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. | ||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||
RFC concerning New Eastern Outlook
In this request for comment, editors decided on the reliability of New Eastern Outlook, with the near-unanimous consensus for option 4, which is that this source should be deprecated. Editors note the site being considered as a Russian disinformation outlet by multiple reliable sources and repeated publication of false content. VickKiang (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of New Eastern Outlook ?
- 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 added to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources?
HouseOfChange (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment none of the above, as the reliability of a source depends on context. The claims attributed to the DOS and the USDT don't belong in the lead section of the article. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- This looks like a whole thing. Is there an article or talk page or some such that people should refer to for context? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- would like some more context but generally NEO is Option 4, its an information operations platform which masquerades as an academic journal (much like say Mankind Quarterly but run by a state rather than a private group). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: this is my third effort, and if I screwed up the process here also, I apologize! Here are four relevant bullet points:
- 2019 discussion on deprecating "Sites identified by reputable sources as state-sponsored fake news / disinformation".
- Article New Eastern Outlook cites multiple RS identifying it as a "state-sponsored fake news / disinformation" website.
- As of the 2019 discussion, the status of NEO as state-sponsored fake news was less clear than it is in 2022. (I just created article on NEO from a re-direct a few days ago.)
- Lots more context in Archive 375
- I hope this is helpful and not too much of a wall of text. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- A quick look at those sources raises some questions such as: What makes the DOS and the USDT more RS (or less biased) than the Strategic Culture Foundation and SouthFront? M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: It isn't one isolated, unconfirmed, recent claim from
these sources
. There's a 2020 report from Trump's DOS, confirmed in 2021 and 2022 by Biden's DOS and DOT, with two green check-marked RS (Wall Street Journal and Politifact) independently confirming the "disinformation" label. Searching EU vs Disinfo turns up 49 results for journal-neo[.]org including "13.05.2020 US might be developing weaponised insects" and "07.02.2020 Scientific evidence is mounting that the coronavirus is man made and targeting the Chinese race." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)- @HouseOfChange: Incidentally, these are all related to Russia's declared enemies. Is the pursuit of academic excellence the raison d'etre of Trump's and Biden's DOS and DOTA? A search for "US might be developing weaponised insects" turns up some some interesting results. That's why I said that the reliability of the source depends on context. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: It isn't one isolated, unconfirmed, recent claim from
- A quick look at those sources raises some questions such as: What makes the DOS and the USDT more RS (or less biased) than the Strategic Culture Foundation and SouthFront? M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. I wouldn't deprecate a source based solely on the opinion of one government... but fortunately we don't have to. [1] describes it as a source of Russian COVID-19 disinformation; [2] describes it as a "junk news" source. [3] includes a note that
in 2019, Facebook removed 12 social media accounts and 10 pages linked to the New Eastern Outlook and The New Atlas. These accounts and pages were removed for using fake accounts, creating fictitious personas, and driving users to “off-platform blogs posing as news outlets”
. These, to me, say that this source publishes intentional disinformation while trying to appear reliable and respectable; that is exactly the sort of source that deprecation exists for. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)- It's also used by thousands of RS (see Google Scholar and books) for the various subjects that it covers. What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: can you dial back the nastiness a little bit? You're lashing out because you're losing an argument and that just isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: There s no nastiness in my comments, therefore, I will urge you to refrain from casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- How would you describe "What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there" then? Snark? Humor? Off topic comment? I just don't see how bringing up is constructive and not meant to be a dig at Aquillion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Let me make it really simple for you: you either stop casting aspersions and misrepresenting what I said or you'll take a trip to ANI. Facebook was brought up, so it's only fair to remind the readers what it does when it suits its political agenda. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why is that only fair? This is a discussion of New Eastern Outlook not facebook, whether or not facebook allows Azov to be praised or not has exactly zero bearing on the topic at hand. If you are being misrepresented then please clarify what you intended to communicate. Threatening ANI is uncalled for, such battleground behavior really isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you take your time to read what I wrote again. 15:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can't make heads or tail of it, you seem to pinball from threats to irrelevancies without actually engaging with the topic at hand which is the reliability of New Eastern Outlook. Perhaps you would care to explain what Facebook's tolerance of pro-Azov posts has to do with their removal of New Eastern Outlook linked info-ops accounts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: Facebook, whose profit model makes it reluctant to remove false content of any kind, blocked NEO in 2019 for "coordinated inauthentic behavior," a kind of deception that isn't the same as posting deceptive content. On February 24, 2022 Facebook made a minor change to policy re Azov. I also don't see a connection beyond whataboutism. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I was hoping for an explanation besides whataboutism or trolling but it doesn't appear that one is going to be forthcoming. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: Facebook, whose profit model makes it reluctant to remove false content of any kind, blocked NEO in 2019 for "coordinated inauthentic behavior," a kind of deception that isn't the same as posting deceptive content. On February 24, 2022 Facebook made a minor change to policy re Azov. I also don't see a connection beyond whataboutism. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm done here as I can't pretend to have a decent discussion with those who personalize the comments. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again I fail to see the connection, you weren't pretending to have a decent discussion before I engaged with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can't make heads or tail of it, you seem to pinball from threats to irrelevancies without actually engaging with the topic at hand which is the reliability of New Eastern Outlook. Perhaps you would care to explain what Facebook's tolerance of pro-Azov posts has to do with their removal of New Eastern Outlook linked info-ops accounts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you take your time to read what I wrote again. 15:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why is that only fair? This is a discussion of New Eastern Outlook not facebook, whether or not facebook allows Azov to be praised or not has exactly zero bearing on the topic at hand. If you are being misrepresented then please clarify what you intended to communicate. Threatening ANI is uncalled for, such battleground behavior really isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Let me make it really simple for you: you either stop casting aspersions and misrepresenting what I said or you'll take a trip to ANI. Facebook was brought up, so it's only fair to remind the readers what it does when it suits its political agenda. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- How would you describe "What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there" then? Snark? Humor? Off topic comment? I just don't see how bringing up is constructive and not meant to be a dig at Aquillion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: There s no nastiness in my comments, therefore, I will urge you to refrain from casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: can you dial back the nastiness a little bit? You're lashing out because you're losing an argument and that just isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's also used by thousands of RS (see Google Scholar and books) for the various subjects that it covers. What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. We have reliable sources that tell us exactly what kind of outlet this is. Even if we didn't, looking for just a moment at what they are writing about what they are calling the 'The Russian special operation in Ukraine' makes it pretty clear what is going on there. - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 This is an easy one. Even if you don't want to believe the federal government, there is pretty much consensus in RS that New Eastern Outlook is a Russian propaganda site. Per Alexander Reid-Ross:
Additional fascinating examples of Russian state systems percolating into the alternative media ecosystem are Redfish, the New Eastern Outlook...The publication of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, New Eastern Outlook produces conspiracy theories about Rothschilds and George Soros and Islamophobic material, and hosts articles by Duginist Catherine Shakhdam and conspiracy theorist Vanessa Beeley, among others.
[1]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC) - Option 4 as per Aquillon and Dr Swag. Definitely a disinfo site made more dangerous by its thin veneer of academic respectably. 17:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC) (Above comment by Bobfrombrockley whose sig got messed up by something weird with the tildes. This sig-related comment in parens is by HouseOfChange. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC))
- Thanks HouseOfChange - trying to edit on mobile and failed badly! BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Bobfrombrockley: The publisher IOS, despite its connection to Russian Academy of Sciences, has been run by Russian government since 2013 (coincidentally, year when NEO came online.) The IOS video page mixes scholarly stuff with titles like "Why does Russia help Syria" and "The failure of the American strategy in Ukraine." HouseOfChange (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks HouseOfChange - trying to edit on mobile and failed badly! BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 Legitimate, reliable sources consistently describe this as a disinformation site. Its use should be deprecated. --Jayron32 16:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 yup, it's bad. Added to WP:UPSD as a deprecated source, but I'll update the script if it ends up as something else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Optopn 4 Russian disinfo, straight-up. Zaathras (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hoyle, Aiden; Powell, Thomas; Cadet, Beatrice; van de Kuijt, Judith (2021). "Influence Pathways: Mapping the Narratives and Psychological Effects of Russian COVID-19 Disinformation". 2021 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience (CSR). pp. 384–389. doi:10.1109/CSR51186.2021.9527953. ISBN 978-1-6654-0285-9. S2CID 237445804.
- ^ Gallacher, John D.; Barash, Vlad; Howard, Philip N.; Kelly, John (10 February 2018). "Junk News on Military Affairs and National Security: Social Media Disinformation Campaigns Against US Military Personnel and Veterans". arXiv:1802.03572 [cs.SI].
- ^ Talamayan, Fernan (15 December 2020). "Policing Cyberspace: Understanding Online Repression in Thailand and the Philippines". SSRN 3771058.
TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia)
as you can see in April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks's alleged attacks part sources, there are a lot of TASS sources and a couple Interfax and RIA Novosti sources, due to these sources being Russian state-controlled, id like to know if we can put them as Unreliable for Russian-Ukraine war related content.
-in addition to fake news, ria Novosti has also published "What Russia should do with Ukraine".
-TASS is probably one of the only sources (the rest being also Russian state-controlled media) to report on some of the alleged cases of "Ukrainian attacks on Russia", which is quite interesting, considering that i have seen no RS report on a lot of these alleged attacks (although not all of them, as Reuters and others have reported on some cases, but, still, a lot of cases reported by TASS havent been reported by any RS)
-Interfax has also spread news about Ukraine supposedly making a nuclear Dirty Bomb (Per this part)
187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The underlying problem here is that some editors use this whole "it's ok to include if it's attributed" or "it's reliable for statements by the Russian government even if generally it's a garbage source" to do a run around our WP:RS policies. This is junk that would normally never be included but hey, as long as you put "according to Russian government sources" in front you can put in any ridiculous claim you want. Basically it's being used to platform various Russian gov disinformation or conspiracy theories and increase their exposure. I remember back in 2014 the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 became full of disgusting and false conspiracy theories ("the bodies were moved there from a nearby morgue", "it was false flag" etc) all justified on the basis of "bUt IT's aTTribUted!". Same thing is being done here. Basic rule should be "don't include unless it's ALSO discussed in multiple other reliable sources". Volunteer Marek 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- finally someone that agrees that the people using these TASS bs sources (and using bs excuses) are being quite annoying. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cuts both ways. Plenty of editors feel that because reliable sources print verbatim text of Ukraine officials without any fact-checking or due dilligence that the corresponding Wikipedia article must be updated immediately and can point to the running bbc or cnn blog of the day to justify inclusion with attribution, only for it to be walked back a day or two laterSlywriter (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. But if Ukrainian sources are discussed in other RS sources then that makes for the difference. Also, let's be clear here - Ukrainian sources ARE more reliable than Russian ones. We also have the same problem on the Attack on Snake Island article because some users insist on including Russian fantasies (hundreds killed! Helicopters destroyed! Ukrainian jets (that supposedly were destroyed two months ago) downed!) just because ... "it's attributed". It's straight up WP:GAME behavior. Volunteer Marek 23:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure the sources are generally more reliable, but it doesn't mean that Ukranian government officials are always an accurate source of military maneuvers while in the midst of a existential crisis. Just as not everything a Russian source prints is a lie, not everything Ukrainian or Western sources publish is true.Slywriter (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- My general frustration is with Wikipedians increasingly rushing to cover Breaking news. It's impossible to do, articles will be wrong at times and the consequences are zero for doing so because "reliable sources" aka mass media cover everything these days and it's easy to find unverified information presented as fact especially in the immediate hours after an incident.Slywriter (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. But if Ukrainian sources are discussed in other RS sources then that makes for the difference. Also, let's be clear here - Ukrainian sources ARE more reliable than Russian ones. We also have the same problem on the Attack on Snake Island article because some users insist on including Russian fantasies (hundreds killed! Helicopters destroyed! Ukrainian jets (that supposedly were destroyed two months ago) downed!) just because ... "it's attributed". It's straight up WP:GAME behavior. Volunteer Marek 23:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cuts both ways. Plenty of editors feel that because reliable sources print verbatim text of Ukraine officials without any fact-checking or due dilligence that the corresponding Wikipedia article must be updated immediately and can point to the running bbc or cnn blog of the day to justify inclusion with attribution, only for it to be walked back a day or two laterSlywriter (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also discussed here: Talk:April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks#Sources. I'd like to stress that no conspiracy theories or disputable sequences of events are involved. The discussion is only about brief statements by Russian officials, coming from their official Telegram channels. Most of these statements are covered by both Russian and non-Russian agencies, and there is no substantial difference in coverage. The difference is that the Russian agencies publish these governors' statements a bit earlier (sometimes, a day before a non-Russian one does the same thing), and some of the statements (probably, considered of lower importance) aren't covered by non-Russian agencies. No independent party has questioned the fact that these governors actually make their statements, or suggested they were false. It's just that more noticeable events get coverage abroad, while some less noticeable receive only local coverage VanHelsing.16 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- If these events are covered by independent reliable sources then what's the problem? Just use the independent reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Direct cites have greater fidelity and traceability. The third party coverage is what establishes notability, but may be processed or partial portrayals. Citing them would wind up convoluted indirect attributions such as ‘BBC noted Russian reports of 200,000 refugees crossing into Russia’ or ‘The London Times disputed Russian accounts of military progress’ — you’re getting what BBC said in talking about the item(s), not a link to what the Russian source said. Difference is of having RS be reliable as a source, something sure to be there and looked at by many instead of thinking it has to be a source of truth, Truth, or TRUTH. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- My opinion is that we should not use any Russia-based sources on this war. For example, they routinely attribute Russian attacks to Ukrainians. Just the last paragraph of this report[2] is wrong in multiple ways. Ukraine was not shelling LNR and DNR at this time, precisely because they knew Russia would use it as a pretext. The use of the verb "liberate" is just grotesque. Putin was "recognizing the sovereignty" of LNR and DNR within regions they have never controlled. The article also talks about the "conflict's escalation", rather than the "Russian invasion" of Ukraine. In fact, I'll start an RfC on TASS right now. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- If these events are covered by independent reliable sources then what's the problem? Just use the independent reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Proposal to adopt the Russian Wikipedia solution
Should points 10 and 11 of rules for mediation in Ukraine-related topics on Russian Wikipedia, as modified here, be implemented for the purposes of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?
