in the BLPs, and encyclopedia in general.
- Buffs, the first source is not self-published: it was published by the Indian branch of Campaign (magazine). So the relevant policy here might be WP:NEWSBLOG instead of WP:SPS. Having said that, the about us page of Campaign India states: "
- On a different note, generally speaking, let's say that a journalist mentions details regarding height, birthplace, & date of birth of a living person in a blog of a reliable newspaper or magazine. Now let's say the same journalist write an article in the same newspaper or magazine, and gives the same aforementioned details. My point is that if that person's article is acceptable for the height then why not his blog from the same source? My assertion is that the details like the height, birthplace, etc. are a matter of fact, not opinion. And if the latter source is valid then so should be the former one. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Whichever is a reliable, third-party source (one with editorial controls/standards) should be used in lieu of a blog (one without editorial controls/standards). If both have the same standards, then both are acceptable. For BLP. I'd go with the former over the latter even if you have both. Buffs (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Does this mean that a blog is acceptable if it is published (under editorial oversight) by a reliable source? I am talking about the scenario when only a blog is available for the aforementioned details. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Whichever is a reliable, third-party source (one with editorial controls/standards) should be used in lieu of a blog (one without editorial controls/standards). If both have the same standards, then both are acceptable. For BLP. I'd go with the former over the latter even if you have both. Buffs (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would (personally) say no, its still a blog. The fact the info is not controversial does not mean that "just another bloggers" opinion of it. But the IBT and Vanity fair articles do not look like blogs, so would be RS for this information.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, the main point here is that the information in question cannot be opinion-based. It is only dependent on the fact-checking ability of the publisher. And reputed newspapers/magazines practically always publish write-ups of credentialed/competent people. In any case, their editorial staff take care of accuracy of the basic BLP-related facts. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do they? Can you please prove this is just "not another blog"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- As I previously mentioned, this query is general in nature, and it's about only those blogs which are published under editorial oversight by reliable media outlets. But I guess you are considering it specifically regarding the blog of Campaign magazine, i.e. source 1. As far as the source 1 is considered, I have already commented on its dubious nature, along with requesting others to comment on its reliability. And that's why I've already removed it from the article. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do they? Can you please prove this is just "not another blog"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, the main point here is that the information in question cannot be opinion-based. It is only dependent on the fact-checking ability of the publisher. And reputed newspapers/magazines practically always publish write-ups of credentialed/competent people. In any case, their editorial staff take care of accuracy of the basic BLP-related facts. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- What I want to know is this: why are we reporting on something as trivial as height in the first place. Ok... I can see reporting the height of someone unusually short, or unusually tall... and I can see recording the heights of people engaged in activities where height is relevant to the activity (Basketball players for example)... but for most BLPs height is irrelevant, and should simply be omitted as such. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- As a model, it's one of the times it's professionally relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- How is height professionally relevant to a model (unless they are unusually short or tall)? Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Limited range in which they can model garments, especially in high fashion. Its one of the few things you will always find a source for about them, unlike say lawyers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that there is a limited range just reinforces my opinion. I think we only need to note when a model’s height falls outside of the norm... when their height is exceptional. Otherwise, it is trivial information. When an attribute is the norm, we don’t need to record it, no matter how easy it is to source. We don’t have to report trivia, no matter how easy it is to source. That said... I don’t really care enough to argue further. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Height is mainly reported in the case of sportspersons and models. In fact, atleast in India, one need to have a certain minimum height to participate in beauty pageants. So it seems relevant in the field of modelling and beauty pageants. And I guess that's why infobox templates of models, pageant titleholders & sportspersons have parameters for the height. In fact, the first two templates even have parameters for eye colour & hair colour, which, going by your logic, will practically never have any relevance. Anyway, such removal of heights from models, sportspersons, etc. will affect a huge number of articles. So that should be done after an RfC or some other appropriate mode of discussion at some different forum, not here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that there is a limited range just reinforces my opinion. I think we only need to note when a model’s height falls outside of the norm... when their height is exceptional. Otherwise, it is trivial information. When an attribute is the norm, we don’t need to record it, no matter how easy it is to source. We don’t have to report trivia, no matter how easy it is to source. That said... I don’t really care enough to argue further. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Limited range in which they can model garments, especially in high fashion. Its one of the few things you will always find a source for about them, unlike say lawyers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- How is height professionally relevant to a model (unless they are unusually short or tall)? Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @NitinMlk: I may be missing something but was wondering why
yousomeone thinks the biography at Femina is an "attack page"? IMO, that may well be the best source among the ones listed, given that Femina is a well-established women's magazine and the organizer of the Femina Miss India pageants, which the subect won to qualify for the Miss World pageant. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)(changed you to someone since the designation was not by NtnMlk Abecedare (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC) )
- You obviously commented without checking the revision history, as that edit was made by Moxy.[1]. Also, the Femina's article in question doesn't even mention its author or even the units of height. As we can't synthesis, we would be mentioning her height as "1.7" only. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- A few notes:
- You are right, I hadn't noticed the "attack page" designation was not by you; have accordingly reworded my original comment.
- Back to the content matter: I think the units are pretty clear from context, and I wouldn't really expect such bio pages, which are liely updated by different persons at different times, to have an author. The reliability here stems from the reputation of the publisher (cf The Economist)
- If different reliable sources report different heights, we don't have to pick and choose but can handle it by saying
about 1.75m[a]
in the infobox, and adding a footnote "[a] her height has variously been reported as 1.70m[1] or 1.75m[2]
". - Btw, International Business Times is not really a quality source (there have been many lengthy pieces published about its questionable standards). Has there been a RSN discussion about deprecating it, yet?
- Abecedare (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I guess if we can assume the units of height then we can as well assume that they misprinted "1.75 m" as "1.7", but both of them would be in violation of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. Having said that, if some reliable source mentions the height as 1.7 m then we should definitely include that claim in the BLP. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- My bad. The Femina article actually mentions "5.7" instead of "1.7". If we assume that they mean "5.7 feet", then that would be 5' 8.4". As the rest of the sources are mentioning the height as 5' 9", the difference is mere 0.6 inch. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I was interpreting 5.7 as 5' 7" but your interpretation is also a possibility. Given that ambiguity, I agree that the 1.70m height need not be mentioned unless other reliable sources making that claim are produced. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- If it was 5.7M I think we would know. But yes it is just a tiny bot ORy and thus might be best to avoid it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever might be the unit of 5.7, it will never become equivalent to 5 feet 7 inches, unless 1 foot becomes equal to 10 inches. Anyway, the consensus here seems to be that the Femina article in question is unsuitable for sourcing the height, and I agree with that. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I was interpreting 5.7 as 5' 7" but your interpretation is also a possibility. Given that ambiguity, I agree that the 1.70m height need not be mentioned unless other reliable sources making that claim are produced. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- My bad. The Femina article actually mentions "5.7" instead of "1.7". If we assume that they mean "5.7 feet", then that would be 5' 8.4". As the rest of the sources are mentioning the height as 5' 9", the difference is mere 0.6 inch. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I guess if we can assume the units of height then we can as well assume that they misprinted "1.75 m" as "1.7", but both of them would be in violation of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. Having said that, if some reliable source mentions the height as 1.7 m then we should definitely include that claim in the BLP. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- A few notes:
- You obviously commented without checking the revision history, as that edit was made by Moxy.[1]. Also, the Femina's article in question doesn't even mention its author or even the units of height. As we can't synthesis, we would be mentioning her height as "1.7" only. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Dexerto
Is Dexerto a reliable source or not? They are a blog who mainly cover internet culture and video games. X-Editor (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- 1) Reliable source for what? Is there a specific fact you want to cite them for, a statement you'd like to attribute to them, or a subject you want to establish notability for?
- 2) Who are the writers for that site and do they have any credentials?
- 3) Does the site exercise any kind of editorial review?
- 4) Is there a straightforward way provided to report errors?
- 5) Do sources whose reliability is not in dispute cite Dexerto for anything? This would help establish reputation.