- Do not use the mass media materials of outlets based physically or online in Russia, Belarus or Ukraine [RUBYUA] that appeared after the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the invasion itself and related events. Some usages may be allowed if a specific edit request is made, only if independent secondary reliable coverage from outside these countries on the topic requested is unavailable, is published in what would otherwise be a generally reliable source at least two days after the event's occurrence (with the exception of official statements of government entities), and there is consensus to introduce it. In particular, avoid using sources liable to censorship by Roskomnadzor.
- The official statements of the sides shall be described according to independent, secondary, reliable sources [further mentioned as ISRS], limiting the scope of mentioning of the official position by the extent to which these positions are expounded on in these sources. Military advances should not be stated as fact unless confirmed by both sides of the conflict, either as separate statements as quoted in ISRSs, or by summary of the statements in ISRSs. All mentions of these positions shall be added with appropriate attribution, in a neutral form, without excessive citations and preserving due weight to them. The addition of the positions of the officials from one side that are not mentioned in ISRSs in order to balance the mentions of the positions of officials mentioned in ISRSs is forbidden, nor should independent assessments of ISRSs be balanced by the statements of officials denying said assessments. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Survey
Note. The fragments in italics are modifications of the currently standing version in the Russian Wikipedia. Basically, since enwiki (unlike ruwiki) does not have mediators, we are either left with admins or with starting RfCs purely for whitelisting purposes. Outlets catering to the audiences of RUBYUA but outside the countries (e.g. Meduza) will be exempt and should be assessed on their merits. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment. This is a sensible proposal which would limit the amount of breaking-news-style coverage on Wikipedia. The only issue I can see with it is that "independent, secondary, reliable sources" have almost no access to the areas occupied by Russia, DNR and LNR and therefore the coverage may end up unbalanced. Alaexis¿question? 21:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which is why the exception is there. Basically, if wants to write some section using Ukrainian sources from the occupied territories (for example by using articles like this one or this one, that's basically OK but because the quality of such reports may vary, this should be vetted via consensus. As for official statements, they are covered in independent secondary sources fairly well, so I don't see an issue with this one. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki, this certainly makes sense. One more thing, why do we need the last sentence? It seems superfluous considering that we already say that Russian sources should not be used unless there the criteria for the exception are satisfied. Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's for emphasis. In general, don't use RUBYUA sources, but particularly not Russian sources because of the "fake news" law (and which Belarus already started enforcing back in 2018). Ukraine doesn't as of now have criminal liability for making misleading/false statements and the censorship is far from being as bad, but it exists, and three TV channels were ordered closed without meaningful explanation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd suggest the following wording then "Do not use the mass media materials of outlets based physically or online in Russia (liable to censorship by Roskomnadzor), Belarus or Ukraine [RUBYUA] that appeared after the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the invasion itself and related events. Some usages may be allowed if a specific edit request is made, only if independent secondary reliable coverage from outside these countries on the topic requested is unavailable, is published in what would otherwise be a generally reliable source at least two days after the event's occurrence (with the exception of official statements of government entities)." This way it doesn't feel like the Roskomnadzor part is an exception to the exception. Alaexis¿question? 11:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's for emphasis. In general, don't use RUBYUA sources, but particularly not Russian sources because of the "fake news" law (and which Belarus already started enforcing back in 2018). Ukraine doesn't as of now have criminal liability for making misleading/false statements and the censorship is far from being as bad, but it exists, and three TV channels were ordered closed without meaningful explanation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki, this certainly makes sense. One more thing, why do we need the last sentence? It seems superfluous considering that we already say that Russian sources should not be used unless there the criteria for the exception are satisfied. Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
support, but I'm not clear on what is being proposed. Would this be MOS, Guideline or policy? It seems commonsensical under NPOV to assume that there will be biased reporting from both sides, but as long as we are stating in the text who is making the claim, it seems fairly workable without special new rules. "Ukraine sources says X" "Russian sources say Y" is a fine way to trust the readers' ability to discern. This should've been how things are done all along. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- On ruwiki, mediatorship rules serve partly as MOS and partly as guidelines, depending on the specific text of the points. For example, point 1 of the mediatorship FAQ reads like a typical MOS rule (itself a sort of guideline), while points 10-11 are more like guidelines. I envisage this to be a temporary guideline/MOS-like rule (let's say, for half a year), and, if it proves successful, can be made a template for next military conflicts and may possibly be promoted to part of policy on NPOV. It might be a rule imposed by ArbCom as part of discretionary sanctions, but there would first have to be some sort of articulable problem, and I try to avoid the war articles unless the quality was really bad.
- The reason this is introduced is to limit additions of mutual finger-pointing of breaking news that only muddle the article with what might be irrelevant details. E.g. saying "Russians say Ukrainians attacked Belgorod <Russian ref>, while Ukrainians say Russians are bullshitting and are making false flag attacks<Ukrainian ref>" is a suboptimal way to refer to the actual events in the war. For example in WP:ARBPIA or WP:ARBAA2, IDF's, Palestinian, Armenian or Azeri claims are not taken for granted, and I don't see much difference in this one other than that we can afford Ukrainian sources some benefit of doubt, but not to the extent that would justify the treatment of UA resources on par with foreign media. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- This all seems a bit complicated to me. Can't this just be summarised as: "Russian state news sources are considered generally unreliable for content related to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine", which fits well within our established reliability processes. The second point I don't agree with introducing, because a) the section above doesn't show an issue relating to that (outside of the issue with Russian state sources in general); b) few military advances are agreed on by both parties. You can't even get a realistic death toll out of Russia; c) most of the RS reporting follows claims of either side or claims of allies of either side. The provision either means gutting our articles, or doing exactly what we're doing right now, it's not clear but either way the provision doesn't seem necessary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- This proposal may be well intention but it creates more problems than it solves. Ukrainian sources are generally more reliable (of course not all of them) than Russian ones so why should they be treated equivalently? There might also be a couple Russian sources that are still reliable. Additionally, sources from outside the geographic area very often are, to put it bluntly, clueless about basic factual info. Confuse cities, people, developments, etc. The main problem overall is the WP:UNDUE space that is given to Russian claims, often absurd and ridiculous, as filtered through reliable sources. What we need rather is a higher bar for inclusion of Russian claims - only if they're WIDELY discussed and analyzed by RSs, not just restated here or there, should they be included. Volunteer Marek 06:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I support the proposal that will at least make it certain that we should neither rely on the official statements of Ukraine, nor Russia unless they have been confirmed by both sides. A strict balance is certainly necessary. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose in strongest possible terms. I could see some potential argument for rejecting sources from Russia (because they have strict press controls), but the argument for omitting sources from Ukraine entirely lacks any basis in policy. Would you accept a similar proposal to, for example, ban sources from within Israel or Palestine from the entire ARBPIA topic area? Should we reject sources based in the US that cover the Iraq or Vietnam Wars? It is possible that a Ukrainian source could be considered WP:BIASED (although even that, I think, should be on a case-by-case basis), and depending on context some would be WP:PRIMARY; but the solution to that is to make it clear that the source is Ukrainian in the text, not to bar it entirely, and I would strenuously oppose even making that much a formal requirement. Yes, sources close to a conflict have potential bias, but they can also be some of the best sources available; and it is insulting to imply that an entire nation is incapable of objective journalism with no basis beyond "well it concerns them." You need at least some argument for why there is a structural problem to sanction all sources based in an entire region; we might be able to make that argument for Russia or similar regions with strict press censorship, but for Ukraine, no. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose.
confirmed by both sides of the conflict
— as in "the war, according to Ukrainian sources, or the special military operation, according to Russian sources"? Also, per WP:NOTNEWS, why does 2022 Western Russia attacks (and other articles like it) even exist? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC) - Oppose. per Space4Time3Continuum2x An unimportant person (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose As written, it also excludes independent statements and observations about conflict developments. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose There are no Russian independent media outlets left, as far as I can tell. Ukraine maintains a reasonably free press. Many Ukrainian outlets seem pretty reliable. I don't think reliable and unreliable outlets should be treated equivalently. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can't use "free press" and "independent media" interchangeably. Read this article which proves that you are wrong. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ArvindPalaskar: is that a standing article by a still active Ukrainian publication that is critical of the Ukrainian government? Maybe Telekanal Dozhd’ or Radio Ekho Moskvy could provide us with a similar opinion concerning the Russian government's management of the press... If they still existed. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can't use "free press" and "independent media" interchangeably. Read this article which proves that you are wrong. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Russian Wikipedia has to give lip-service to the idea of equivalence between Russia's strict censorship of media and Ukraine with it's relatively free media, but here on EN Wikipedia we don't have to do that. FOARP (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- You have got to be kidding right? We should accept Russian-controlled media outlets because there are no policies or guidelines against it? It is argued that the news provided by such outlets is published earlier than others. The European Journal of Communication (Measuring news bias: Russia’s official news agency ITAR-TASS’ coverage of the Ukraine crisis) wrote, "This result reveals Russia’s strategic use of the state-owned news agency for international propaganda in its ‘hybrid war’, demonstrating the effectiveness of the new approach to news bias." Does Roskomnadzor control the Russian news media? Is there any doubt that this can and will lead to propaganda?
- Policy:
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper (Specifically #1 and #2)
- WP:Verifiability:
In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.
The reliability of TASS has been continually questioned. - WP:NPOV
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
When we are using a state run news media, especially when used alone for "early print", there can be no neutrality. When one side abides by fair journalism and the other can "print what they want", how can this be true NPOV. We exclude other sources because they have been found wanting and I see this as the same.
- English Wikipedia content guideline
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered
(see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view above). "Sources" is plural. - WP:RSBREAKING:
Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published, especially if those original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution.
- Deprecated sources would be those
sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues.
- Explanatory essays:
Recentism: is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view.
RfC on TASS
Which of the following best describes the reliability of TASS ?
- 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 added to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Option 4 This report[3] is wrong in so many ways that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, we have the use of the phrase "conflict escalation", as if the conflict escalated somehow by itself. How about the word "invasion". Near the end, we have the sentence Putin, in response to a request from the leaders of the Donbass republics for help launched a special military operation. Are they really that daft? Surely they realize that the initial impetus came from Putin, not from the LNR or DNR. Furthermore, we have the following paragraph: Since the beginning of the escalation, "a total of 2,738 fire attacks have been recorded, including 2,477 carried out with heavy weapons." During the reviewed period the Ukrainian military fired 27,006 pieces of ammunition of various calibers, including 27 Tochka-U missiles. Multiple rocket launchers Grad, Uragan and Smerch were also used.. Multiple issues here. Who can possibly arrive at such a precise count? How many of those were in fact Russian misfires or Russian false flag attacks? Note that Tass specifically says that the attacks were fired by the Ukrainian military. Lastly, we have the following passage: Tensions on the engagement line in Donbass escalated on February 17. The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months. Numerous reports in the media mention Russian attempts to provoke Ukraine and/or false flag attacks during that time.[4][5][6] I am unable to find any reliable reports of actual Ukrainian attacks from Feb. 17-23. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:RSP already lists it under Option 2 ("Unclear or additional considerations apply"), with a comment: In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues. I can't see any reason to change the attitude. Of course, it's a Russian state agency and it uses propagandistic cliches promoted by the state — and we should avoid any of these on Wikipedia, regardless of the source. However, when it comes to statements such as "a Russian official said the following", TASS reporting is very accurate (i.e. the words of the officials are not falsified). Moreover, your argument about the inaccurate count of attacks is not entirely valid, because even TASS does not present it as the ultimate truth — in fact, the report says: "the office of the DPR’s representative in the Joint Center for Ceasefire Control and Coordination (JCCC) said on Friday." I.e. the data is provided by a side of the conflict, and TASS clearly states so, i.e. even this piece could be used to compare various estimates of the intensity of the attacks (for example, Ukraine said that XXX attacks were conducted[Ukrainian Source], while the DPR insisted that there were YYY attacks[TASS]; independent observers give the number NNN[another source]) VanHelsing.16 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am aware that's the theory. I guess I think that when a source fabricates as thoroughly as TASS did here, deprecation is the correct way for us to handle it. Note also that the theory is not working in practice. See the above section #TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia) which notes it is used precisely on the Russian invasion. Furthermore, it's not really journalism when they just repeat someone's nonsensical statements without noting that it's a load of BS. Lastly, by the final paragraph where they have their false sentence The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months., it looks to me like they are saying this in their own voice. At a minimum, it's unclear that they are attributing it, and I could certainly see people reading it as a factual statement, not an attributed one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Adoring nanny, why do you think that the statement The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months is false? Alaexis¿question? 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- For example, see [7]
Adoring nanny (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Russian-backed separatists have stepped up their shelling of Ukrainian forces, but Kyiv has told its troops not to return fire to avoid giving Russian President Vladimir Putin an excuse to launch an invasion.
- Thanks. I agree that the statement is *likely* false but I don't think we can have a definite proof at this point. Your video is at best indirect evidence. There was increased shelling and whether it was all false flag attacks or some of them were made by Ukrainians is hard to ascertain (Al-Jazeera had to walk back their initial statement) considering that it's an active war zone now. Alaexis¿question? 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- But for TASS to be supported, we would need evidence that the statement is true. See also [8] about a related series of Russian fabrications and false flag attacks. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If you're claiming that they published fake news the onus is on you to prove it. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't trust TASS because of general common sense considerations (it's owned by the state, that state is not a pluralist democracy where political parties can compete freely, Russia is ranked 155 out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index, many journalists have been murdered, etc.: see Media freedom in Russia), but I think that User:Adoring nanny has not proved that that article by TASS contains fake news. The invasion of Ukraine can be described as an escalation of pre-existing armed conflicts (Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbas) and the civilian casualty figure given by TASS/by the DPR’s representative - 113 killed and 517 injured - is quite accurate. Cf. HRMMU, Ukraine: civilian casualty update 13 May 2022: 117 killed and 481 injured on territory controlled by Russian affiliated armed groups. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- OSCE report, Fortune. "As documented by the humanitarian NGO Proliska, which is monitoring the conflict zone, one of the [separatists'] shells struck a kindergarten, leaving two employees with shell shock—but not injuring any of the children who were there. Proliska and journalists have also reported shelling by pro-Russian forces against the inhabitants of the Ukrainian town of Mariinka." Guardian. "The attack was part of an apparent coordinated bombardment by pro-Russian separatists in multiple locations across the 250-kilometre long frontline." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Adding the OSCE report dated February 18. See the situation reports for Feb 17 on page 4–7. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- The February 17 OSCE map shows ceasefire violations both in the government- and separatist-controlled territory, so I'm not sure how it proves that the statement in question in wrong. Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Colored dots on a map don’t tell the story. You have to read the pages I pointed out and the "Table of ceasefire violations as of 17 February 20221" on page 10–13. Sure, there were more dots as on the day before but it's inconclusive at best who was shooting at whom. I spent quite a while looking at TASS news releases: with very few exceptions nothing but "Putin/Peskov/Zakharova/the Kremlin Press Service/Rep.X/Y/Z said". For a change of pace: "the DPR's representative said/Lukashenko of Belarus said/the anti-coronavirus crisis center reported". There was one item that could loosely be described as news, the FSB stating that they had arrested a Muslim terrorist with bomb making material and that he had confessed, FWIW. TASS isn't a news agency, it's an extension of the Kremlin Press Service. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Assuming this is true and this is all they do, how is it it related to their reliability, which is what this discussion should be about?
- Regarding the OSCE report, the table says the same thing as the map: there were plenty of explosions and other events in non-government-controlled areas. It doesn't necessarily mean that what Tass said is true, but it certainly does not contradict it. Alaexis¿question? 19:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- "According to TASS, a Key Russian lawmaker said ...". Properly attributed but it's the "let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" principle. When a source publishes statements by government officials—without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input—they're the bullhorn for the primary source, not a secondary source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. However, it should be also noted that we are routinely doing the same with Ukrainian sources. An Ukrainian official John Doe says X, a non-deprecated source echoes X - without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input - and then we publish "according to John Doe, X is the case". Instead of deprecating TASS, perhaps we should engage in a discussion on what to do when a non-reliable source's statement - a statement by an Ukrainian or Russian John Doe - is reported "as such" by a source. The proposition "John Doe says X" is verifiable, but is it also notable? Should we publish it in an article dealing with X (say, war crimes), or should we only publish it in articles dealing with John Doe? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is an example of TASS reporting what the Russian transport minister said, as reported by the New York Times, i.e. noteworthyness established by a reliable secondary source. The RS also added context (imposition of punishments) and analysis (rare acknowledgment). (It might still be WP:NOTNEWS for WP purposes.) The difference between Ukrainian and Russian sources at the moment is that there are independent sources on the ground in Ukraine, so there usually is some checking on official reports. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. However, it should be also noted that we are routinely doing the same with Ukrainian sources. An Ukrainian official John Doe says X, a non-deprecated source echoes X - without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input - and then we publish "according to John Doe, X is the case". Instead of deprecating TASS, perhaps we should engage in a discussion on what to do when a non-reliable source's statement - a statement by an Ukrainian or Russian John Doe - is reported "as such" by a source. The proposition "John Doe says X" is verifiable, but is it also notable? Should we publish it in an article dealing with X (say, war crimes), or should we only publish it in articles dealing with John Doe? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- "According to TASS, a Key Russian lawmaker said ...". Properly attributed but it's the "let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" principle. When a source publishes statements by government officials—without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input—they're the bullhorn for the primary source, not a secondary source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Colored dots on a map don’t tell the story. You have to read the pages I pointed out and the "Table of ceasefire violations as of 17 February 20221" on page 10–13. Sure, there were more dots as on the day before but it's inconclusive at best who was shooting at whom. I spent quite a while looking at TASS news releases: with very few exceptions nothing but "Putin/Peskov/Zakharova/the Kremlin Press Service/Rep.X/Y/Z said". For a change of pace: "the DPR's representative said/Lukashenko of Belarus said/the anti-coronavirus crisis center reported". There was one item that could loosely be described as news, the FSB stating that they had arrested a Muslim terrorist with bomb making material and that he had confessed, FWIW. TASS isn't a news agency, it's an extension of the Kremlin Press Service. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The February 17 OSCE map shows ceasefire violations both in the government- and separatist-controlled territory, so I'm not sure how it proves that the statement in question in wrong. Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If you're claiming that they published fake news the onus is on you to prove it. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- But for TASS to be supported, we would need evidence that the statement is true. See also [8] about a related series of Russian fabrications and false flag attacks. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree that the statement is *likely* false but I don't think we can have a definite proof at this point. Your video is at best indirect evidence. There was increased shelling and whether it was all false flag attacks or some of them were made by Ukrainians is hard to ascertain (Al-Jazeera had to walk back their initial statement) considering that it's an active war zone now. Alaexis¿question? 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- For example, see [7]
- Adoring nanny, why do you think that the statement The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months is false? Alaexis¿question? 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am aware that's the theory. I guess I think that when a source fabricates as thoroughly as TASS did here, deprecation is the correct way for us to handle it. Note also that the theory is not working in practice. See the above section #TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia) which notes it is used precisely on the Russian invasion. Furthermore, it's not really journalism when they just repeat someone's nonsensical statements without noting that it's a load of BS. Lastly, by the final paragraph where they have their false sentence The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months., it looks to me like they are saying this in their own voice. At a minimum, it's unclear that they are attributing it, and I could certainly see people reading it as a factual statement, not an attributed one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3, deprecation would remove a potentially useful source of quotes from Russian officials. It should not be used for statement of facts.Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3/Status quo statement of facts are now dubious, given it is now illegal to report facts the Kremlin considers inconvenient. There is a time component involved in this however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- 3 at best, probably 4. This is basically a propaganda agency, and essentially nothing they report about the war in Ukraine is accurate. The only thing that gives me pause is that we sometimes need to make reference to false claims in TASS, so as a primary source for it's own and Putin's b.s. ("denazification", etc.), we need to cite it. It can't be deprecated the point we block posting of citations of it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 /leave as is this issue was extensively discussed in 2019 and I see no reason to change, as per VanHelsing.16 comments above Ilenart626 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4, they've gone downhill in the last three years. Previously their bias was expressed through omission which isn't a problem for us, however disinformation (the traditional realm of RT and Sputnik) is a problem for us. Two or three years ago TASS started publishing RT and Sputnik style disinformation which has been immensely disappointing but leaves us no other option than to deprecate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any proof for that? Alaexis¿question? 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 - reliable only for the position du jour of the Kremlin. Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 basically only WP:ABOUTSELF for official Russian government positions, or to cite examples of Russian state propaganda, never for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 13:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 Dropping from 2 to 3 seems appropriate given the current circumstances. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. starship.paint (exalt) 14:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 - I agree with VanHelsing. This was discussed extensively in 2019. It remains a valid source for official Russian viewpoint, in which it is reliable for. Gorebath (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 4. Definitely unreliable and occasionally out right fake. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 or Option 3 It is a state-owned media that is still great for offering details about the Russian government. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. If we need to report on anything that comes from it, we can do so through a reliable secondary source that provides appropriate context. There is no reason to link directly to this propaganda organ. It can be trusted for absolutely nothing. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 Use it to source a fact-free statement issued by the Kremlin, sure. Unusable in any other situation. Zaathras (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 with a caveat (status quo). I understand the concerns regarding the effect of the new censorship law however I see only one example in all Option 3/4 votes. It was provided by u:Adoring Nanny and while the statement in question is likely to be false we can't be sure about it. I will change my !vote to Option 3 if such examples are provided. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Reuters. "The TASS, RIA and Interfax news agencies quoted "a representative of a competent body" in Russia on Sunday as saying Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons at the destroyed Chernobyl nuclear power plant that was shut down in 2000."