- Anyway, I looked myself, and I dunno. The site is slick, sure, and popular, and generates a huge amount of content. But I have no idea how they operate, who the writers are, who the editors are, etc. I think the saving grace on this one would be if it can be shown that other news outlets consider Dexerto to be reliable, maybe. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Someguy1221: I want to know whether you and others consider them to be a reliable source in general or not. X-Editor (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources — Newslinger talk 03:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- From the VG project, I don't think it is RS. No sign of an editorial structure or policy (there's not even a staff page). Content seems on the clickbait-y edge (not exactly clickbait but more to entice you to read) Not really seen used by other reliable video game sources. So I would consider it not reliable --Masem (t) 04:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Unreliable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair though, Dexerto seems to focus a lot on the esports scene, which most traditional video games sources don't cover in depth, so use by other reliable video games sources isn't ipso facto determinative. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Its a blog, and generally blogs are only admissible if they are by acknowledged and respected experts in the field.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- It does not seem to meet our basic standards for a reliable source. WP:USEBYOTHERS is nearly non-existent. There is no evidence of editorial oversight, nor does it seem to have a reputation for fact checking. At best, any information would need to attributed to them, but should really be avoided in favor of reputable sources.- MrX 🖋 00:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable. Sensationalist blog. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable for controversial content. Probably fine for uncontroversial stuff, but other sources are preferable, and a lot of Dexerto content wouldn't really fit as encyclopedic content. That being said, looking through their contributors, established esports journalists like Richard Lewis, Thorin, and Dekay have recently written for them, and their works are top-notch, relied on for more mainstream publications and should be fine as a source. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Sunstone (magazine)
At Talk:Anthon Transcript#Discussion of Stanley B. Kimball article from Sunstone magazine [[User:Geneva11}} has said that "Sunstone is a peer reviewed academic source that appears in multiple places throughout Wikipedia." It's being used to source the statement that "Earlier in 1956 Hayes had provided his analysis of his assertion of hieratic numerals within the Caractors Document." The source is Stanley B. Kimball and although it's probably accurate, my problem is that this is in no way a peer reviewed journal, and if we are using it as though it is we shouldn't. It doesn't claim to be one[2] and this defense of it calls it an open forum and says it is not peer reviewed.[3] Not only that, but the bit in question is not an article, it's a "Sunstones musing": "SUNSTONE invites short musings: chatty reports, cultural trend sightings, theological meditations. All lovely things of good report, please share them. Send submissions to: <SunstoneED@aol.cono>." It's like a letter to an editor. There was a link to it but I'm pretty sure the 2002 "musing" was a copyright violation on Academic.edu. We do use it quite a bit[4] and for some reason it has its own category Category:Works originally published in Sunstone (magazine) with one entry. It might well have its uses, I haven't looked closely into it, but if it really is an open forum ("The mission of The Sunstone Education Foundation is to sponsor open forums of Mormon thought and experience.") perhaps we shouldn't. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can find no evidence they user peer review.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group — Newslinger talk 22:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not Reliable Based on what Doug Weller has found, it should not be considered a RS for anything other than its own existence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not Reliable Based on the authorial Submissions Policy, there is no evidence this is peer reviewed or definitive in any way. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reliable with caveats Sunstone has published multiple articles that are important for Mormon studies. Their special issue on Mormon comics had some of the best articles on the subject (see Portrayal of Mormons in comics). It is an important venue for outsider opinions that might otherwise go overlooked, like Darron Smith's article about the persistence of racist beliefs in the church (referenced in Black people and Mormonism. Anonymous accusations of plagiarism in one issue of Sunstone caused Merrill J. Bateman to publicly apologize for not indicating his sources more specifically in his speech. That said, the publication has a reputation for not being neutral and even oppositional to the LDS Church--BYU professors were asked specifically not to publish in the magazine around 1990 (see Mormon studies for more info). In a few instances, articles that were too controversial for BYU Studies were sometimes published in Sunstone (although Dialogue is often the peer-reviewed alternative publication of choice). When using Sunstone as a source, I feel that it's important to acknowledge the source, since it is controversial, but to ignore all articles in Sunstone would be to ignore an important part of the LDS discourse community. The magazine is specially preserved in a University of Utah archive. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Wiwibloggs and Eurovoix
There is a lot of usage of the website Wiwibloggs (https://wiwibloggs.com/) on Eurovision artists' articles on Wikipedia. However the site is well known for being a blog and I have tagged uses of it where I've found it. A few other users have taken issue with me tagging these, giving "it's widely used on Wikipedia" as a reason. While it might be a very popular website, notable enough to have an article, and have a team of contributors, is it considered reliable? I have no real issue with whether it's found to be reliable or not, but given its origin I have tagged it when I've come across it. Edit: Adding Eurovoix (https://eurovoix.com/), because it looks just as "reliable" as Wiwibloggs. There's still a section of this website where users can submit stories. Ss112 02:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's not "largely known for being a blog". Even though it was founded as such over ten years ago, it's now a reliable Eurovision news site with few blog entries such as editors' reviews and wishlists. It still reports facts in its news articles. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 01:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't say "largely known", I said "well known for being a blog", as in everybody's well aware of how it started out. When somebody says something's a blog, Merynancy, they're not saying nothing the blog reports is true. I'd like to hear from users who don't use unreliable blogs if you don't mind. Ss112 02:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Except it's neither a blog, nor unreliable. It's a proper Eurovision news site, no different from Eurovoix or Eurovisionworld. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't say "largely known", I said "well known for being a blog", as in everybody's well aware of how it started out. When somebody says something's a blog, Merynancy, they're not saying nothing the blog reports is true. I'd like to hear from users who don't use unreliable blogs if you don't mind. Ss112 02:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music — Newslinger talk 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Very much two minds, it seems that it is regarded as worthy of note by other media, that does not mean it is not a blog. But (and here is the rub) its author does seems to be treated by the media (and indeed Eurovision) as a notable expert. ON those grounds it passes as RS, a blog by a notable expert.09:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)
- Case closed. Let me also add that Wiwibloggs' two main editors, William and Deban, were part of the jury in Romania's selection for their Eurovision entry this year. Last year they acted as the jury in Norway, also. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia reference search WP:WRS
FYI, I only just learned (after 8 years here) about Wikipedia Reference Search or WP:WRS. I learned about it in this edit, which mentions this tool at Help:Finding sources. It would indeed be nice to have an auto RS filter, and this looks like an interesting attempt to provide one. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something just doesn't seem right. What do you think?
Details.... Apparently Google provides a tool where developers can add bells and whistles to create a custom search engine. It looks like this particular search engine rus a conventional google search but only returns hits from a list of pre-approved sources. If that's not how it works, then my apologies and someone can please teach me. But assuming that is how it works, I'm having trouble with the list of pre-approved sources. It appears the list only exists in user space. See for yourself by clicking WP:WRS. That is a redirect that will open a user page. The list of pre-approved sources appears to be on that user page. The text at the top claims that WRS is a search engine that returns only results from websites that Wikipedia policies mention as "reliable...
Wait a second.... do any of our policy pages actually do that? Or is this tool claiming the saintly status of policy for a list of sources a small subset of editors has decided is pre-approved? And its more complicated. For example, the NYT is held up as an example, but the op-ed pages aren't automatically RS as this would seem to suggest.
Your thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Syced/Wikipedia Reference Search (WP:WRS) doesn't appear to be maintained anymore. As for the previously added domains, WP:WRS § Suggested additions shows that every proposed domain has been added to the search, even the ones that were challenged as unreliable. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- How did you arrive at the conclusion that WRS "doesn't appear to be maintained anymore"? It recently broke, and after reporting this to User:Syced they fixed it within half a day. Their user page says "I also maintain the WRS project, [...]" and Synced has made dozens of edits this month. I sincerely hope this thread will not be the beginning of the end for WRS. This useful tool has been around for almost a decade, and while not perfect it's helpful to find reliable sources. How about we add "returns only results from websites that Syced believes Wikipedia policies mention as reliable", and then put a disclaimer in the lead that WRS is not (official) WP policy/guideline; {{Disputed tag}} or something. I know you won't agree, and I regret mentioning this tool exists. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I said it
"doesn't appear to be maintained anymore"
because the two most recent suggested additions from February 2015 and April 2017 didn't receive any responses. Your suggested wording change is reasonable, and I did not advocate for the page to be deleted. — Newslinger talk 10:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)- However, there are quite a few domains listed on WP:WRS that appear to be self-published sources or defunct sites.
I don't think a link to WP:WRS is appropriate on Help:Find sources.— Newslinger talk 10:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC) The maintainer, Syced, has addressed my concerns. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)- Help:Find sources states it is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". The same applies to WP:WRS. Maybe instead of removing the link we could work on removing these self-published sources? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Another problem is that a Google Custom Search engine only supports 20 domains. Searching across more than 20 domains will result in missing search results compared to the standard Google Search. There are already 225 domains listed in WP:WRS. — Newslinger talk 10:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Help:Find sources states it is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". The same applies to WP:WRS. Maybe instead of removing the link we could work on removing these self-published sources? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- However, there are quite a few domains listed on WP:WRS that appear to be self-published sources or defunct sites.
- I said it
- How did you arrive at the conclusion that WRS "doesn't appear to be maintained anymore"? It recently broke, and after reporting this to User:Syced they fixed it within half a day. Their user page says "I also maintain the WRS project, [...]" and Synced has made dozens of edits this month. I sincerely hope this thread will not be the beginning of the end for WRS. This useful tool has been around for almost a decade, and while not perfect it's helpful to find reliable sources. How about we add "returns only results from websites that Syced believes Wikipedia policies mention as reliable", and then put a disclaimer in the lead that WRS is not (official) WP policy/guideline; {{Disputed tag}} or something. I know you won't agree, and I regret mentioning this tool exists. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I too was more interested in fixing than deleting, but the 20-domain limit would be fatal to this tool being promulgated in our P&G or help pages. I see no harm in allowing it to remain in user space for those who are aware of it, though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - There is one major flaw with this search engine... while it does limit hits to sources that are usually considered reliable, it is not picking up related “corrections” pages in those sources. For example, I ran a search for several topics that were the subject of corrections in recent editions of the NYT ... the engine gave hits to the original articles (containing the erronious text) but it did not give a hit on the corrections page where the information was amended. An editor using this search engine would not know that the “hit” contained erroneous information or that this information had subsequently been corrected. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just to clarify/prevent misunderstands, Google's documentation does not say there is a "20-domain limit". It says (emphasis mine) "If your custom search engine includes more than 20 sites, the results may differ from [...]" and "If you happen to add more than 20 unique sites, your CSE may sometimes display fewer results." --77.173.90.33 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- A Google employee says:
"You can add more than 10/20 sites to "Sites to search" configuration to your CSE search engine. Its just that if you add more than 20 unique sites, you will not get your expected results served or something may see fewer results served"
. — Newslinger talk 23:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- A Google employee says:
Thanks all for you interest in the tool! I intend to maintain it, I was a bit skeptical about the reliability of the 2015 request (mentalfloss), and then I totally missed the 2017 request. If I miss other request please ping me, thanks :-) And of course, if the list contains self-published or unreliable sources or defunct sites, please let me know too! Syced (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is a similar CSE set up for WP:VG; see WP:VG/SE. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Syced, thanks for setting up WP:WRS. Here are some recommendations:
- WP:WRS claims to return
only results from websites that Wikipedia policies mention as "reliable"
, yet there are many sources listed that many editors would not consider to be generally reliable if they were discussed on this noticeboard. Please remove all of the following, which were found from a spot check:- Deprecated sources: nndb.com (see February RfC)
- Self-published sources: hazegray.org, gateworld.net, fallingrain.com, bartleby.com, airliners.net, internationalhero.co.uk, famousamericans.net
- Search engines: news.google.com, scholar.google.com, findarticles.com
- Top-level domains: .gov, .edu
- Defunct: livedepartureboards.co.uk, vt.us, obsessedwithwrestling.com
- I only checked some of the domains on the list. Additionally, many of the domains are sites that editors would consider on a case-by-case basis, as parts of the site are reliable while others are not. Some of the sites are highly controversial (e.g. GlobalSecurity.org, see previous discussions). As WP:WRS claims that these sites are compliant with WP:RS, the burden of proof is on you to show that all of these sites have been found to be reliable.
- WP:WRS claims to return
- — Newslinger talk 23:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! Great news, you can now add/remove/modify WRS URLs by yourself! It is not yet entirely automatic, but it should be much faster than before. See the updated instructions. @Newslinger: Would you mind performing the changes you described above? I already removed the websites from your first 3 bullets. Cheers! Syced (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Since you've already removed the above questionable domains from the new list, I no longer have any objections and am happy to support your project to encourage reliable sourcing. I've responded further on your talk page. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 11:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
RfC: TRT World
What is the best way to describe the reliability of TRT World? --Jamez42 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jamez42: I've removed the "RfC:" from the section heading, since this discussion doesn't use the {{rfc}} tag. If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and then change the section heading back. — Newslinger talk 07:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television — Newslinger talk 08:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
A Hidden Phase of American History
The other day I filed for mediation but I'm a very inexperienced editor and my request was readily denied with a note that said I filed it improperly. The mediator did say I am able to file again, which I assume means my issue is worthy of this form of assistance. However, the issue, as complicated as it may sound when I describe it, is actually a very simple source dispute that I would prefer to clear up here, if possible. First a little background.
Anyone who has spent any time studying Irish-related articles on Wikipedia (articles related to either Irish history or the American Irish) has probably noticed there's a considerable problem with sectarian edits on the pages. In some cases, Irish Catholic editors (I assume) pin Catholic backgrounds to Irish individuals who had none; in other instances, editors will assume (or even insist) that Irish identity has always fixed neatly to Catholicism, and then take it upon themselves to remove any mention of this ethnic class from those places in history where Catholics had no significant presence.
On Colonial history of the United States, in sections where ethnicity is discussed, the "Scotch-Irish" ethnic class (and it is made clear on the SI page that this class was Scottish in origin) is repeatedly mentioned, but there is no mention of Irish settlements, despite that it is well-established in the historical record that there were many during the period, even as early as the 17th Century. On the talk page I provided editors with the following source and argued for inclusion of this ethnicity on the main page,
O'Brien, Michael Joseph [1920]. A Hidden Phase of American History: Ireland's Part in America's Struggle for Liberty.
Two editors responded with knee-jerk dismissals, and one of them even claimed that this source wasn't good enough because 'it is old' and because it was challenged by some of the author's contemporaries. I tried explaining that both of those points are true, but they're very poor arguments for rejecting a source whose main thesis has been validated by modern academics. I then linked to some of Michael Carroll's research on religion, specifically Chapter One of his book American Catholics in the Protestant Imagination (Johns Hopkins Un. Press), which was titled How the Irish Became Protestant in America (link),
https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/71487
"Michael O’Brien (1870–1960). This Irish-born historian’s attack on the Scotch-Irish myth in American academic circles was undervalued in his lifetime but has been validated by more recent research."
Kerby Miller, who is by all hands considered a leading authority on the history of the American Irish, and in particular during the colonial period, has endorsed the central thesis of A Hidden Phase, and has himself published extensively on this topic. And the fact is, I could easily support the inclusion of this ethnic class, in the main article in question, with any number of Miller's books, such as this one,
https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Immigrants-Land-Canaan-Revolutionary/dp/0195154894
But I would rather a third party editor with experience validate A Hidden Phase of American History as a reliable source for Wikipedia, because it is the most extensive study of early Irish-American genealogical records to date, and would be invaluable in editing many other Irish-related pages, most of which have problems much more serious than the issue at hand. If another editor can respond here and in the talk page for the referenced article, that would be appreciated.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- if its been validated by modern academics why not use those?Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I did cite research by Michael Carroll, who is an expert on American religious history. I did it in defense of A Hidden Phase of American History, as well as in response to a claim by another editor who, despite his editing experience, said that religion was a 'code' for ethnicity back then. He's essentially referring to what scholars have called the 'two traditions' theory (and probably without realizing it), which posits, in its simplest form, that 18th Century Protestant and Catholic emigrants from Ireland were two different cultures and essentially distinct ethnicities. This is what was attacked in A Hidden Phase of American History and called the "Scotch-Irish myth", and leading scholars today accept this interpretation and reject the two traditions view. Kerby Miller, the foremost authority on Irish immigration history, has written extensively about this.
- So what should I do? Is A Hidden Phase of American History a reliable source for Wikipedia if, say, it's cited alongside modern scholarship which makes the same or similar arguments? And how should I handle the dispute on the thread? I got aggravated by the ready dismissal of my source and said I would be seeking mediation. There hasn't been any discussion since.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Old history books are generally not reliable secondary sources because ongoing research updates information. In any case, your approach is wrong. For example, instead of beginning with a book about the Irish for editing about colonial America, you should begin with books about colonial America and add information about the Irish in proportion to what those sources consider important. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to correct the lack of proportionality that exists in mainstream scholarship. TFD (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- But the core argument of the source in question has been accepted by the leading authorities of Irish immigration history. So it's not a question of ongoing research updating the information; it is rather the case that ongoing research has confirmed the information in the old source. A biblical Creationist could make the same argument about Darwin's Origin of Species -- that it's 'old' and that it was contested in his day -- but modern biological research has validated his central point. Keep in mind that this dispute is over the mere presence of Irish settlements in colonial America, which is not a contested point in mainstream scholarship.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- See also Talk:Colonial history of the United States. Rmhermen (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Status of the Golan Heights
At Talk:Status of the Golan Heights (and Talk:Golan Heights), a user has argued that sources older than March 25, 2019 are "out of date" due to the recent US announcement. Included in that is:
- Roberts, Adam (January 1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". American Journal of International Law. 84 (1): 60. doi:10.2307/2203016. JSTOR 2203016.
I admit this is not the most recent of sources, though it is one of the best, as it continues to be widely cited in scholarship. Google scholar shows 345 citations, including 14 since 2018, and 2 this year. Is this source still reliable or does its age make it outdated. Is the claim that sources older than a week are out of date valid (near verbatim quote from an editor)? nableezy - 16:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear - Roberts (1990) is being challenged as a source for the current (2019) view (and NPOV wording thereof) of the international community, in light of diplomatic developments following publication. Roberts is not being challenged as a source accurate for the time of its publication (1990). Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- There have been several other sources for the current view of the status offered. You have claimed that any source older than a week is outdated. Im asking if that is a valid claim. nableezy - 16:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not for what nations that have not changed their views think..Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Statements in RS that are specifically about the current opinions of the US government are out of date. Statements about other perspectives aren't, unless RS can be provided establishing that other such states/experts/etc. have changed their opinions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The dispute here is how to weight or frame the aggregate view of the international community as a whole (obviously - the US says A, the rest of the international community says B - is sourced from recent sources). At present Roberts (and another source from 1996) is being used in present tense for:
Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)The international community widely considers the Golan to be Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation.[1][2]
- The source could be used for a statement of the U.S. Government's position from 1990-2019 though, correct? It of course, doesn't make sense to cite it for a statement made in 2019, but it's a fine source for the positions prior to that statement. Also, this isn't because the source is unreliable. It is just not suited to a purpose. You can't cite a source for a fact that predates the fact you are citing it to. I can't cite a book published in 1920 for a World War II battle, self evidently, not because the source isn't reliable, but because it isn't relevant. Reliable is not the same thing as relevant, and we shouldn't be arguing against the reliability of sources when what we really want to know is if the source actually contains the information we are looking for. --Jayron32 16:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The dispute here is how to weight or frame the aggregate view of the international community as a whole (obviously - the US says A, the rest of the international community says B - is sourced from recent sources). At present Roberts (and another source from 1996) is being used in present tense for:
- There have been several other sources for the current view of the status offered. You have claimed that any source older than a week is outdated. Im asking if that is a valid claim. nableezy - 16:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Roberts, Adam (January 1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". American Journal of International Law. 84 (1): 60. doi:10.2307/2203016. JSTOR 2203016.
- ^ Korman, Sharon, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, pp. 262–264
- Has this changed?Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Times of Israel doesnt seem to think so:
nableezy - 16:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Israel captured the strategic plateau from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War and in 1981 effectively annexed the area, in a move never recognized by the international community, which considers the Golan Heights to be occupied Syrian territory.
- You could say "...most of the international community, though notably the U.S. changed its position in 2019". --Jayron32 16:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Slatersteven - yes - this has changed -
"The international community, including the United States, largely shared that position until Trump upended decades of U.S. policy by moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem last year and recognizing Israel's 1981 annexation of the Golan earlier this month."
ABC news.Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC) - @Jayron32: that is pretty much what we do. It says "widely considered" by the international community, and then says in 2019 the US became the first country to break with this view. nableezy - 16:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, that says only the US position has changed. We need a source that says the the wider international opinion has changed, the US is not the world.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can you point to where, in the article text, it currently says "the wider international opinion has changed" Because it doesn't say that. --Jayron32 18:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The issue is not that our article says it has changed, that is the crux of this issue. It says that the international community think X, and that is being objected to because one nation has changed that view.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- But the article explains that in sufficient detail for the reader. The international community writ large, minus the U.S., still holds that same position, and the article explicitly says that the international community writ large maintains the prior view. It also explains, with plenty of context, the U.S. view. I still don't see what your problem is with the current text, or where it is inaccurate. --Jayron32 13:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with the original question.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I answered the question fairly definitively, the source itself is reliable; reliability has nothing to do with how the source is being used. The source should only be used to cite that the U.S. position has changed. Because that's the only country that did change its position. Everyone else didn't. The source also doesn't say that anyone else did, merely that the U.S., which used to be in alignment with everyone else no longer is. That is what the source says, that is what our article says, and that is what other sources also say. I am at a loss as to what in the current article text you are proposing change based on that source. --Jayron32 14:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Err I was talking about (and have been throughout) the sources raised by the OP.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- As have I. What are we arguing about again? --Jayron32 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Its not Slatersteven asking for a change to the aritlce. Icewhiz has argued that the sources saying the US has changed its position makes the sources on "international community" no longer valid. Slatersteven replied that he needs a source for the international community's position changing then. nableezy - 15:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- As have I. What are we arguing about again? --Jayron32 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Err I was talking about (and have been throughout) the sources raised by the OP.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I answered the question fairly definitively, the source itself is reliable; reliability has nothing to do with how the source is being used. The source should only be used to cite that the U.S. position has changed. Because that's the only country that did change its position. Everyone else didn't. The source also doesn't say that anyone else did, merely that the U.S., which used to be in alignment with everyone else no longer is. That is what the source says, that is what our article says, and that is what other sources also say. I am at a loss as to what in the current article text you are proposing change based on that source. --Jayron32 14:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with the original question.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- But the article explains that in sufficient detail for the reader. The international community writ large, minus the U.S., still holds that same position, and the article explicitly says that the international community writ large maintains the prior view. It also explains, with plenty of context, the U.S. view. I still don't see what your problem is with the current text, or where it is inaccurate. --Jayron32 13:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The issue is not that our article says it has changed, that is the crux of this issue. It says that the international community think X, and that is being objected to because one nation has changed that view.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can you point to where, in the article text, it currently says "the wider international opinion has changed" Because it doesn't say that. --Jayron32 18:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, that says only the US position has changed. We need a source that says the the wider international opinion has changed, the US is not the world.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Times of Israel doesnt seem to think so:
- Has this changed?Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- My reading: If a source says "the international community says X", then we have to reflect that source. If an editor thinks things have changed since then, they should be able to find a source specifically saying that things have changed, or directly and unambiguously disputing the older source. Using "the current US administration has changed its position" to try and argue that is WP:SYNTH - if it's actually obvious that it's no longer accurate to summarize the views of the international community in that way, then it should be easy to find sources saying so directly. Basically, contradicting or obsoleting an otherwise-reliable source in this fashion requires that you find a newer source that directly says the opposite. And just based on my reading of existing coverage, I flatly don't think the sources are there to support the change being proposed here (it's been brief enough that we probably need to wait for better sources, but most immediate sources seem to treat the position of the Trump administration as a defiance of the "international community", whatever that may or may not be.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
DarpanMagazine.com
Is DarpanMagazine.com reliable especially in a BLP article? This is used as a source to support the birth name of the subject in Guru Randhawa article. Kindly help. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fylindfotberserk, I haven't checked the reliability of the above source. But Guru Randhawa's birth name has been mentioned in multiple Indian newspapers, e.g. The Indian Express ([5]), The tribune ([6] & [7]), Business Standard ([8]), etc. So I guess you can cite one of them. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @NitinMlk: Thanks, I already did that yesterday See. Actually, I am more concerned about the reliability of "Darpan Magazine" itself. It might show up in other BLP articles. They publish a magazine though, but since Femina is getting "questioned" here, I thought it would be better to ask. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't notice that you had cited the Indian Express article before I even read this thread. BTW, my query was about a particular article of Femina because of its careless editing. I didn't question the overall reliability of Femina magazine, although it seems to be full of clickbait stuff. But that alone doesn't make it unreliable. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
HuffPost for paid editing at Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, and other articles
Is the March 14 HuffPost (RSP entry) article "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages" reliable for claims related to paid editing in Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, and other affected articles?