- NY Times. "After Russia attacked an area near the nuclear complex in Zaporizhzhia, leading to a fire, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called it “nuclear terrorism.” But according to a Kremlin statement reported in Tass, the military seized the facility to prevent Ukrainians and neo-Nazis from “organizing provocations fraught with catastrophic consequences.”
- NY Times. Two false claims in TASS, original and translation ("Kremlin press office stated
- Thanks for providing examples. In all cases it's clearly attributed ("The Russian Federation's Ministry of Defence reported...", "Putin told Macron", "a representative of a competent body"). The last one is a bit dodgy but reporting news with attribution to anonymous knowledgeable sources is hardly unique to Tass. Alaexis¿question? 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 Both Reuters [9] and Getty Images [10] have cut ties with Tass, we should as well. Tass has recently begun publishing obviously false information/propaganda, like that Zelenskyy has fled Ukraine (Video evidence suggests otherwise) or that the Ukrainians are massacring civilians in Donbas. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- It says "A story published by the Russian News Agency Tass this week quoted a Russian lawmaker saying Zelenskyy “hastily fled” Kyiv for Lviv in far western Ukraine." Assuming the said lawmaker said it, why is it false? Alaexis¿question? 08:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Quoting someone as cover for further spreading disinformation, i.e., without TASS saying that there are contradicting reports. USN continues, "It's one of many distorted claims to emerge from a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign that aims to strengthen domestic support for the invasion and undermine the resolve of Ukrainians." From the other source (Politico): "Tass' uncritical reporting of information from the Russian government, which critics and media experts say is propaganda.", "Tass has parroted Russia government claims that Ukrainians killed civilians in the Donbas region and dumped their bodies into mass graves, a claim that news organizations and experts say is false." See also here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not saying that there are contradicting reports is not good journalistic practice but it's different from reporting falsehoods. I totally agree that their reporting is selective but I think that the criteria for deprecation is publishing lies deliberately. Alaexis¿question? 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Quoting someone as cover for further spreading disinformation, i.e., without TASS saying that there are contradicting reports. USN continues, "It's one of many distorted claims to emerge from a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign that aims to strengthen domestic support for the invasion and undermine the resolve of Ukrainians." From the other source (Politico): "Tass' uncritical reporting of information from the Russian government, which critics and media experts say is propaganda.", "Tass has parroted Russia government claims that Ukrainians killed civilians in the Donbas region and dumped their bodies into mass graves, a claim that news organizations and experts say is false." See also here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- It says "A story published by the Russian News Agency Tass this week quoted a Russian lawmaker saying Zelenskyy “hastily fled” Kyiv for Lviv in far western Ukraine." Assuming the said lawmaker said it, why is it false? Alaexis¿question? 08:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 In other words, against classification attempts like this which are always overgeneralizations, even for the worst sources such as this. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2, I don't see any reason yet for changing this from the previous RfC, where
the reliability of Tass varies based on the content
. It was the same thing with its articles about Ukraine etc from 2014 onwards with strong pro-government bias and parroting claims by Russian government/proxies. So still, for such topics it is best avoided, but is useful for reporting what officials say. I would go for option 3 if it is clearer that in general it is more problematic. Mellk (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC) - Option 2 or 3 Not usable for statements of fact relating to Russian government, and barely usable for statements of opinion where not covered also by WP:SECONDARY sources. Allow use for non-controversial topics relating to Russian culture and society. CutePeach (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 Nothing seems to have really changed since the last discussion. Azuredivay (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 That article by TASS is questionable but it's not fake news. "TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but ... deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues" seems a sensible assessment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 Cherry picking statements in news media is original research. Major American media supported false claims about Iraq in order to support an invasion in 2001-3, but they are still rs. TASS' claim that the Donbass republics asked for a Russian invasion is not necessarily false, considering that according to International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, they "declared independence from Ukraine" and the "central government of Ukraine regards the republics as being under terrorist control." Can Adoring nanny explain why they think these republics would not ask the Russians to invade? The issue seems to be which facts TASS chooses to emphasize, rather than whether they are true. WEIGHT is sufficient to prevent an over-emphasis of non-Western perspectives, we don't have to add another ban, particularly when there is no evidence for it. TFD (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- You mean the de-facto republics that have been formally recognized by Russia and the other de-facto states South Ossetia and Abkhazia? That article ought to be called "International non-recognition", judging by the long list of states and international organizations opposing recognition. As long as we're citing an unreliable source, i.e., Wikipedia, the 2014 Donbas status referendums says that a number of nations declared the referendums to be unconstitutional and lacking legitimacy. Even Belarus hasn't recognized them; they appear to be in the "supporting" column for "respectfully understand[ing] the decision of the Russian side to recognize". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 as first choice, no on options 1 and 2. The European Alliance of News Agencies (EANA) suspended TASS on February 27, stating that because of "the new media regulation enforced by the Russian government (Roskomnadzor), which is heavily restricting media freedom", TASS is not "able to provide unbiased news." On May 13, their general assembly voted to make the suspension indefinite. According to Reuters, TASS is "not aligned with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles" of acting with "integrity, independence and freedom from bias." This sentence on the reliable sources list currently reads like black humor:
Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government.
We do not need TASS for accurate reports on what the Russian government stated, and they are no more reliable than RT or Sputnik now. The last RfC was three years ago, before laws restricting freedom of expression were amended and incorporated into the Penal Code, making them punishable by up to 15 years in prison. RIA Novosti also needs to be looked at; the last discussion was in 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC) - Option 2 nothing has changed since the last RfC. Being biased doesn't make it any less reliable than the usual RS whose coverage of the Ukraine war has exposed their bias. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2: If we discount any media coming out of Russia that is potentially subject to state propaganda then as of March (but more accurately, since long before) we've discounted all media coming out of Russia. And by that standard, all outlets in authoritarian regimes. It doesn't take an editorial genius to reasonably infer when state-run media might be factually unreliable. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SamuelRiv: it has been repeatedly noted that our WP:RS policy does in fact de-facto preclude the use of most outlets in authoritarian regimes in most contexts. This is generally viewed as a feature not a bug. Personally I don't think its either but I do think its more or less inevitable given the inherent contradictions between wikipedia's core values and those of said authoritarian states. Authoritarian states are habitual liars, there isn't really any other model... To stop lying would undermine the legitimacy of the very party or entity which instituted the authoritarian system to ensure their legitimacy in the first place. This same problem occurs in non-authoritarian governments the difference being that non-authoritarian governments can not force independent media outlets to conform to their lies, in fact much the opposite happens... Nothing the independent media likes more than a nice big juicy lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 - The "additional consideration" being that it is unreliable for any controversial events involving Russia. TASS is used elsewhere as well, where its reporting is accurate. No need to deprecate the source entirely. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 - The long-standing precautions about it as state-run media still seems valid and obvious, with recent events being an instance of where additional considerations apply. I don’t see anything changed about any areas where past cites were made, or anything to indicate where it was accurate is no longer true, or much for a generalisation past the topic of the Ukraine war. And as I said in recent discussion above, even on the Ukraine war I think a direct cite may still be best in some cases - just as usual WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2/3 Generally unreliable, reliable for statements of the Russian state and pro-government politicians (and perhaps for uncontroversial minor facts), very unreliable for controversial facts on topics where the Russian state has an interest. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 - Generally unreliable, but reliable for official statements of the Russian government officials and state decrees. Grandmaster 21:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. TASS is the official state news agency of Russia. I don't think TASS has any reason to distort statements of say president Putin or laws passed by the Russian parliament. Quite the contrary, this is where the official information is published, therefore TASS should be considered a reliable source to reflect the official position of Russia, with proper attribution. However, when it comes to general reporting, TASS is a propaganda outlet, and cannot be used for statements of fact. For reliable news coverage better use third party sources with a better reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Grandmaster 10:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3. Of course they also publish many outright fabrications (which would be option "4"), but I am against depreciating anything. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 4. As others have stated, Reuters and Getty Images have cut ties with them. MBFC has them listed as mixed on facts, biased on politics, and limited press freedom. It has suggested they promote conspiracy theories and it also describes them as "100% Russian propaganda all the time."[11]Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4, roughly half a century too late. TASS is a propaganda operation. We can discuss what it says, as described in reliable independent sources, but not cite it as an authority. I learned this at school. I left school in 1987. Why are we still discussing this? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4: The one good argument I've seen against it is that it does sometimes provide quotes from Russian government officials. I could see an exception in this case but to be honest I'm a little worried that a source that fabricates information as blatantly as TASS does might also not be reliable for the things we think they might be reliable for. Other than that, blatantly fabricating information is an instant deprecate vote from me. Loki (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Could the editors who voted Option 3 or 4 provide a few references to blatantly false information published by TASS? I guess those who voted Option 2 might be willing to change their vote if they were provided with some examples of fake news. So far I've seen opinions but no evidence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- This report by News Guard might be helpful to you. [12] Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- thank you. I read half of the report and came to the conclusion that it is even less reliable than TASS itself. TASS truthfully reports the voice of the Russian government: that's all it does. It doesn't add any critical comment and background, it's just the voice of the government. It omits lots of stuff, but at least it doesn't falsify anything, so it's quite reliable (albeit incredibly poor and openly biased). News Guard's report, on the other hand, contains factual mistakes. E.g.
For example, a July 2021 article titled, “OPCW report proves Germany’s link to provocation with Navalny — lower house’s commission,” claimed that the poisoning of Navalny was “anti-Russian provocation” linked to Germany.
As one can read in that article, the claim that the Navalny affaire was an anti-Russian provocation was not made by TASS but by Vasily Piskarev, chairman of a Duma commission. TASS is reporting (with attribution) Piskarev's statement. So News Guard is making a blatant mistake that no experienced editor of Wikipedia would ever make. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)- I think you're misunderstanding the point that News Guard is trying to make. They are illustrating that TASS often uncritically repeats statements by the Russian government, even when they have been shown to be false elsewhere. It says this several times in the report, including on the title page: "The site uncritically promotes the false claims of the Russian government." The quote you provided came after the sentence "TASS also has advanced false claims about the August 2020 poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny." [emphasis added] Journalism is intended to be held to a higher standard than Wikipedia articles.
- I would add to their analysis that TASS attributes ridiculous claims to unnamed sources in the government. For particularly ridiculous claims they insulate themselves further by nesting attributions like "'According to conclusions by Western experts, the Kiev regime was extremely close to creating a nuclear explosive device based on plutonium due to its covert obtainment from spent nuclear fuel stored in the country’s territory. Ukrainian specialists could have made such a device within several months,' the source said."[13] This tactic has been in play since the 80s when TASS reported that Peter Nikolayev reported that according to "British and East German scientists" AIDS was man-made, had been tested on humans at Fort Detrick, and had leaked from the lab there accidentally.[14]
- If you look at my vote, you will note that I quoted MBFC as saying that TASS "promotes conspiracy theories" and is "100% Russian propaganda," not that they misreported that propaganda. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- MBFC is also an unreliable source per WP consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I attributed those statements to them, so my reporting of the unreliable source stands, according to the logic being used to justify the continuation of considering TASS reliable. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- MBFC is also an unreliable source per WP consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- thank you. I read half of the report and came to the conclusion that it is even less reliable than TASS itself. TASS truthfully reports the voice of the Russian government: that's all it does. It doesn't add any critical comment and background, it's just the voice of the government. It omits lots of stuff, but at least it doesn't falsify anything, so it's quite reliable (albeit incredibly poor and openly biased). News Guard's report, on the other hand, contains factual mistakes. E.g.