The HuffPost article was written by Ashley Feinberg, who is a "Senior Reporter" and not a "Contributor". This was also covered in this month's issue of The Signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/In the media § Declared paid editing.
I'm submitting this inquiry in response to BC1278's request in Special:Diff/888253168 for "an official consensus as to whether this article is or is not a reliable source for alleging paid editing impropriety"
at WP:AN § HuffPost article on WP COI editing. BC1278 is the paid editor (Ed Sussman) mentioned in the HuffPost article. — Newslinger talk 17:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not see how this is an RSN issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The reliability of the HuffPost article has been challenged. It's necessary to determine whether the HuffPost article is reliable before deciding whether the incidents should be mentioned in the relevant Wikipedia articles. — Newslinger talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- And where has it been challenged? If it's on the ANN page, it can be discussed there. There's no need to fork the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- It was challenged at Talk:Axios (website) § Request Edit -- Remove Contentious Material and Talk:Caryn Marooney § Request Edit -- Remove Contentious Material re: BLP. The WP:AN discussion focused on editor conduct and not the reliability of the HuffPost article. — Newslinger talk 18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- And where has it been challenged? If it's on the ANN page, it can be discussed there. There's no need to fork the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The reliability of the HuffPost article has been challenged. It's necessary to determine whether the HuffPost article is reliable before deciding whether the incidents should be mentioned in the relevant Wikipedia articles. — Newslinger talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Notified: Talk:Axios (website), Talk:NBC News, Talk:Caryn Marooney, Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard — Newslinger talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is exactly the kind of thing the article talks about: one paid user distracting a lot more volunteer editors, by invoking all kinds beurocratic processes. It's gaslighting.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- User: Newslinger is not a paid editor so far as I know. This proposal comes from Newslinger, not me. I am the "paid editor" the article is about. BC1278 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: Is your comment referring to me? (For avoidance of doubt, I am not a paid editor.) — Newslinger talk 22:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Newslinger:, of course not.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: Is your comment referring to me? (For avoidance of doubt, I am not a paid editor.) — Newslinger talk 22:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- User: Newslinger is not a paid editor so far as I know. This proposal comes from Newslinger, not me. I am the "paid editor" the article is about. BC1278 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is exactly the kind of thing the article talks about: one paid user distracting a lot more volunteer editors, by invoking all kinds beurocratic processes. It's gaslighting.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is just forum shopping. The very extensive AN discussion/investigation is focused on the article, including RS issues. There is also COIN discussion of the article here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jytdog's_efforts_against_paid_editing_covered_in_Media Aside from the problem of forking the discussion, it also belongs at AN because their are a multitude of WP policy implications here, beyond the scope of RSN, e.g. regardless of a RS finding, whether a WP mainspace article including content about properly declared WP:COI is consistent with WP: COI] and WP:PAID. The Talk:Axios_(website)#Request_Edit_--_Remove_Contentious_Material discussion looks like it will be decided on WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, not WP:RS. I'd ask that this discussion be closed and redirected to the AN discussion.BC1278 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are three aspects of the paid editing that resulted in discussion at three venues:
- The content of the paid edits was discussed on the conflict of interest noticeboard, now archived at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 141 § Jytdog's efforts against paid editing covered in Media.
- Editor conduct related to these paid edits, as well as paid contribution policies/guidelines in general, are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § HuffPost article on WP COI editing.
- HuffPost's coverage of the paid edits, and whether third-party reporting of the paid edits should be included in Wikipedia articles, were discussed in the edit requests at the two article talk pages I linked above with no resolution. You have previously asserted that
"This article is wholly unreliable"
at Special:Diff/890400952 and argued that a Wikipedia discussion"found it to be an unreliable source"
in Special:Diff/888250126. This noticeboard is the correct venue to discuss a source's reliability, especially when contested on article talk pages.
- An inquiry on HuffPost's reliability focuses on article content, not editor conduct, and belongs on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will reiterate that the discussion not appropriate here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The multiple forums has gotten exhausting. I strongly disagree with Newslinger that only editor misconduct has been discussed in the AN thread. However, if there's value in having a centralized discussion about the reliability of the article this seems like as good of a place to do it as any. I would suggest that the article is not reliable for reasons better explained by Swarm here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- My intention is to start a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of the HuffPost article's content, and not on whether the editor conduct is in line with Wikipedia policies/guidelines. At Talk:Caryn Marooney § Request Edit -- Remove Contentious Material re: BLP, Swarm described this as an
"unprecedented scenario"
and said:"when the content perspective holds that an RS is an RS, yet the administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong, it creates an incredibly uncomfortable scenario. There's no guidebook on how to deal with this"
. If it's impossible for editors to discuss just the source and its content, then please defer to the article talk pages and WP:AN § HuffPost article on WP COI editing, and ignore this discussion. — Newslinger talk 21:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)- To be clear, in that same comment, I advocate for the common sense approach for the content-side to follow the administrative conclusions that have already been made, rather than blindly legitimizing a source simply because of the agency it came from. Swarm— Sting · Hive 🐝🐝🐝 13:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying your position here. There are cases where an allegation, assertion, or opinion is significant enough to mentioned with in-text attribution. For example, "In March 2019, Ashley Feinberg of HuffPost reported..." is a true statement, and our judgment of the article's (un)reliability is a key criterion for whether it merits inclusion. This discussion is meant to gauge community consensus on this one point. — Newslinger talk 19:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, in that same comment, I advocate for the common sense approach for the content-side to follow the administrative conclusions that have already been made, rather than blindly legitimizing a source simply because of the agency it came from. Swarm— Sting · Hive 🐝🐝🐝 13:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- My intention is to start a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of the HuffPost article's content, and not on whether the editor conduct is in line with Wikipedia policies/guidelines. At Talk:Caryn Marooney § Request Edit -- Remove Contentious Material re: BLP, Swarm described this as an
- The multiple forums has gotten exhausting. I strongly disagree with Newslinger that only editor misconduct has been discussed in the AN thread. However, if there's value in having a centralized discussion about the reliability of the article this seems like as good of a place to do it as any. I would suggest that the article is not reliable for reasons better explained by Swarm here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will reiterate that the discussion not appropriate here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are three aspects of the paid editing that resulted in discussion at three venues:
- Jonathan Swan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chuck Todd ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two more articles where it's appeared. --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- In my opinion, Huffpost is probably somewhat reliable for wiki scandal accusations, but totally unreliable for science coverage. Their science coverage is a running joke on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe Jwray (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable. If an article can be rebutted by stronger evidence than itself, it should no longer be regarded as reliable. And HuffPost isn't exactly a good-quality source. See, for example, Swarm's comment on the AN thread. feminist (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
So have admins looked into this and determined that no paid editing occurred?Slatersteven (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Do you mean no undisclosed paid editing? We're here because of the HuffPo's coverage of disclosed paid editing which we know to have occurred. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am asking what about the article is in fact incorrect. A lot has been said about how inaccurate it is, but what does it say that is inaccurate?14:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)
- Slatersteven Do you mean no undisclosed paid editing? We're here because of the HuffPo's coverage of disclosed paid editing which we know to have occurred. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable - Per my comments at WP:AN#HuffPost article on WP COI editing and Talk:Caryn Marooney#Request Edit -- Remove Contentious Material re: BLP. In short, for all the people looking into this, no one has come to the conclusion that the paid editor is actually using manipulative tactics to whitewash articles. The claims being made by the article would be objective policy violations, yet the article simultaneously concedes that there are no policy violations, and objective investigations into the accusations and the underlying incidents confirm this. Therefore, the article represents one journalist's sensational assessment of what an editor is doing, and there's no reason to hold that as being any more reliable than an opinion piece. As Someguy1221 said,
CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES is more compelling clickbait than Several companies pay Wikipedia editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Wikipedia's own policies.
Swarm— Sting · Hive 🐝🐝🐝 13:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: COIN identified about 40 live articles with Request Edits from me since 2016. About 95% of the Request Edit article are either single editor reviews or brief discussions, with plenty of proposals rejected or modified. I guess not sensationalistic enough for this reporter to mention. Only 5% of the Request Edits articles (Noah Oppenheim and Nextdoor) have extensive multi-editor discussions where I expressed strong disagreement with editors, but some of my proposals were nonetheless adopted by majority consensus. Yet the article deceptively says it is common practice for me to argue with editors until they are so exhausted, they give up and I somehow get my proposals approved by default. Certainly false for the 95%. And even within that 5%, the people I disagreed with hardly gave up. Reviewing two specific disputes that HuffPo highlights: 1) The Ronan Farrow dispute discussed by HuffPo was with one editor, Jytdog. Even though three out of three editors disagreed with his position, he created an RfC to press on; and 2) on Nextdoor, the editors who disagreed with my proposal about removing the CEO's traffic offense !voted and made their positions known in the RFC. The inaccuracies and deceptions go on and on. The reporter, who came from Gawker, has | a history of apologizing for sensationalism. BC1278 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Besides the article's headline, which includes the disputed and opinionated term
"whitewash"
, are there any factual errors in the article? The words "whitewash", "bludgeon", and "canvass" are not used in the article's body. I understand the article characterizes some of Sussman's actions negatively, even when they are compliant with Wikipedia's policies. As the article does not claim that Sussman violated any policies, I interpret the article as a critical opinion of the types of edits that are allowed by Wikipedia's policies, and not a personal allegation. Sussman's edits are presented as a case study. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)- Newslinger Let's accept that premise for a moment (and I will admit I don't actually accept that premise as I was able to find something questionable in the article in paragraph 3). That would make use of the article valid only when addressing Wikipedia or when addressing Sussman, were he notable (which we can all agree he's not). It would not justify inclusion at Axiom, Oppenheim, Nextdoor, etc which is how it's being used. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree, but either way, that is a WP:DUE or WP:NPOV issue and not an WP:RS one. The source seems to me to be broadly reliable, especially on that point (ie. nobody is disputing that those companies employed paid editing; the question is whether we should include that on their articles.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Newslinger Let's accept that premise for a moment (and I will admit I don't actually accept that premise as I was able to find something questionable in the article in paragraph 3). That would make use of the article valid only when addressing Wikipedia or when addressing Sussman, were he notable (which we can all agree he's not). It would not justify inclusion at Axiom, Oppenheim, Nextdoor, etc which is how it's being used. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- The HuffPo writer does allege specific violations of canvassing policy, which she links to and quotes from in her article. (She says: "Although Wikipedia doesn’t technically forbid reaching out to others to ask for their insight, it does forbid [linked to WP: CANVAS] petitioning editors to weigh in “with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way.” ") She just calls it "lobbying" or "petitioning" instead of "canvassing." She says there was improper lobbying for an !vote about the removal of a passage about the CEO of Nextdoor. She says there was improper petitioning for a !vote about Ronan Farrow passage on Noah Oppenheim. The writer falsely leads the reader to believe that every notification in both matters was to a cherry-picked "sympathetic editor," rather than appropriate notifications under Canvas, such as alerting all previous participants in related Talk discussions.
- The article's primary conclusion is that my <stike>the paid editor's "main strategy" for Wikipedia for getting Request edits approved are various forms of contentious editing. This is objectively false. A proposal-by-proposal examination of about 40 Request Edit articles identified by COIN since 2016 shows almost entirely routine requests and short discussions.
- The HuffPo writer deceptively presents my
paid editorproposals as if they are the final text approved for WP articles, when in fact, independent reviewer(s) adopted completely different language or decided on a different course of action. This includes passages in NBC News, Noah Oppenheim, Jonathan Swan. BC1278 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Where is the "whitewash" if the proposals were not adopted? The author contends (wrongly) that my proposals are almost always effective ("he usually gets his way.") Then she cites a handful of specific examples. But she doesn't explain those proposals that failed or were significantly modified. Yet she does note all the proposals that were adopted. If she showed the final outcomes of the failed or significantly modified proposals she cites (e.g. completely different Matt Lauer language adopted by the reviewers in NBC News; my proposed new paragraph about Ronan Farrow not used at all in Noah Oppenheim; different Trump language adopted by the reviewer in Jonathan Swan; my proposal in NBC News to significantly expand the Matt Lauer language not including or resulting in deletion of the Ronan Farrow section - impossible to figure out from the article itself, etc.) - it would show examples of the independent editor Wikipedia review process working well, contrary to the assertions of whitewashing. Similarly, the "mild" "tweak" she says I made to Sheryl Sandberg's page was actually a proposed removal or complete rewrite of a false statement that Sandberg had been criminally indicted in Germany for "incitement to hatred" - hardly a mild tweak and not at all a "whitewash" of the page, negating the very premise that lets HuffPo sensationalistically put Facebook in the headline. I can't go through the all of the article's false claims because the post would be as long as the article itself. I know it perhaps seems strange that a HuffPo article would be this messed up on a granular level, but it just is. This writer regularly uses | HuffPo and Twitter to attack people with venom.
- AN already investigated the article's claims and as User: Swarm said,
"The administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong... Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism."
BC1278 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- AN already investigated the article's claims and as User: Swarm said,
- Reliable: HuffPo is reliable for the subject of internet culture. The piece is written by a staff writer and much of the research that went into it rings true. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reliable. Obviously we can decline to use it for any parts we feel it got wrong (as with any other source), and it's definitely worth spending time scouring for sources pointing out errors - we're not forced to report plain errors from a source unless the coverage is really overwhelming. We can also wait a bit when a topic isn't pressing and we're reasonably certain someone will correct it, or if there's no corrections because the entire thing is so WP:UNDUE that no other sources have covered it. But in terms of broad reliability, we wouldn't accept an editor saying "based on my personal expertise, this article from an otherwise-reliable source is wrong about [point, point, and point] and therefore must be entirely disregarded" on any other topic, and we can't start doing it here just because the topic concerns Wikipedia. The correct thing to do when your expertise tells you that a source is wrong is to find corrections or sources that point out the error; if no such sources exist, then it's possible that the errors just aren't that significant relative to the article's overall point - or it may just be that every source got it wrong, in which case an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not the place to start trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the record. EDIT: Here is a secondary source citing the Huffington Post one, which at least illustrates a degree of WP:DUE (and adds some weight to the idea that we can't ignore or drag our feet on it even if we feel it got parts wrong.) I'd also add that a lot of comments here seem to be missing the point in that they fixate on whether this editing violated Wikipedia's policies, whereas the broad focus of the article is clearly criticizing the idea that paid editing is happening at all. People here might agree or disagree with that take, but it's not a reason to reject the article entirely as a source (and it points towards what I said above about most of the complaints about it not being as relevant as the people making them are saying.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- New coverage from Wired firmly establishes due weight for this incident: "Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Wikipedia" — Newslinger talk 04:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable for claims of fact in the article in question The article at issue makes clear its "editorial position" on the topic "That may be true. What you can buy, however, are the services of a verbose, relentless Wikipedia editor willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that that public exposure is as flattering as possible. So, Axios did." is fairly clearly "opinion qua opinion". As is "The vast majority of the people who propose and make changes to Wikipedia are volunteers. A few people, however, have figured out how to manipulate Wikipedia’s supposedly neutral system to turn a profit." Where an article is clearly one filled with the opinions of its author, it ceases to be a reliable source for "claims of fact", which is the case at hand. It has ceased to be simple reportage. IT is citable for "opinion stated sourced and cited as opinion" under normal Wikipedia practice. Collect (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
range map generator
There is a site called Australasian Virtual Herbarium that is able to generate a map using their data sources, these have been included here as 'distribution range maps'. One of these was introduced to an article I was working on, which required quite a bit of research to get the distribution range right, and I immediately recognised as 'wrong' as a distribution map because it showed occurrence of the species about two thousand miles outside of its range. The creator of the maps informed me that I was wrong (my sources in actuality, and the two other users who agreed with me) I gave up discussing it after a fortnight and they carried on. So can I get a second opinion? cygnis insignis 19:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Given that it lists collections and botanical gardens it may well be a case it is accurate. It seems my initial idea was wrong, the user just asks for a search. I am seeing no RS issues here.Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The result of the user generated map is not a distribution range, and even when it is modified to exclude data like herbarium specimens and examples in botanical gardens, the map does not match any other reliable source. The maps it generates are being used for range maps. 'May be accurate' is not a description of a reliable source. cygnis insignis 11:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ahh, yes I can see that would be a problem. Not matching any other source does not mean it is not an RS (after all many RS do not agree on many things). But my deleted comment about user generation now seems more valid then I thought. The user can determine the range of what is excluded (or included). But its hard to judge without knowing what article this was used on (so we can see its lack of accuracy for ourselves).Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that an example would be useful, I will try to work one up. In theory, a user can generate a map that excludes labelled data, which is scraped from multiple sources by bots, but attempts to modify the output require user intervention and have been shown to disagree with every other reliable source. The argument presented to me was that it comes agencies that are reliable sources and the data is useful, I do not disagree, the point is that no qualified agent used their sources of information to indicate a native range of an organism. The data is not curated as a distribution range. No authority would publish a map of a distribution range that indicated unexplained and outlying records, what is declared to only occur in one place and inexplicably appears three thousand miles away. No authority has assembled the map. The tl:dr is the user generated map contradicts maps published by other authority, the user has no business stating the map they generated with two clicks contradicts a published map from a reliable source that publishes a static map. I appreciate I make this sound complicated, it is a very clear situation generated by a user I do not wish to engage with if I can avoid it. cygnis insignis 12:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- No I mean what article has this been used on that you object to its being used on.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that an example would be useful, I will try to work one up. In theory, a user can generate a map that excludes labelled data, which is scraped from multiple sources by bots, but attempts to modify the output require user intervention and have been shown to disagree with every other reliable source. The argument presented to me was that it comes agencies that are reliable sources and the data is useful, I do not disagree, the point is that no qualified agent used their sources of information to indicate a native range of an organism. The data is not curated as a distribution range. No authority would publish a map of a distribution range that indicated unexplained and outlying records, what is declared to only occur in one place and inexplicably appears three thousand miles away. No authority has assembled the map. The tl:dr is the user generated map contradicts maps published by other authority, the user has no business stating the map they generated with two clicks contradicts a published map from a reliable source that publishes a static map. I appreciate I make this sound complicated, it is a very clear situation generated by a user I do not wish to engage with if I can avoid it. cygnis insignis 12:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ahh, yes I can see that would be a problem. Not matching any other source does not mean it is not an RS (after all many RS do not agree on many things). But my deleted comment about user generation now seems more valid then I thought. The user can determine the range of what is excluded (or included). But its hard to judge without knowing what article this was used on (so we can see its lack of accuracy for ourselves).Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The result of the user generated map is not a distribution range, and even when it is modified to exclude data like herbarium specimens and examples in botanical gardens, the map does not match any other reliable source. The maps it generates are being used for range maps. 'May be accurate' is not a description of a reliable source. cygnis insignis 11:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The map has been generated and used in the range map of taxoboxes, excepting the few I have removed, the most recent example is a citation to the statement by … sigh @MargaretRDonald: who queried why an article [on uninvolved users talk] contradicted the two-click maps they create and responded with "However, if the professional botanists of Australia are to be believed, it is not found in Queensland or the Northern Territory.<ref name=map/>" I have raised this on the user's talk at commons, and with one or two other users, no one has said what is now [tendentiously] appearing in main space. I want a clear yea or nay on whether an algorithm and wayward data outweighs a source published by a botanist. I'm exasperated with what I view as not getting wikipedia, so please excuse where this is unclear. cygnis insignis 23:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Australasian Virtual Herbarium consists of a consortia of reputable Herbaria from Australia and New Zealand, staffed by professional botanists who are zealous and competent in their identification of specimens. Herbarium specimen data has been uploaded to their website, data which include GPS coordinates. As with any dataset there are errors. However, most points are not in error: the data are informative and such occurrence data are the basis of all range maps. However, if one is to exclude data from the downloads one MUST give reasons for the exclusions. (They are certainly not two-click data maps. If they were they would contravene the licences necessary for commons. They are created on the basis of downloaded data with DOIs cited, as is easily seen if one looks at the commons.) They are based on the work of professional botanists and are appropriate, particularly where distributions of plants cover more than one Australian state. (I would also point out that most wikipedians appreciate these maps.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see, bit tough this one, i note that the source contradicting this is hardly sterling either (in fact its sourced (ultimately) to the same site).Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand why it is tough.In damning Australasian Virtual Herbarium as a reliable source, one is arguing that the Western Australian Herbarium, the National Herbarium of New South Wales, the National Herbarium of Victoria, the State Herbarium of South Australia, together with the various other state and university herbaria of Australasia are not reliable sources. It is not the case that the data are error free, but that is true for every database. With discussion using other sources it is possible to exclude points which are properly recognised as not found within the native range (and many maps do). MargaretRDonald (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not damning the site, that would silly. @Slatersteven: The source that I added is 'sterling', the text Wrigley and Fagg is a source of facts. This post is intended to avoid a splaying out diffs on use of the source, and the user's tendentious contributions, so a considered response on that or none at all is preferred. cygnis insignis 13:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- That source supports what you removed, which said "However, if the professional botanists of Australia are to be believed, it is not found in Queensland or the Northern Territory", what the statement sourced to Wrigley and Fagg says "..., excluding Queensland and the Northern Territory.". I was referring to the only statement that disagrees with this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not damning the site, that would silly. @Slatersteven: The source that I added is 'sterling', the text Wrigley and Fagg is a source of facts. This post is intended to avoid a splaying out diffs on use of the source, and the user's tendentious contributions, so a considered response on that or none at all is preferred. cygnis insignis 13:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand why it is tough.In damning Australasian Virtual Herbarium as a reliable source, one is arguing that the Western Australian Herbarium, the National Herbarium of New South Wales, the National Herbarium of Victoria, the State Herbarium of South Australia, together with the various other state and university herbaria of Australasia are not reliable sources. It is not the case that the data are error free, but that is true for every database. With discussion using other sources it is possible to exclude points which are properly recognised as not found within the native range (and many maps do). MargaretRDonald (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Can I invite further comment, the user is not changing their mind and making it personal user space entry. The solution is to dab some paint on a map using what the published sources say and or show, simple and reliable. cygnis insignis 21:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Query: Is AVH a reliable source for user generated maps of a distribution range?