- I would have maintained it at 2 instead of dropping to 3 but for the current situation viz a viz the West which will likely result in some deterioration but I should add that I don't really have any evidence of that and News Guard is not a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Selfstudier, I think it is fascinating that you find News Guard to be an unreliable source. Happily, in the report, they provide links to all of their claims and the basis for their reasoning, so if you disagree with them, you can see why they say what they say. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is the current WP consensus, afaik. Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Selfstudier, I think it is fascinating that you find News Guard to be an unreliable source. Happily, in the report, they provide links to all of their claims and the basis for their reasoning, so if you disagree with them, you can see why they say what they say. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gitz6666, please actually read the discussion. The very first comment here provides exactly the kind of reference you're asking for. Volunteer Marek 21:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- This report by News Guard might be helpful to you. [12] Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- But here is more: [15], [16], [17] [18]. It's not like it's hard to find this stuff. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here we go again, TASS is not the Daily Mail, Jeez.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree: it is not. Right now TASS produces a fountain of intentional disinformation on behalf of Russian government. One can not say the same about Daily Mail. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Don't tell me...while all Ukranian sources are a fountain of truth, right? I see a couple of !voters here saying Euromaidan is fine.Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree: it is not. Right now TASS produces a fountain of intentional disinformation on behalf of Russian government. One can not say the same about Daily Mail. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here we go again, TASS is not the Daily Mail, Jeez.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- But here is more: [15], [16], [17] [18]. It's not like it's hard to find this stuff. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 per Adoring nanny's, MrOllie's Disconnected Phrases' and Space4Time3Continuum2x's analyses, which show that TASS has published false and fabricated information and should be deprecated as such. TASS' reliability has worsened and needs to be reevaluated since its last discussion in 2019, which is particularly important given the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. WP:DEPS also establishes that in this scenario it can still be used as a source for the position of the Russian government, but at any rate said position would already be covered by more reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 per Adoring nanny, TASS clearly publishes blatant fabrications—blindlynx 20:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 per Adoring nanny and Space4Time3Continuum2x. TASS used to have a veneer of reliability in the past due to some of its editorial practices, but it seems like this has changed, due to the needs of the state in an environment where other outlets to engage in information warfare have been reduced in impact in outside countries after feb2022. it's why reuters and getty dropped them as partners. info from tass is sometimes useful, but when it's useful, it should show up in reliable secondary sources. Cononsense (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 the majority of examples of false information allegedly published by TASS are in fact faithful relaying by TASS of possibly false claims made by Russian officials or Russian proxies, which is not the same thing as directly reporting claims that are known to be false. By that standard all news outlets would have to be deprecated simply for quoting people in disputed situations. The closer should not merely count the number of arguments or votes but take into consideration the weakness of the arguments for option 4. Remember that WP:BIASEDSOURCE explicitly states
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective
, and the faithful quoting of unreliable statements is a form of bias, not a form of fabrication. Since the source accurately relays claims made by Russian officials or Russian proxies, but those claims are themselves suspect, due weight considerations apply. TASS should only be used to give further detail on claims that other sources agree are notable. TASS is likely to be reliable for reporting unrelated to geopolitics relating to Russia, given the fact that they had partnerships with other RS until Russia invaded Ukraine. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC) - Option 2: additional considerations apply, as usual with many state media agencies. On a case-by-case basis, it may require in-text attribution. And, of course, oppose this trend of attempting to outright deprecate full media outlets based on some anecdotal report on some controversial topic. MarioGom (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Charles W Henderson, Marine Sniper: 93 confirmed kills (and fictionalised history books in general)
Marine Sniper: 93 confirmed kills by Charles W. Henderson is billed as the true story of Carlos Hathcock, a prolific sniper in the Vietnam war. Its prose is novelistic and the scenes are described in detail as if the writer was describing a events they had personally witnessed. The author recognises in their introduction that some dialogue involving Vietnamese characters is invented by the author, but does not make the same caveat for dialogue between Americans, which seems unlikely to be true. No sources are mentioned, except the author's own interviews with American service personnel, which I have no doubt actually did happen, and claims that American military records were consulted. The records are not cited, so can not be verified.
In my view this can't be considered a reliable source for historical events, perhaps not even for the views of the interviewees, given the degree of fictionalisation. But I'd be interested to see what others think.
This leads to a broader question of how far should we trust memoirs, or histories based on interviews, which are presented novelistically?
Boynamedsue (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- He is a historian, and so in that respect is an RS. but it can also be argued that he might only be an RS for what he claims (thus attribution). Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: what suggests that they're a historian? All I see is that they're a journalist and author. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- When I did a search for him online I saw him referred to as a historian. But it may have been another Charles Henderson. 10:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: what suggests that they're a historian? All I see is that they're a journalist and author. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Neither Marine Sniper nor Henderson himself should be considered reliable sources in any way. The book itself is a novelization, which is an instant fail as a source. Sure, it's supposedly based on interviews and records, but I don't believe for a second that the play-by-play action sequences or dialogue are anything but invented. Perhaps some of the larger plot elements were sourced, but how do we know what to believe? That's why we trust actual historians, not novelists. And I see nothing indicating that Henderson is a historian, no education, no training, no experience. I also can't find any record of reliable sources treating Marine Sniper or any of Henderson's other novels as reputable sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't see any evidence that he is a historian. Some of what he does follows the historical method (interviews with participants, archive research), but the complete lack of referencing, and the text which is effectively a novel, as well as admitting to inventing dialogue does not. He also makes no attempt to critically evaluate what Hathcock or other vets are telling him. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Henderson's own about page on his website talks extensively about his training and the professional organisations of which he is a member, but it does not mention any historical training. His most relevant qualifications appear to be university-level courses (apparently not degrees) in photojournalism and philosophy (his BA is in animal sciences, which is of limited use to the professional historian!), and experience as a freelance journalist. The preface admits that parts of the book have been invented, and though the cover describes the book as a "true story" and the forward describes the book (except the bits which the author admits inventing) as "factually accurate to the best of my ability", the 2001 reprint is published by Berkley, an imprint of Penguin which specialises in "commercial and genre fiction". I can't see any compelling reason to treat this as a reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, if if the research that went into the book is accepted, the question becomes what parts of article content, that are supprted by the book, are being called into question? Is it dates, facts & figures, based on research and interviews, elements that the author states are factually accurate to the best of his ability, or some of the filler elements, such as dialogue between enemy combatants that couldn't be corroborated, and so were invented by the author? Perhaps the OP could clarify which parts of the article, supported by this book that they are calling into question? - wolf 19:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think that the need to do this interrogation of which part of the novelization are facts and which are not is what makes them unreliable sources. We'd basically need the author's statements as to what's true or not, at which point we should probably just cite that. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
if the research that went into the book is accepted
Given that Henderson doesn't have any historical qualifications and doesn't claim to be a historian, I'm not sure that we should trust his research as super reliable. By his own account, it's largely based off of interviews with people who were there. Memories are falliable and self-interested accounts are self-interested; an amateur's uncritical reporting of them should be treated with an appropriate degree of caution. Even if we do trust that he did his research properly, the fact is that he has published something under a commercial fiction imprint: for all that he is saying "it's all true", his publishers are quite clearly saying "this is not a history book". Historical fiction is often based on very thorough research; that doesn't mean that we should treat it as a reliable source. To the extent that Wikipedia editors are in a position to judge which bits of what Henderson is saying are true versus which bits are fictionalised, it is because they are basing their judgement off of actually reliable sources; if we have actually reliable sources, we should use those. (I also note as an aside that currently the references to Henderson 2003 give page numbers which do not match up at all to the referenced edition, which makes it hard to verify whether Henderson even claims the things we are citing to him!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)- In reply to the point above about what the claim is, it really relates back to the way we describe Charles Hathcock's claims about the so-called Apache Woman. The best sources we have (two academic articles) suggest she is fictional, Henderson relates the story in authorial voice and is cited, so the question at hand is how much credence we give to the suggestion she is not legendary. The books mentioning her seem to be pretty poor quality, and would seem to quote Henderson. From there it is a bit of a tangled web to weigh up precisely what each source says and the value of it, but that's a job for the talk page.--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do not use. Err on the side of caution when using military pulp "non-fiction". Academic Luis White examined a similar method of writing with regards to Rhodesian veterans' various works. Long story short, this is not pretty for factual accuracy. This appears to be a dramatization of a "true story". New Journalism, in which one writes of factual events with more narrative flavor, can certainly be reliable, but not when the author is warning you that they're making crap up! We would not use American Sniper as an RS for the life of Chris Kyle. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Crikey on Tim Wilson (Australian politician)
I am Tim Wilson (Australian politician). The current Wikipedia page about me relies heavily on citations to Crikey[19][20][21][22] for its negative lean. For example, one cited Crikey article says "Look up there in the sky! It’s Freedom Boy, Tim Wilson! Stuffing up again!".[23] Crikey recently wrote an article titled "‘TimWilsonMP’ banned from editing Wikipedia after trying to get rid of negative news about the MP".
A prior RSN discussion leans towards Crikey being generally reliable. However, my concern is that the publication accepts opinion and commentary pieces without (as far as I can tell) clearly labeling which articles are opinion. WP:BLP seems to encourage being especially cautious and using only the best sources when it comes to contentious material about a living person. These articles generally look more like opinion columns than news/journalism. Pinging new user @BeReasonabl:, who suggested I bring the issue here.
It's worth mentioning for context that the media has exposed my political opponents for manipulating the Wikipedia page about me and other members of my political party in order to attack the opposition.[24]. Therefore, I do not know which editors are legitimate, and which are organised political opponents.TimWilsonMP (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, can you be a little more specific? Is there something in particular you are objecting to? As you said, a previous RSN leans towards Crikey being reliable, generally. You point out that the publisher accepts opinion and commentary pieces without clearly labeling them as such - but you haven't provided any evidence that this is so. The articles have all been attributed to journalists so we have nothing to support what you've said. If you are concerned that the article is not written in a neutral and balanced manner, that should be addressed either on the Talk page or you could take it to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Remember that Wikipedia relies on consensus and for biographies about living persons, a neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research must be strictly observed. HighKing++ 12:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- TimWilsonMP - I think you are asking for RSN to reevaluate Crikey for (a) sensationalist language and (b) not clearly labelling opinion and commentary pieces as such. Please provide evidence of some specific cites for consideration. Any possible (c) manipulation suspicions should go to NPOVN. I will take it on myself to remove the article content about wikipedia account validation as simply trivia and WP:UNDUE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe these articles are more like Column (periodical): "What differentiates a column from other forms of journalism is that it is a regular feature in a publication – written by the same writer or reporter and usually on the same subject area or theme each time – and that it typically, but not universally, contains the author's opinion or point of view. A column states an opinion." Wikipedia's definition of a column is that it is usually written by a journalist and is usually also opinion.
-
- My points are:
- Wikipedia editors themselves can verify at least one instance where the publication made contentious comments about a BLP without fact-checking, because Crikey claimed I was banned from Wikipedia,[25] which we know isn't true.
- The content of the articles themselves are filled with sarcasm and name-calling that is more typical of opinion than news-reporting
- Crikey is generally known to have a strong political bias
- The media has reported that political opponent Zoe Daniel added a lot of negative content to the page through user:Playlet (presumably some of the other accounts as well)
- It's a serious issue, as the content of the page - added covertly by my political opponent - is affecting my job prospects post-election. TimWilsonMP (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not want Wikipedia to re-assess Crikey as a reliable source and agree the articles in question are written by journalists. The cited Crikey pieces are columns. According to Wikipedia, columns are written by journalists and “typically, but not universally, contains the author’s opinion or point of view.” I merely want Wikipedia to reject opinion content as citations for contentious content about a BLP.
- My points are:
-
- For example, if you go to Crikey’s main page, articles listed under “Opinion” and “Our Columnists” should not be reliable, because they are opinion content. Unfortunately, opinion content that is not on the main page is not clearly labeled. However, I think the content of the articles themselves (please go read a couple) strongly infers they are opinion columns.
-
- Crikey is known for having a strong political bias, the media has reported that my political opponent covertly added negative content to the page (through user Playlet, but presumably other accounts as well), and we know of at least one instance where the cited opinion pieces were not reliable[26] (claiming I was banned from Wikipedia). This is additional context. TimWilsonMP (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That link does not say "Crikey is known for having a strong political bias". It says Crikey has a left bias, but ranks HIGH for factual reporting. Given the mostly right wing state of the Australian media landscape, and the fact that Media Bias Fact Check is based in a generally more right wing landscape itself, this is hardly a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi TimWilsonMP, your posting of The Australian article above probably contravenes WP:DOX so I suggest you remove this or you could face sanctions from an administrator.
- You also have a COI with this topic and therefore, if you wish to challenge the usage of Crikey more broadly, you probably should present examples of Crikey’s unreliability that do not concern yourself.
- All the best for you future endeavours. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Crikey is known for having a strong political bias, the media has reported that my political opponent covertly added negative content to the page (through user Playlet, but presumably other accounts as well), and we know of at least one instance where the cited opinion pieces were not reliable[26] (claiming I was banned from Wikipedia). This is additional context. TimWilsonMP (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I generally agree with the improvements to the page. I would just like to note that TimWilsonMP is continuing to spread lies about me and ask that he cease his defamatory comments.Playlet (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Citing to strugglingteens.com regarding troubled teen industry programs
Hi there, I would like to get information on if it is okay to cite strugglingteens.com on troubled teen industry program Wikipedia pages such as Elevations RTC.
This site has an about page describing the below. What this page includes are news articles written by parents, students, and industry professionals about troubled teen programs and press releases. Users have been citing to and using as sources these press releases and articles to account for historical information about troubled teen programs. The articles are a GREAT source of information about the backgrounds of these programs and this type of information cannot be found elsewhere. I understand that self-published sources are not always reliable but in this context, these articles serve as a paper trail with again, very important information about the programs.
For example, https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5202.shtml, this article has historical information about the Oakley School and the Island View RTC program that could be used in both schools articles. There are several other articles from the website that have been deleted by a particular user mentioned below.
The user (talk) is going to every troubled teen program and deleting all information that links back to this website and a few other similar industry websites, and I believe their doing so is not beneficial to the Wikipedia pages and the sources of information being used.
Can anyone provide their thoughts?
ABOUT PAGE:
In 1995, StrugglingTeens.com went online as the original website for information about the many schools and programs available for troubled teens. The news and articles listed within this site provide an invaluable resource for both parents and professionals, as well as anyone interested in helping troubled teens find successful paths to adulthood.
With a combination of training and 20+ years of experience, our educational consultants provide balanced news, information, and provide professional help for parents of struggling and troubled teens helping families find programs, services and schools for teens and at risk youth.
Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- That website is so badly maintained, it cannot even direct readers to a consistant home page. They seem to be web illiterate, with unfinished pages everywhere. I cannot figure out if it is an "attack" page, against this rather dubious industry, or a genuine attempt to help parents. I haven't found any editorial policy statements amidst the collection of anecdotes, and I suggest that it is unreliable for anything at all. I may be being slightly harsh, and look forward to others comments. We do need far better sources imho, but this isn't it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're being harsh. The actual articles that are being cited to in the wikipedia articles are very well written and provide straight forward historical information, again creating a very well-documented online paper trail for these schools. It would be a misfortune NOT to be able to cite to these histories. They are part and parcel of the troubled teen industry and the many schools that they discuss.
- I can provide specific articles but another user has been going around deleting them so it is a bit difficult but I will do so any way. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- For example, here are some sources that are cited to.
- The first is discussing executive changes that are historical to the program Island View now known as Elevations RTC. https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/IslandViewFutureBN_081215.shtml
- Here's one written by Jared Balmer himself discussing what the Viewpoint Center is, which is on the campus with Elevations RTC. https://web.archive.org/web/20220224084015/https:/strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5561.shtml
- Here's a documented visit report to another program called West Ridge Academy, which gives in depth details about the program and the campus. This is important historical information. The only other place you would find this would be probably on the program's website itself. But adding these types of sources creates a balance article. It also again provides historical information as a program can update its website at any time, which they often do. Thus, these articles provide a paused moment in time that can be a resource.
- https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5382.shtml Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also want to point out that these articles are being used on a case to case basis and are being used alongside other sources. So they are being use where applicable and where they add value. I don't think there should be some outright ban on citing to articles on strugglingteens.com. There is even a wikipedia cite format for press releases and the like, so this is not out of the ordinary.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_press_release Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Aside from the comments I made above, that proposed spource is WP:BIASED. Unfortunately, it isn't clear which way it is biased, because of the aforementioned lack of competence of the people maintaining the site. Remember that Anecdote does not equal Evidence, and all we have there is anecdotal. I dont trust incompetent strangers on the internetz. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sources can be biased though, especially here in that they offer information about different viewpoints on the school - from parents, educational consultants, industry people, and students. See here:
- Biased or opinionated sources[edit source]
- Shortcuts
- WP:BIASED
- WP:PARTISAN
- WP:BIASEDSOURCES
- See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources
- Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
- Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
- Also, I think the press release articles would be sources about themselves, which is also allowed per the below. Thoughts?
- Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves[edit source]
- Shortcut
- WP:SELFSOURCE
- See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
- Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
- The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
- It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
- It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
- There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
- The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.
- These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. Farr4h2004 (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I definitely don't think a blanket deletion of a press release featured on industry websites is necessary. Farr4h2004 (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Aside from the comments I made above, that proposed spource is WP:BIASED. Unfortunately, it isn't clear which way it is biased, because of the aforementioned lack of competence of the people maintaining the site. Remember that Anecdote does not equal Evidence, and all we have there is anecdotal. I dont trust incompetent strangers on the internetz. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The articles are not useable. The site is equivalent to a blog with no indication the writers are qualified to give their opinion of the programs nor any indication of editorial control that articles are fact-checked.
- The press releases can be used in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF which provides limited usage of press releases and other company produced information. A more reliable source publishing would be better, but the website could qualify as best source available for them.Slywriter (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I thought press releases could be used but could not find the policy so that is helpful. As for the articles, they include the author's name, which is usually a person affiliated with the industry, so they can definitely be verified. They aren't random people commenting behind aliases on the internet.
- @SkidMountTubularFrame please see above on press releases. Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just noting that press releases would have to be about strugglingteens.com to qualify as WP:ABOUTSELF. - Bilby (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Unsilenced.org archives
Hi. At Talk:Elevations RTC there is a debate about the extensive use of documents archived via Google Drive by unsilenced.org, an advocacy group that opposes Elevations RTC and similar treatment centres. The archive contains legal documents, internal documents of Elevations RTC, and the Elevations RTC parent and student manuals, which are provided to students and their parents but are not otherwise publicly available. We can't link to core documents being used as sources, as there is no indication that the Unsilenced Project has permission to publish them and it is unlikely that such permission would have been granted. We also can't access official versions, as they are internal or only distributed to people affiliated with Elevations RTC, and not otherwise accessible.
Are these documents usable as sources? - Bilby (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of reliability, I believe unsilenced.org has the roughly the same reliability as any small-to-medium sized advocacy group, and statements from it should be attributed and only used if there's sufficient due weight for them established by more reliable sources. Leaked documents from Elevations RTC are WP:Primary sources, and standard guidelines relating to primary sources apply.
- I do not believe leaked documents are inherently unverifiable the way you initially put it on the talk page. It is not true that but if they can't access it because it is an internal document of a corporation that has not been made public, it is not verifiable. Leaked documents are verifiable insofar as they have been reported on by a reliable source. Otherwise we would be all but unable to write articles about people like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning. The main problem here is that unsilenced.org, as a small-to-medium sized advocacy group, may be of limited reliability.
- The legality and ethics of linking to leaked documents, on the other hand, are a different, more complex matter, and I do not believe I am qualified to comment on that. I can see one relevant RFC, the 2011 RFC on leaked classified information.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! However, with Wikileaks, various secondary publications independently confirmed the reliability of the documents. So we didn't use something directly from Wikileaks, but a document that had been verified and reported on by the NYT, for example. At worst, the reliability of leaks themselves were independently verified. My concern here is that no one independent to Unsilenced has verified any of these documents, and we can't verify them because we have no access to the documents independent of Unsilenced copies. There is one exception, in that the Huffington Post has quoted from a copy of manuals they received, so I'm intending to use the Huffington Post to source some of the content. However, they haven't claimed to have verified any of the documents on Unsilenced. - Bilby (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- These documents have been made to the public in some form. They are given to all the residents in the out-of-state program, and then take them home. They are also given to the parents, who are not even residents at all. Parents and students in turn can do whatever they want with them, and have, including posting them online. There are also reporters who mention in their articles that they have certain copies of them. Like in this Huffington Post article. https://testkitchen.huffingtonpost.com/island-view/ I'm not sure how anyone would think these documents have not been made available to the public, which makes them a source. For the program information itself, they are reliable and good primary sources. I'm not sure you can get any better source than the guide itself, which spells out how the program works. Another thing, the documents don't look fake if that is what someone is trying to imply. They are all very similar and there is a general pattern from the year to year handbooks. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- They are not publicly available, so I don't really agree that giving copies to people affiliated with the organisation is the same as making them public, and no, being given a copy of a document does not mean that you can do what you like with it. However, that is not the concern. The concern is that there has been no independent verification of the documents in Unsilenced archive, there is no means for us to verify them, and Unsilenced is an advocacy group opposing the organisation concerned. - Bilby (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- These documents have been made to the public in some form. They are given to all the residents in the out-of-state program, and then take them home. They are also given to the parents, who are not even residents at all. Parents and students in turn can do whatever they want with them, and have, including posting them online. There are also reporters who mention in their articles that they have certain copies of them. Like in this Huffington Post article. https://testkitchen.huffingtonpost.com/island-view/ I'm not sure how anyone would think these documents have not been made available to the public, which makes them a source. For the program information itself, they are reliable and good primary sources. I'm not sure you can get any better source than the guide itself, which spells out how the program works. Another thing, the documents don't look fake if that is what someone is trying to imply. They are all very similar and there is a general pattern from the year to year handbooks. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! However, with Wikileaks, various secondary publications independently confirmed the reliability of the documents. So we didn't use something directly from Wikileaks, but a document that had been verified and reported on by the NYT, for example. At worst, the reliability of leaks themselves were independently verified. My concern here is that no one independent to Unsilenced has verified any of these documents, and we can't verify them because we have no access to the documents independent of Unsilenced copies. There is one exception, in that the Huffington Post has quoted from a copy of manuals they received, so I'm intending to use the Huffington Post to source some of the content. However, they haven't claimed to have verified any of the documents on Unsilenced. - Bilby (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Unreliable sources on First Anglo-Maratha War
Two of the sources being used on article First Anglo-Maratha War to support the result of the War seem to be unreliable and neither of these scholars are historians or accredited historians. These two sources are:
Y.G. Bhave [27] and by Barbara West [28]. While Y.G. Bhave is scholar in "Humanist" [29], Barbara is an "Anthropologist". [30]. Can all editors please give their opinion whether you agree or disagree that these two sources are unreliable when being used on historical subject such as First Anglo-Maratha War? MehmoodS (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Questions: First, have these authors published works on related topics? If so, could they be considered reliable non-academic experts? Second, are these authors being used to support controversial statements, or to support information that we can accept from non-academic sources? Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blueboar, answer to first question, No. Answer to second question: Yes, they are being used to support information (result of war). MehmoodS (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- "No"? Then what is this? If you are going to make misleading requests then just don't expect a response. I note that you are doing this forumshopping across various talk pages and noticeboards. You need to stop. >>> Extorc.talk 17:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Extorc no was in regards to response if the author has written any related topic to first anglo-maratha war. And what forum shopping are you talking about. I am here to get opinions on the sources. On other noticeboards, its different issue to discuss the result. There is nothing wrong in doing so I do not understand your point. MehmoodS (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- "No"? Then what is this? If you are going to make misleading requests then just don't expect a response. I note that you are doing this forumshopping across various talk pages and noticeboards. You need to stop. >>> Extorc.talk 17:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Do the sources describing the National Socialist Movement (United States) back its description being "social conservative"
The infobox was changed from white supremacist to social conservatism by User:Rebecca577. I reverted but was then reverted by User:Dronebogus citing WP:BLUE. But the LA Times source[31] explicitly calls it a white supremacist group and doesn't mention social conservatism, while the other source is the group itself (not IMHO a good source) saying " Only members of the nation may be citizens of the state. Only those of pure White blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. Non-citizens may live in America only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens. Accordingly, no Jew or homosexual may be a member of the nation." I don't see how that matches well with our definition of Social conservatism. Note that the sources now for social conservatism have been moved from those for white supremacist, see earlier version.[32] Doug Weller talk 16:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- It could be both. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven But the LATimes doesn’t back social conservative. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- True I was just addressing the implication they are mutually exclusive. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Slaterstevenagreed, but we have no sources for social conservatividm, you can’t just move sources from one description to another as I’m sure you agree. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think the big issue here is removing one for the other, rather than including both. However, unless there's a solid source describing them as 'social conservative' in general, we should stick with the finer policy points described in specific already. Both to avoid potential WP:SYNTH in the reframing, and because it would muddy the waters - either by painting social conservatives as Nazis, or neo-Nazis as 'just regular conservatives, nothing to worry about' depending on your view. Sure, we could label Lassie as an 'animal and dog', but it doesn't improve the description since we've already labeled them a dog. Either it draws comparisons to reptiles and amphibians, or makes people wonder why we went out of our way to mention animal. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, hence why I have reverted them, the source supports white supremacist. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- We should never be using one source to support a contentious label, at least in Wikivoice (which putting into the infobox is); that source can be used in an attributed manner of course. Terms being put into Wikivoice w/o attribution need to show that the label is used by a wide majority of sources. This would also go for the "social conservatism" label as well. --Masem (t) 14:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see two sources for it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Two of forty-some sources in the article is not a majority. That's not to say that a majority may exist in all sources, but this requires a source survey. Otherwise, using either term because you can find it in a few (but not a proven majority) is cherry-picking. --Masem (t) 15:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- NOt really, as unless we can see every source ever written we can never prove a majority for anything. All we need to do is show it is used by enough sources, two may not be. But it seems to be there are quite a few in the article that describes them as racist/white nationalist/white supremacist or some other way of saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- In determining when a majority of sources apply a contentious term to a group, there is obviously some need to define what the "larger group of sources" are; not all articles that provide significant coverage about the group may be focused on their political or ideological positioning. But of those that are, we definitely want to know if a majority of them are using that phrasing. There's also a question if there are a sufficient number of sources - if we only had 5 total sources that discussed the position out of all that can be found, and 3 of them used the contentious term, I'd still say that's a reason to avoid stating it in Wikivoice as a fact. There's got to be a sufficient number and percentage of sources to do that before we can treat something as a fact in Wikivoice, otherwise we see editors chasing clear POVs.