- No. cygnis insignis 21:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Note that it is ironic that the link to occurrence data map from Australasian Virtual Herbarium should have been the mechanism for alerting me to the problem in the distribution given in the article forThysanotus patersonii, a problem which had stood for more than 10 years since the article's creation. At 14:03 2 April 2019, I inserted the link to the occurrence data. At 14:06 2 April 2019 I made the change in the talk page discussing the incorrect distribution (which included Queensland and the Northern Territory). At 14:39 2 April 2019, the distribution was corrected using a book source (which was not checkable by me, and which had been available for some while, without the distribution having been corrected). Concerned that the distribution remarks had been made and had lasted so long, it seemed that there had to have been a source for them which is why I had contacted the article's creator (14:14 2 April 2019) and why I added three further sentences referencing three Australian efloras together with the map, which apparently accords with the book reference given and with the South Australian eflora. The occurrence data explained that at least one source agreed with the original statement, and added weight to the correction which had been made.... Without the link to the occurrence data this problem may naver have been found MargaretRDonald (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Harry Scott Gibbons
I have previously been advised regarding Harry Scott Gibbons that he is not a reliable author, on a different Talk page, although he is one of the most authoritative figures on the subject of the attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus, I have thus taken the liberty to include him and the previous Talk page thread here for discussion.
Comments on Harry Scott Gibbons copied from Talk:Fazıl Küçük
|
---|
|
I can see a number of "issues" being cited, but there are two main ones here as to why Harry Scott Gibbons is not a reliable source, as far as I'm understanding: 1) any accounts of the events that cite him are, by their support of the same facts as also documented and cited by Gibbons himself, discountable as Turkish Cypriot-bias? and 2) he does not give a "readable account", but is very "one-sided" in his support for things as they were documented by international media, official accounts from the British government and then-some at the time?
Just to clarify something here. Harry Scott Gibbons is a journalist. He served in the Middle East, Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and the United States, and is the author of multiple works including books and articles, who I can right off say have been published by Charles Bravos/Savannah Koch/the Journal of International Affairs and then-some, without getting into deep-research about it.
I am to understand that we judge sources by what they are, not what they say? And Harry Scott Gibbons IS authoritative on the subject he discusses. He is a third-party to the events he discusses. He himself cites very authoritative accounts of the events he discusses. He is well cited by others touching on the subject he discusses. He offers very readable accounts of the events he discusses. His works should not therefore simply be discarded as unreadable, one-sided, Turkish Cypriot-bias, or simply his opinions.
Pierre Oberling, the author of "The Road to Bellapais", typically refers to him as he did in reference to "Peace Without Honour" on P.89 of his book: "This unfortunately much-neglected work by a British journalist in Cyprus contains the most detailed and reliable account of the 1963-1964 crisis thus published".Oberling, Pierre (1982). The Road to Bellapais: The Turkish Cypriot Exodus to Northern Cypress (East European Monographs, No. 125). p. 89. ISBN 0880330007. Citations are made throughout this book with the permission of Gibbons.
The UK Houses of Parliament recognise and concede to the authoritativeness of Gibbons and his work by citing his work as the "well documented" evidence of what they argue the UK is already very well aware of regarding Cyprus. "CYPRUS - GENOCIDE OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS, EDM #276, Tabled 31 January 2001, 2000-01 Session". That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise the attempted genocide committed against the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriot militia in 1963-64, 1967 and 1974, well documented in 'The Genocide Files' by Harry Scott-Gibbons and in official British documents and newspaper reports at the time; considers that since those massacres of Turkish Cypriots were committed by Greek Cypriot forces pursuant to a written plan, 'the Akritas Plan', Articles 2(a) (b) and (c) of the UN Genocide Convention are clearly satisfied; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take action to bring to justice persons responsible who are still alive and living in southern Cyprus.
By raising this I'd also like to clarify whether referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source would actually be veiled attempts to undermine any contribution to Wikipedia that allows for the inclusion of information that may be "disagreeable" by pro-Greek Cypriot and anti-Turkish Cypriot pushers?
I'm providing three of Gibbons' works here, for reference:
- Gibbons, Harry Scott. The Genocide Files. Savannah Koch. ISBN 978-0951446423.
- Gibbons, Harry Scott (1997). "Genocide" (PDF). The Journal of International Affairs, September - November 2001 Vol. VI Num. 3. Retrieved 28 December 2018.
- Gibbons, Harry Scott (1969). Peace Without Honour.
Thanks in advance.
Nargothronde (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
IAFD.COM
Is IAFD.COM (Internet Adult Film Database) a reliable source for biographies, particularly living people? It appears to be used in several hundred WP:BLP articles. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. The Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD) is very similar to IMDb (RSP entry), but focuses on pornographic film actors. Like IMDb, IAFD contains a large amount of user-generated content, which is generally unusable. IAFD provides a form for readers to
"submit performer corrections"
, which resembles IMDb's process for "adding data". As IAFD is a directory, it should also not be used for determining notability. However, IMDb is generally allowed as an external link for articles on the same subject as the IMDb page, and I think IAFD should be treated the same way. — Newslinger talk 22:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)- I note that WikiProject Pornography has more specific guidance:
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography — Newslinger talk 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable, looms like a porn IMDB.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- It should not be considered reliable, except perhaps to document that a particular film may exist, and even then it's often questionable. The content is user-provided, and while its editors make an effort to check it, they can't vouch for the accuracy of dates and places of birth (things for which it's widely cited as a source on Wikipedia). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not reliable And while IAFD may serve an analogous purpose as IMDb, it does not come even up to the standards of the latter in terms of parameters that go into assessment of reliability. For while IMDB currently is a subsidiary of Amazon, IAFD is more akin to a hobbyist site with, as far as I can tell, unidentifiable publishers. Its copyright/disclaimer page says
This is a database of movie related information compiled by Peter van Aarle and the iafd.com editorial team (IAFD).
(note that the only named person died 14 years back). Abecedare (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC) - Not reliable as user-generated content; not suitable for sourcing biographical information in BLPs. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Fidelity Press
Is Fidelity Press a reliable source for biographies, particularly living people? It appears to be the personal press of E. Michael Jones. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. Publications from Fidelity Press appear to be self-published sources, which should not be used for third-party information related to living persons. The current state of the AfD discussion of the E. Michael Jones article indicates that Jones is not a subject-matter expert. — Newslinger talk 22:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unreliable per information disclosed at AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The Singles Jukebox
There is a dispute regarding the reliability of The Singles Jukebox at Talk:Don't Call Me Up. I used the website to source the song Don't Call Me Up's tropical house genre. Personally, I thought it was a reliable source because it is a standalone website continued on from Stylus Magazine, a reputable music source from the 2000s. Two of the writers reviewing Don't Call Me Up - Thomas Inskeep and Edward Okulicz- were Stylus staff. While Katherine St Asaph, Alfred Soto, Joshua Minsoo Kim who also reviewed the song, frequently write reviews and articles for Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Slant Magazine, Spin, Time.
Would this be reliable to source a song's genre? CoolMarc 18:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music — Newslinger talk 22:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Conditional - I am reposting a comment I made elsewhere: This is a group blog; according to the about page, individuals in their staff have written for "Pitchfork, Spin, Witchsong, MTV and One Week One Band among others". Which would make it acceptable to cite those individuals; WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Notability is a requirement for the existence of an article, not for judging the reliability of a source. For citing expert opinions on creative works (per WP:SUBJECTIVE), I believe it is acceptable only to cite writers for this blog who have credentials in music reviewing, have been published elsewhere, and the like. This is not an ideal source for the most notable of music articles (which would likely have coverage and expert opinions available already in higher quality sources), but for cases like the article this dispute arose from (Don't Call Me Up, not among the most important subjects), a previously published critic who wrote something about the subject in The Singles Jukebox is fine by me. Dan56 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Limited Use Essentially what Dan56 wrote. When the author is a known reviewer, the reviews can be considered reliable, and that includes in determining genres. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have to say is it worth the effort, if it is noteworthy a better source would have noted it?Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I’m falling somewhere in between Walter and Slater here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not a reliable source. A self-described "collective of pop music fans" that apparently lacks editorial control. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Fred Rogers' sexuality
Should the Fred Rogers article include a paragraph like this?
Rogers' friend William Hirsch told biographer Maxwell King that Rogers said he was "smack in the middle" of the sexuality scale and found both men and women attractive.
- Discussion about this is taking place here: Talk:Fred_Rogers#Sexuality
- The source is the New York Times bestseller The Good Neighbor: The Life and Work of Fred Rogers by Maxwell King, published by Abrams Books. It bills itself as
the first full-length biography of Fred Rogers
and it says it isBased on original interviews, oral histories, and archival documents
.