- And remember, I am talking about what qualify for RS (and not RSOPINIONs). In your example below, assuming the expert has this in a NYTimes article covering the group (eg as we would use the Southern Poverty Law group), while the dozens of mob voices are just pulled from the blog, we certainly don't need to account for the blog.
- I am not saying that "white supremacist" can apply here, I don't know what the sources lend to, but that should be demostrated as a talk page section so that it resolves the matter well into the future. Masem (t) 18:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also quality matters as well if "the world-renowned expert" says it and 15 "blokes down the pub" disagree, the world-renowned expert opinion wins. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see two sources for it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- We should never be using one source to support a contentious label, at least in Wikivoice (which putting into the infobox is); that source can be used in an attributed manner of course. Terms being put into Wikivoice w/o attribution need to show that the label is used by a wide majority of sources. This would also go for the "social conservatism" label as well. --Masem (t) 14:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, hence why I have reverted them, the source supports white supremacist. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- True I was just addressing the implication they are mutually exclusive. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven But the LATimes doesn’t back social conservative. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I’ll admit to bias here, as I view “social conservatism” as largely a front for bigotry and other reactionary ideas Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Which is OR. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus hard to disagree but I am with Bakkster Man on this. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support: "white supremacist group" supported by sources. I do not care for biased opinions of editors' political beliefs, It could just as easily be stated that social liberalism is a front for plain socialism that is ripe with bigotry and other reactionary ideas. Of course, without looking it up, most that might claim some knowledge of political ideologies, would not know the difference between that and Liberal socialism. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: We do attempt to follow WP:BRD, per the policy on edit warring and violations can result in sanctions. Reverting a good-faith reversion, without discussion, does not take the place of consensus. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Who's reversion do we start with, the first (which was to undo the change)? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- A source survey needs to be done to see how the group is described across the board in sources, as to avoid cherry picking a term from one or two sources. Whether that is "white nationalist", "conservative socialist" or something else, that is not clear since this survey hasn't been done, it appears. --Masem (t) 14:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
It would be good to have clarity on what the actual question is. The dialog here makes it seem that there is an "either or" choice to be made, e.g. for a single characterization, or where one item would displace the other. But at the article it seems to be about inclusion/exclusion of each from a long list of over a dozen ideologies. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Most of those ideologies are closely related to each other. "Social conservatism" may actually cross over with the NSMs ideology in a Venn diagram, but it isn't by any idea their main policy focus. It's a bit like saying that the Communist Party of Britain is mainly concerned with LGBT rights. It has a stance on LGBT rights, but it's not their ideological basis in any way whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
SPLC (experts) "the NSM adopted an open-arms recruiting policy that allowed members of other white supremacist groups to participate in NSM actions and join the NSM." " The group created its own hate-rock music label, NSM88 Records, and in April 2007 purchased the now-popular white supremacist social networking site New Saxon" " “have continued to participate in NSM’s activities, even as Schoep claims to have left the white-supremacist movement.”" So the SPLC says they are white supremacitst.
ADL "The last significant rally organized by the NSM was the “White Lives Matter” rally in November 2017. The event in Shelbyville, Tennessee, attracted 200 white supremacists, including several dozen NSM members" "The Nationalist Front, an NSM led umbrella organization formed to unite various facets of the white supremacist movement, fell apart shortly after the Shelbyville rally." " Schoep, who was born in 1973, was active in the group from an early age, and was better able to appeal to racist skinheads and other young white supremacists. He renamed the group the National Socialist Movement early in his tenure." "Tazewell, Tennessee, July 2019: Several NSM members participated in a white supremacist unity event held on private property." "Approximately 40 white supremacists attended the event including members of the NSM, the League of the South and Aryan Nations Worldwide."
So the ADL say they are white supremacists.
Department of justice is less clear cut "NSM purchased the New Saxon Web site, a White supremacist social networking Web site. New Saxon has become popular among White supremacists frustrated by the restriction on hate speech at most mainstream social networking sites. "
They just say it has some links.
So are there any sources that say "they are not white supremacists", because that is what we need to meaningfully challenge a claim by experts? Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Am I reading the diff correctly? It looks to me like 'Social conservatism' was added, but 'White supremacy' was retained - albeit the sources were moved to the new entry, incorrectly. But most of the discussion in this section is about whether 'White supremacy' should be retained. Has anyone actually proposed that it be removed? MrOllie (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That seems to be what some are saying here, that it is not properly sourced so should not be there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am confused by what the actual question is here - Doug’s original question was asking about the label “social conservative”… but the discussion seems to focus on the label “white suprematist”. Which label are we discussing? Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Silent Era
Is Silent Era reliable source? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Depends. What do you want to use it for? MehmoodS (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- MehmoodS Movies. Is it reliable to ref articles about old films? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can you give a specific example of content being sourced to the site? Geogene (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Dove (1927 film), The Battle Cry of Peace. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Most sources are conditionally reliable or not depending on the context, so in the future, please provide quotes from the article that show how the sources are being used. For The Dove it's being used for
At the Library of Congress are reels 1, 3, 4, and 8. The film is missing reels 2, 5, 6, 7, and 9.
alongside a book; that appears to fail verification because silentera.com says(missing reels 2 and 5-7)
. For Battle Cry it's being used forFragments of footage of battle scenes survive and are housed at the George Eastman House.
alongside a site hosted by Stanford University. Neither of these statements seem contentious, so the site may be okay for them, but also it's not necessary since there are better sources in use in both cases for the same statements. I also searched for silentera.com in Special:LinkSearch and got 324 hits, most of them from articles, so this site is apparently being widely cited by Wikipedia. I searched for relevant text in WP:BLAME for a handful of those pages and did not find evidence of any WP:REFSPAMming by single purpose accounts. I also noticed that silent film articles seem be using the same few sources habitually, with silentera.com being one of them. Geogene (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Most sources are conditionally reliable or not depending on the context, so in the future, please provide quotes from the article that show how the sources are being used. For The Dove it's being used for
- The Dove (1927 film), The Battle Cry of Peace. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can you give a specific example of content being sourced to the site? Geogene (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- MehmoodS Movies. Is it reliable to ref articles about old films? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Are NewsGuard reports a RS?
An editor is questioning if a NewsGuard report [33] is reliable enough to be quoted about the accuracy of The Daily Wire. Can it? (The talk page discussion is here. The quotations are in the second sentence of the "Accuracy" section.) Llll5032 (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- The big "DATED CONTENT" watermark is a bit of a red flag. I've done some looking, and the headline assessment as of March 2022 is somewhat different than the link you've provided above, which may inform discussion on the talk page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Ⓜ️hawk10, I updated the article based on the new assessment that you cited. Llll5032 (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Treating COVID-19 as an "endemic" illness - Requires MEDRS?
Content has been removed from the Living_with_COVID-19#Characteristics section on the basis that the statements require a MEDRS source. Do editors consider this to be the case? Here is the diff in question. And the web archive links for your convenience: TimeGlobe and MailThe Hindu. SmolBrane (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not in the context, because its use in that section is to outline how various governments are trying to treat post-pandemic COVID-19, and one option is treating it as endemic. That statement is not claiming COVID-19 is endemic, just that this is one of the options under consideration. --Masem (t) 16:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since it seems to be a matter of public policy and law, rather than strictly medicine, I would say it is not required, but adding such in the future would be good. However, the article is better with the existing material in place rather tha removed. Crossroads -talk- 16:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, though the problems run deeper than this one source. This article says there is a world-wide "strategy" called "living with COVID", and that this "strategy" has certain characteristics, as listed in this characteristic section. The whole thing is hung off a short piece by Herb Scribner ("a writer of pop culture and trending news ") in Deseret News which is in any case just about the USA. The source in question is then about COVID testing in Canada. If Wikipedia is going to say there is a recognized global public health formula for COVID, and enumerate its characteristics, then decent WP:MEDRS sources would be needed which actually support the claims Wikipedia is making. At the moment we have an orgy of WP:SYNTH making out there is a universal phenomenon by cobbling together stuff from different sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not read the section as being the universal strategy, but what are common components of various strategies, neither endorsing any nor stating any strategy is yet proven medically-sound. That falls outside MEDRS. --Masem (t) 17:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- In that case it is classic WP:SYNTH/WP:OR because it is assembling sources together in a novel way no cited source does. In any case the section begins "The aim of the strategy is ..." and says "Characteristics of the strategy include". What is this "the strategy" ? Where is a source about it? Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- The first sentence of that section does need MEDRS sources since its talking about a medical target end-point. And all but one source in that is MEDRS. But assuming MEDRS sources exist to better support that sentence, then things can be rewritten to be clear that "some of the strategies considered by government bodies include..." at which point that is not SYNTH. --Masem (t) 17:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- If that were done the problem would be fixed, but the current sources are simply not reliable for Wikipedia saying there is "a strategy". Analysing what "the common components" are from disparate sources and adducing such a strategy would be OR. Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Assuming we had a MEDRS-backed statement to say that the goal in post-pandemic is to have COVID at endemic levels, then a list of various strategies being tried to reach that, not endorsing any as valid or the like, is not OR to generate such a list. This type of list formation from disparate sources is completely appropriate and does not need MEDRS quality sources (though MEDRS sources would be great to help improve it) --Masem (t) 17:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- No indeed, which is why we have so many list articles on national COVID effects and responses. But inventing a novel concept and using unconnected sources for evidence of that concept (in the case a "strategy" for COVID) is of course a big no-no. That is a problem with this entire article, as is being discussed on the Talk page. Whether MEDRS sources are needed would depend on whether there was a WP:BMI component to the statement made (like "Omicron is less deadly" or "Vulgaria has now reached the endemic phase of the pandemic"). Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Again, its all in how it is worded. If the list started "The strategy to achieve endemic presence of COVID is (list)" that is a problem and would have to be fully backed by MEDRS sources. If the list started "Some elements of national strategies to achieve endemic presence of COVID is (list)" is not attempting a MEDRS claim and thus is valid to assemble from various sources. What elements to include should be a discussion re UNDUE, of course. --Masem (t) 17:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- No indeed, which is why we have so many list articles on national COVID effects and responses. But inventing a novel concept and using unconnected sources for evidence of that concept (in the case a "strategy" for COVID) is of course a big no-no. That is a problem with this entire article, as is being discussed on the Talk page. Whether MEDRS sources are needed would depend on whether there was a WP:BMI component to the statement made (like "Omicron is less deadly" or "Vulgaria has now reached the endemic phase of the pandemic"). Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Assuming we had a MEDRS-backed statement to say that the goal in post-pandemic is to have COVID at endemic levels, then a list of various strategies being tried to reach that, not endorsing any as valid or the like, is not OR to generate such a list. This type of list formation from disparate sources is completely appropriate and does not need MEDRS quality sources (though MEDRS sources would be great to help improve it) --Masem (t) 17:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- If that were done the problem would be fixed, but the current sources are simply not reliable for Wikipedia saying there is "a strategy". Analysing what "the common components" are from disparate sources and adducing such a strategy would be OR. Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- The first sentence of that section does need MEDRS sources since its talking about a medical target end-point. And all but one source in that is MEDRS. But assuming MEDRS sources exist to better support that sentence, then things can be rewritten to be clear that "some of the strategies considered by government bodies include..." at which point that is not SYNTH. --Masem (t) 17:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- In that case it is classic WP:SYNTH/WP:OR because it is assembling sources together in a novel way no cited source does. In any case the section begins "The aim of the strategy is ..." and says "Characteristics of the strategy include". What is this "the strategy" ? Where is a source about it? Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not read the section as being the universal strategy, but what are common components of various strategies, neither endorsing any nor stating any strategy is yet proven medically-sound. That falls outside MEDRS. --Masem (t) 17:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
statmuse.com
I haven't been able to find any previous archives discussing this site. In short, [34], is a sports record-keeping site, similar to sports-reference.com. There isn't much known about it as to my knowledge, but in the about section it states that it's backed by Disney, the NFLPA, Google, and what appears to be former NBA commissioner David Stern. I don't know what to make of it, thoughts? ~~~~ NSNW (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Is Congressman Thompson or any congressperson an RS?