- The relevant quote from the book is:
In a conversation with one one of his friends, the openly gay Dr. William Hirsch, Fred Rogers himself concluded that if sexuality was measured on a scale of one to ten: "Well, you know, I must be right smack in the middle. Because I have found women attractive, and I have found men attractive."31
(Page 208.) The book's footnote says:31. Hirsch, William. Personal Interview. 7 November 2011. Audio.
(Page 379.) Elsewhere the book describes Hirsch as aclose family friend
of the Rogers' (page 346).
- I presume that the "Personal Interview" is a taped conversation between William Hirsch and the biographer. Meaning that the book does not contain a direct quote from Rogers about his sexuality, but rather is quoting Hirsch who is, in turn, quoting Rogers from memory.
- The book's claim about Rogers' sexuality has gotten a decent amount of interest. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- It should be attributed to the source, the book.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- It seems clearly usable as a source, though there's room for people to debate WP:DUE weight. (I think the coverage demonstrates this, but it can at least be debated. I don't think there's an WP:RS argument at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Matters such as "sexuality" which are based on conjecture and opinions of a single person are, in fact, weak to begin with. As such, use in Wikipedia articles is imp[roper to begin with, as otherwise huge numbers of people would be labelled "bisexual" buy Wikipedia which is actually an affront to the LGBTQ community to begin with. It is labeling of people' which is one major issue, so unless there is self-identification, we avoid it. The nook neither states nor even implies how Rogers viewed himself. Collect (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think the paragraph is indulging in "conjecture" or "opinion" or even "labeling". It's not saying "one source thought that maybe Rogers seemed bisexual" but "one source said that Fred Rogers said this". The question is, should it be included given that it's a bit of a "he said that he said that he said" situation. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why sexuality would be treated any differently in that regard, but FWIW the source quotes Rogers, meaning that this does establish self-identification (insofar as it can be established after death, ie. via a secondary source.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Collect and Blueboar; not appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think that when an unverified allegation is reported, that its veracity be explained, otherwise it's just gossip. It might be true, it might not be true, and the reader has no way of knowing without independent research. TFD (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not an allegation. (Oxford Dictionary:
A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.
Being bisexual is neither wrong nor illegal.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not an allegation. (Oxford Dictionary:
- It meets RS with attribution, but I'm not convinced it belongs in the article (nor can the article say "bisexual"). In what context, exactly and fully, is the book bringing this information up, and what is this part of the biography about? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Frontiers in Neurology - blacklisted or no?
Is this text appropriate to add to the CBD article based on this Frontiers in Neurology paper?
Pamplona, Fabricio A.; da Silva, Lorenzo Rolim; Coan, Ana Carolina (12 September 2018). "Potential Clinical Benefits of CBD-Rich Cannabis Extracts Over Purified CBD in Treatment-Resistant Epilepsy: Observational Data Meta-analysis". Frontiers in Neurology. 9: 759. doi:10.3389/fneur.2018.00759. ISSN 1664-2295. PMC 6143706. PMID 30258398.
A 2018 meta-analysis compared the potential therapeutic properties of "purified CBD" with full-plant, CBD-rich cannabis extracts for treating refractory (treatment-resistant) epilepsy, noting several differences. The daily average dose for people using full-plant extracts was more than four times lower than for those using purified CBD, indicating a possible synergistic effect (or "entourage effect") between CBD and other plant compounds. For epileptics, CBD-rich extracts were found to have a "better therapeutic potential" and had fewer adverse effects than purified CBD.
- Previous conversation at Project Medicine: Help identifying medical source at CBD - reliable or junk
Both the Committee on Publication Ethics and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association vouch for the editorial process of Frontiers Publications. It had been added to Beall's list of "predatory" journals, though this Nature article shows that the blacklisting was controversial.
The text and paper was deleted for being "junk" in this edit. One editor at the Project Medicine talk page said they had never seen this journal rejected before, while others claimed it was predatory and should be rejected. Still others suggested I should look for "better sources", like individual studies on CBD and epilepsy. No one had a problem with my summary of the paper.
This meta analysis looked at over 200 individual studies. Because the study of CBD and the discovery of the endocannabinoid system is so new, meta analyses regarding CBD are few and far between. Frankly, I fail to see how editors cherry picking from individual studies trumps a meta analysis.
I would like to determine whether Wikipedia is blacklisting Frontiers, and if not, I would like to reinsert the information. The article, which gets about 6K views a day, presently has one sentence in the "research" section. Thank you, petrarchan47คุก 19:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Blacklisting is probably too extreme, but Frontiers would not pass a WP:MEDRES check on most cases. Frontiers is notorious for accepting almost anything, and pressuring its editors into having extremely lax reviewing standards, sacking them when they get too picky about what's considered publishable. Is it possible to publish good stuff in Frontiers journal? Yes. But not because things have been vetting to only allow good stuff. You could publish good stuff on vixra if you want. But you'll share company with rather eclectic people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would say we should not be using it for medical content going forwards. And should generally work to clean up instances of it that exist in our articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- What is your reasoning? petrarchan47คุก 02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- [10] among open-access journals, it has a very high standing. (2 out of 194 for frequency of citations, assuming this count is accurate). It does have a genuine "editorial board" which is in its favor. Thus, this is not an obvious black-and-white decision. If the authors have also published in mainline journals, I would favor usage, it the authors are otherwise unpublished, I would give less weight to the article. The idea of any "absolute blacklist" makes little sense. Collect (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
2nd most citednope,2nd most cited neurology journalnope,2nd most cited clinical neurology journalstill nope, 2nd most cited open access clinical neurology journal ah there we go. And in that category, it ranks 2nd of 13. That's not bad, but that's not 2nd out of 194. Those are also the brute numbers, and have to be normalized against the output. And Frontier publishes at very high volumes. That's why impact factors are a better metric than raw citation counts. I doubt Frontiers in Neurology would fare as great there.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- This was previously discussed at WT:MED and so is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is not forum shopping, please don't assume bad faith. Above I included a link to and mention of our related conversation at PM. Project Medicine is not the place to formally blacklist a source, it is here. I went there to get a better idea about why it was rejected. Editors use the RS/N to check on sources that are questionable to see if there has been a community consensus on whether they can be used - this saves a lot of time. Visiting two noticeboards in this case was hardly nefarious. petrarchan47คุก 02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Forum shopping, blacklisting not necessary (rserved for extreme cases, although this one is close), but not reliable for this text, and not often reliable at all. If we were to blacklist this, we would need to blacklist every predatory journal; that's daunting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- If Frontiers is to be blacklisted, let us form a consensus so that the result and arguments are searchable here for editors in the future.
- I am new to the "predatory journal" idea. Beall seems like a primary source. Does anyone have a link to relevant conversations that supported giving Beall's list such authority at WP?
- Frontiers is a member of OASPA and COPE, which makes Beall's listing questionable - if he is out of alignment with these established agencies, why is he considered reliable?
- From Nature :
- Critics spoke out against Beall’s blacklisting of Frontiers, maintaining that the open-access publisher is legitimate and reputable and does offer proper peer review.
- Daniël Lakens, an experimental psychologist at the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands and an associate editor at Frontiers in Cognition, tweeted: "Frontiers being added to Beall's list reveals the weakness of Beall's list: it's not based on solid data but on Beall's intuition".
- Note that Frontiers is on the "whitelist" of the Directory of Open Access Journals, for what that's worth.
- Collect Regarding authors:
- Pamplona - 37 articles
- da Silva - 69 articles
- Coan - 52 articles
- Again, if Frontiers is in fact acceptable, and no one has an issue with the paper or summary, I would like to reinsert the text at CBD. petrarchan47คุก 02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe this is better handled by an RfC? Let me know your thoughts. petrarchan47คุก 03:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
OMICS Publishing Group
Frontiers is better than OMICS which we should blacklist. A bunch of OMICS stuff is copied and pasted. And most undergoes no peer review. They just lost a 50 million lawsuit for dishonest publishing practices.[11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. OMICS is pure unredeemable garbage. Exception made for the journals acquired through the acquisitions of Pulsus Group/Andrew John Publishing/Future Medicine journals prior to ~2016. Those journals might have remained reliable after, but they are very suspicious. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- agree as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Blacklist, per lawsuit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that this should be blacklisted. Natureium (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, does "blacklisting" mean adding them to the spam blacklist, or deprecation? I definitely agree on deprecation: the FTC suit alleged that they fabricated >99% of the editors and reviewers listed for their journals, and they've been accused of trademark infringement for pretending to supply content to PubMed Central and the NIH - that level of fraudulence makes it near-impossible to trust them for anything. I suspect a bigger problem would be identifying OMICs journals in the first place since it's not always obvious which journals are affiliated with the group. Nblund talk 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
https://biography.jrank.org
Is Biography Jrank reliable? I'm thinking no, as its own sources are unclear ... ? Tacyarg (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
India Today or IndiaToday.com
India Today is used to source numerous articles on Wikipedia, but I have recently encountered really sloppy reporting from them.
- The Non-Aligned Movement itself states that a Chairperson is chosen for each NAM Summit, which are held every three years.
- https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/class-12-arts-pol-science-crash-course-nonaligned-movement-1432213-2019-01-16
- This looks like a course syllabus, or some such weird thing, and it appears that they took the information that Maduro is "Secretary General" of the Non-Aligned Movement from Wikipedia, since there is no reliable source making this claim, and Wikipedia has long made the claim (without sourcing it).
The quality of this IndiaToday page is concerning. Perhaps I should be opening an RFC on IndiaToday, but there is very little information about them in archives. At minimum, it seems to not be generally reliable, but I am interested in hearing if there are other similar cases before proceeding to an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- About the source: India Today is generally a well-regarded magazine; perhaps the Indian equivalent of (and clearly modeled on) Time (magazine). The magazine portion of it would qualify as generally reliable IMO. I wouldn't be surprised though if the web-only offerings (or some portions of the website) see less rigorous editorial oversight but will need to take a deeper dive to see if any general statements about their reliability can be made.
- About the Maduro's chairmanship claim: I may be missing some nuance but I don't understand what aspect of the claim is being disputed. The NAM website says:
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is led by a Chair that rotates every three years during Summit Conferences. Since the XVII NAM Summit of Island of Margarita, held in September 2016, the Movement has been chaired by H.E. Mr. Nicolás Maduro Moros, President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
- while the India Today website says:
The current Secretary-General of the movement is Nicolas Maduro, who took office in 2016.
- Can you spell out the issue? Abecedare (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think I see it now: "secretary general" versus "chairperson". Yes I think India Today was being sloppy and would suggest just going with the terminology used by NAM itself. Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the issue (many other sources make it clear they have no such thing as a "Secretary General", just a rotating chair named by acclamation), but more troubling is that since there is no source anywhere except Wikipedia that called it "Secretary General", it appears that India Today based their information on Wikipedia. I have not encountered them before, so did not know if this was a wider problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think I see it now: "secretary general" versus "chairperson". Yes I think India Today was being sloppy and would suggest just going with the terminology used by NAM itself. Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Sources from the same organisation
I recently came across a case at DRV where it was being argued that two sources (both admitted to be reliable and in-depth) were not independent because both journals were under the same ownership. The cited policy was GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. In my opinion, this was not intended to rule out two different articles written by two different authors in two different journals on two different dates. I would like to establish where the consenssus lies on this. SpinningSpark 00:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Spinningspark, I would say that if the two journals have separate editorial control then they should be considered separate sources, although obviously it depends on the specific sources in question and the subject matter. signed, Rosguill talk 00:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)]
- Thanks for your comment, Rosguill. I am generally in agreement with you regarding your observation that having "separate editorial control" should be a reliable indicator that would serve to distinguish one source from the other. It appears, however, that the author(s) of the guideline chose to use the term "organization" instead of simply emphasizing "separate editorial control". Therefore, the proviso must be construed more broadly. In most cases, it is usually the publishing organization that sets the editorial policy for the entire group of publications and also hires the editors. The editors, in turn, work closely with the writers and authors of the articles. Sometimes, a group of editors within the same publication may possess a high degree of editorial independence (e.g. the former arrangement between The Volokh Conspiracy blog and The Washington Post). On most occasions, however, editors working on different publications at the same publishing organization are subject to the editorial policies put in place by the management of the publishing organization.
- With regard to the immediate case referenced below, the email addresses used by several Femina personnel are based on a domain name (wwm.co.in) owned and hosted by the Times group – [12]. The email of the editor and the Chief Community Officer - Tanya Chaitanya - is also listed on the page referenced before (*@wwm.co.in). This suggests that the Times Group exerts editorial control over Femina. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 3 § Vidyut Kale is the deletion review in question. The original AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyut Kale. The sources under examination are Femina and The Times of India, which are both owned by The Times Group. Here are links to the sources being examined for independence:
- "Blogger Vidyut Kale on being politically incorrect" by Hemchhaya De of Femina (May 2, 2017)
- "The real housewives of Twitter" by Robin David and Sharmila Ganesan Ram of The Times of India (Jun 25, 2015)
— Newslinger talk 00:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Notified: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 3#Vidyut Kale — Newslinger talk 01:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- It’s a good question, but it is not the first question. The first question is whether these articles, either of them, is independent of the subject. The answer is No. These two articles are both based in the author interviewing the subject, for the stories. You could call them advertisements. You can’t call them third party independent. The subject’s involvement was integral to the product. All information came from the subject, and is attributed to the subject. You can extract a little opinion of the interviewer on the subject, but it is very very thin, essentially creating a narrative to string the subjects quotes and supplied information into a readable prose. At best it can only ever be called “second party”, not “third party”. No, these sources are not independent of the subject.
- The question asked is: Are these sources non-independent due to being published in different outlets by the same organisation? I see this as a mere downstream consequence of the subject working to create promotional pieces. She is the common factor, with a second common factor being the organisational contacts that she has done some deal with to produce these pieces. So, no, not independent of each other. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- The good thing about both articles is the journalists have taken some care to attribute sources carefully. If Vidyut was a company these would likely by on the back of a press release, here the journalists may have sought her out as a goto person that would fit into the type of article they wished to write. I would note the 2017 Femina article mentions(promotes?) her blogging website but omitting it would have seemed strange also. The journalist comment "Over the years, hers has been recognised as one of the most fearless voices in India's online space, chiefly for her politically satirical spoof websites on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other bigshots ..." is perhaps the most significant ... (though fearless may or may not be debatable as my understanding is Mumbai may be relatively tolerant).Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- This discussion has gone down the path I feared it would and got bogged down in the specifics of a particular case. This is the very reason I didn't link to it. Whether the sources are non-independent through both being interviews of the subject is a different question. It is a good question, and may well rule them out for notability, but that was not the reason the source reviewer gave for ruling them out. My question was whether ruling them out for being from the same publisher is a valid rationale. It is an important question because some publishers, like IEEE and Elsevier, produce a huge range of journals. Showing GNG on specialist subjects becomes a whole lot trickier if it is always necessary to find multiple publishers as well as multiple authors and journals. SpinningSpark 15:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- While each case will be different, it's clear that we'd treat two different articles by two different authors, even in the same IEEE journal as two different sources. It's also clear that some maganzines with two different names are really just different brandings of the same group. In this case, ignoring the issue of interview/promotional/etc. (where I disagree with SmokeyJoe), the sources should be treated as being independent of each other. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Natalie (website) reliable for showing notability of Neptune (owarai)?
There's a newish user who would like to help improve the article of this (comedy group?) but I know zero about reliability of Japanese sources. I'm not finding Natalie (website) in the archives/perennial sources, but since it's Japanese that might not mean anything. They're asking about the reliability for showing notability in particular. Can anyone help? I've been discussing with them at User talk:FreshUdon --valereee (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Fox News - sources for future discussion
As some of you are aware, I've been preparing an RfC on Fox News for some time now. I don't intend on pursuing it at the moment, but I do want to make the material available for others to use as they see fit. Here's what I gathered so far (and I keep updating it with new sources); you may also review the attached discussion, and in particular this note on why the material is organized the way it is, and why I'm putting it aside for the time being. If anyone wants to try and draft a new proposal or essay based on this material, feel free - I'm available for questions, clarifications etc.
As always, comments are welcome. However, as the goal of this project was to allow a more informed discussion to take place, let's avoid turning this into another two-source discussion that won't lead anywhere. François Robere (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like you've put a lot of work into this but an obvious problem so far is point 6. Its main argument is asking people to accept a correlation as causation. Connor Behan (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Timeline.com
Is Timeline a reliable source? I am considering adding the following information to the Xennials article:
[Xennials] represent a small population among a time period of record-low birth rate in America. There were roughly 25.1 million people born in the U.S. between 1978 and 1984, representing only 36% of all Gen X births, or in 1984, merely 10.6% of the entire American population. (Multiple factors contributed to lower birth rates at this time, including more women entering the workforce, the oil crisis, higher crime rates, and a shaky economy.) On the other hand, beginning in 1977, Xennials mark the beginning of an upswing in birth rate, at 15.1%, compared to Gen X’s low point, a 14.6% birth rate in 1975 and 1976, respectively.[13]
--Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- looks a bit bloggy to me, but does have an editorial staff. I would need to see their editorial policy before I come down on it being an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- There is one result when I Google "What are Timeline's editorial guidelines?", but the link doesn't seem accessible. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy
Is the Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy a reliable source for information of human genetics? There is currently a debate about it at Talk:Xiongnu#Factual accuracy of genetics section, where this article has been used as a source. A number of users have expressed concerns about the journal's peer-review process (three days: "Received: February 25 2015; accepted: February 28 2015; published: March 31 2015.") and about the structure and nature of the article in question.
It is currently being used to support the following statements:
Researchers have proposed that the 4 Y-DNA haplogroup Q1b (M-378) specimens in the Heigouliang host tomb may originate from the Indo-European Yuezhi society, who were, at one time, the elite rulers of the Xiongnu. On the other hand, the Y-DNA Q1a samples from the victim tombs were assigned to a North Asian origin.
I'll note that in my own brief research on the journal I've been unable to find an actual website (only broken links) besides the journal detail linked to above anda Facebook page.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- As the editor who first raised the time-line given above, I want to make it clear that such a short turnaround does not in and of itself prove a slip-shod process, but a three-day turnaround is a big red flag. Like Ermenrich, I am unable to find the type of detail that would best determine the quality of the review process, such as the identities, qualifications and institutional affiliations of the editor and reviewers. What I can say is that the relevant section of the article includes several additional red flags, most notably inexplicable formatting. The section being used for this citation is an Addendum, apparently by an entirely different author, which is just tacked onto the end of an article that has only the remotest relevance to it, and the addendum has a section number at the start of its text that makes no sense within the structure of the article, suggesting it was lifted from some other venue without change. I struggle to harmonize this as the product of a stringent review process.
- Setting aside the specifics of this article, I have serious doubts as to the quality of this journal as a whole. It appears similar to several others that were founded about the same time and produced by a combination of hobbyists, amateurs, beginners or as pet side projects, with reviewers for DNA studies being lawyers, genealogists and graduate students, or simply the rubber stamp of the publisher/editor, and which serve as both a venue for these amateurs to share their thoughts and for scholars to bulk up their resume while bypassing the stringency of the normal scholarly review process. These so-called journals are almost completely ignored in the established scientific literature, and their content, in my opinion, do not meet the bar of WP:RS for scientific findings. With insufficient data available, I cannot be sure the journal in question falls into this category, but it certainly gives me that feel. Agricolae (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hope Not Hate as a WP:SPS
An editor at Lauren Southern has argued that Hope not Hate is a self-published source and that self published sources can never be cited for BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. Hope not Hate was cited for the following statement: The UK-based advocacy group Hope Not Hate has described Southern as an advocate of the The Great Replacement conspiracy theory (source)
There doesn't appear to be a meaningful factual dispute about Southern's position: I won't link to her Youtube video, but she explicitly says "the great replacement is happening" and multiple additional sources link her to the theory - but an editor has argued that HNH is prohibited even with in-text attribution.
- Is Hope Not Hate an WP:SPS? WP:RSP just says its reliability should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
- Regardless of #1, is it ever okay to cite Hope Not Hate for a statement about a BLP with in-text attribution? e.g. "Hope Not Hate says X about this person"
Nblund talk 20:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just cite other, better sources that aren't political advocacy groups (e.g., [14] [15]) and there's no reason to really argue about it. GMGtalk 22:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo: I generally agree, and in this specific instance I think we were able to work around using it. But, like the SPLC in the US, the site often has more in-depth coverage of the far right than might be available elsewhere. Kyohyi is insisting that the site can never be used - even with in-text attribution - for anything related to a BLP. HNH and it's print publication search light are both cited quite a bit in BLPs (1, 2), so that policy would lead to some real difficulties for entries covering far right figures. I think it's worth getting a gauge on the consensus around this issue. Nblund talk 23:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- It might be a generally reliable source for far-right politics, especially those in the UK. As long as we treat it in a similar manner to SPLC (See WP:RSP), attributing when necessary and supplementing with good secondary sources, I don't see a problem. The claim that it cannot be used for BLPs especially BLPs of far-right individuals are wrong and disingenuous. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)