Details in this revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let’s assume for purposes of this discussion that the list in question is a list of coups and attempted coups (per its title), rather than a list of mere allegations of such. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- No. No politician should be considered a reliable source on any topic other than areas in which they may have professional expertise outside of politics (such as, for example, a medical scientist with publications who now holds a political office and says things related to medical topics). Politicians hold political opinions, and they espouse them, often with valid-sounding rationalizations. Some political views are demonstrably false (for example "the 2020 election was stolen"). Some are demonstrably true. But the fact is, they are just personal views often espoused for political advantage without regard to truth, even though the politicians may truly believe their views. But belief does not equate to reliability. I happen to agree with the view expressed by the politician in the linked edit, but I vehemently disagree that we should consider that politician, or any other, as a reliable source on a political topic. They are reliable only as primary sources for the purpose of verifying what they say. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting question. I'd lean towards yes in this situation. Rep. Thompson is not simply airing his own opinion, but speaking in his capacity as chair of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Zaathras (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would you say it’s a primary source, or instead a secondary source? Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law), “primary sources of law include amendments that were proposed but rejected (including constitutional amendments and legislative bills), reports of legislative committees for legislation subsequently enacted, legislative floor debates leading to passage, judicial concurrences and dissents, common law, contracts, and documents issued by one person each, such as wills and, sometimes, letters.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- You quoted an essay, which is not part of our WP:P&G, its just an opinion piece. And for that matter, a rejected amendment is by definition not a primary source about law, merely one for failed legislative proposals (by definition those are not "law"). Also a legislative committee report based on multiple primary sources is potentially a secondary or even tertiary source depending on context. Thompson's comments were made outside the scope of a declaration the committee had voted. That makes his remarks his remarks and they are a primary and acceptable WP:ABOUTSELF source that he thinks this. Until the committee votes or a court makes a finding or some other body makes a formal statement, we have Thomspon's characterization. I don't mind admitting that I happen to agree with him personally. But NPOV requires that we all approach this work in a way that allows us to write NPOV text that disagrees with our opinion but agrees with opposing editors at least to the extent possible giving appropriate weight to available RSs. ... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do you feel the same about comments made by Rep Gowdy, who chaired the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe, since you're firing off multiple salvos without citations how could I know what statements you're asking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Any of his statements made as chair. And please link to the diffs of the “multiple salvos.” Mr Ernie (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Diffs provided at usertalk here User_talk:Mr_Ernie#Offtopic_sidebar_from_RSN NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Any of his statements made as chair. And please link to the diffs of the “multiple salvos.” Mr Ernie (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe, since you're firing off multiple salvos without citations how could I know what statements you're asking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would you say it’s a primary source, or instead a secondary source? Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law), “primary sources of law include amendments that were proposed but rejected (including constitutional amendments and legislative bills), reports of legislative committees for legislation subsequently enacted, legislative floor debates leading to passage, judicial concurrences and dissents, common law, contracts, and documents issued by one person each, such as wills and, sometimes, letters.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes but Anyone is always an RS about themselves. In this case, using inline attribution that Chair Thompson described Jan 6 as an attempted coup satisfies WP:Verifiability. Taken alone, I don't believe it would be enough to pass muster with WP:WEIGHT, but there are loads of others sources describing those events with that word, and the only sources I know that say it was not a coup are Trump aligned sources doing little more than scoffing hand waving and table pounding. I have yet to see any logic-based reasoning that rejects that term, but I would look at the best anyone can offer with an open mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- The congressman is a reliable source for what he thinks or alleges. But this is a list of coups, not a list of coup allegations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well this is the RS noticeboard. You raise a worthy point for discussion at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- The congressman is a reliable source for what he thinks or alleges. But this is a list of coups, not a list of coup allegations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- No. The congressman may turn out to be correct and reliable secondary sources may reach the same conclusion, but for now he’s not a reliable source about whether a coup occurred, only about whether he thinks a coup occurred. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes The inline-attribution whereby Thompson describes the Jan 6 failed-insurrection at the Capitol as an attempted coup more than satisfies WP:Verifiability, and there are many other sources now describing those events with 'that label'. Easy call. Makofakeoh (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Straw woman issue The article text attributes the statement to Thompson. We can certainly use the well sourced publication of a statement by an official as the statement of that official. We are not using a transcript of the hearing as a primary source for fact about the insurrection. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- As of now, its not wikivoice. I'm the most recent editor this version, and Rep Thompson's statement is explicitly attributed inline as his statement.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- This statement in the lead is in wikivoice: “ This is a chronological list of coups and coup attempts….” So is the title of the list. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh I get it now. I think you have your answer that Thomspon's statement is RS for the fact that Thompson said that so this noticeboard thread should probably be closed. You're raising the same point in different forums... per WP:MULTI we should keep the discussion about how to deal with alleged coup attempts to the open thread at article talk. Since Thompsons statement is RS for Thomspons statement, the actual issue you're debating is how that article is defined. That's beyond this venue's purview. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is the only noticeboard where I’ve raised the issue. The congressman’s statement would be a reliable source for his personal POV, but this is not a list of personal POVs, it’s a list of what the lead claims to be coups and attempted coups. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. And until the Jan 6 panel concludes and convicts with the bases of "attempted coup", we definitely can't use a lawmaker's claim, or even mainstream media's claim, that it is. That might end up being a conclusion, or perhaps in years from now, the conclusion of academic sources, but either way, putting on that list is a TOOSOON, RECENTISM issue due to the poor sourcing for it. --Masem (t) 23:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh I get it now. I think you have your answer that Thomspon's statement is RS for the fact that Thompson said that so this noticeboard thread should probably be closed. You're raising the same point in different forums... per WP:MULTI we should keep the discussion about how to deal with alleged coup attempts to the open thread at article talk. Since Thompsons statement is RS for Thomspons statement, the actual issue you're debating is how that article is defined. That's beyond this venue's purview. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- This statement in the lead is in wikivoice: “ This is a chronological list of coups and coup attempts….” So is the title of the list. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- As of now, its not wikivoice. I'm the most recent editor this version, and Rep Thompson's statement is explicitly attributed inline as his statement.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- No It doesn't belong in the article unless it becomes discussed in the body of literature about coups. It seems to be part of the U.S. habit of casting their political opponents in extreme terms, e.g., Trump is a fascist, Biden is a socialist. TFD (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- In this case, US commenters have company among various non-US intelligence agencies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Deuceperson, this is RSN. You are raising an NPOV/WEIGHT issue. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, they are only an RS for what they say, which may be DUE to include w/ attribution on an article. For example, a lawmaker introducing a new bill on the basis of a claimed statement that X is true can only be used with attribution. --Masem (t) 22:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:V permits it, but also warns us to be careful to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Even from the sources themselves. This is a hot button issue. Extra care must be taken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeWashington (talk • contribs)
- UNDUE - I am sure we can cite several members of congress who say it wasn’t a coup attempt. Wait for historians to pass judgement. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Blueboar This is an RSN issue. You are raising an NPOV/WEIGHT issue about the article itself and the subject matter, which is a different issue all together. The article text attributes the statement to a member of Congress and we can certainly use a well-sourced publication of a statement by an official as the statement by said official as we have in countless examples over the years. It's not as if anyone is using a transcript of a congressman as a primary source for facts about the insurrection/coup attempt. You yourself even use "undue" as your reason, which is besides the point and misses the point. Makofakeoh (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Makofakeoh (talk · contribs) You are missing the point. Nobody is arguing that the cited news source is unreliable. The source quotes a statement made by a politician. The question here is whether we can assume that the politician himself is a reliable source sufficient to support the context of making the same statement in Wikipedia's voice. That has nothing to do with weight or NPOV, and everything to do with RS. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Anachronist As SPECIFICO said, I am not proposing that we state it as a matter of fact in WP's voice. If it needs to be said again, that is the OP's strawman (woman?) argument. Incidentally, many MANY other sources since the hearing are comfortable calling Trump's actions "an attempted coup" in light of the damning evidence provided at the opening hearing. With that out of the way, this is RSN, and no one else proposed stating it as a matter of fact in WP's voice, either. You're ignoring the point. Makofakeoh (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Makofakeoh: Actually that is exactly the context of this RSN discussion: stating it as a matter of fact in Wikipedia's voice, specifically in the article List of coups and coup attempts. Yes, plenty of sources can be found calling it a coup, in spite of the fact that it doesn't quite meet the definition of a coup. Sources that call it something else, such as an insurrection or attack, far outnumber the sources that call it a coup. That is a weight argument that has no place here. The point that is highly relevant to RSN is that someone proposed using a quotation from a politician as a rationale to list the Jan 6 insurrection in a list article about coups and coup attempts, thereby designating the event as a coup attempt in Wikipedia's voice. Is that an appropriate use of the source? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Makofakeoh (talk · contribs) You are missing the point. Nobody is arguing that the cited news source is unreliable. The source quotes a statement made by a politician. The question here is whether we can assume that the politician himself is a reliable source sufficient to support the context of making the same statement in Wikipedia's voice. That has nothing to do with weight or NPOV, and everything to do with RS. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Blueboar This is an RSN issue. You are raising an NPOV/WEIGHT issue about the article itself and the subject matter, which is a different issue all together. The article text attributes the statement to a member of Congress and we can certainly use a well-sourced publication of a statement by an official as the statement by said official as we have in countless examples over the years. It's not as if anyone is using a transcript of a congressman as a primary source for facts about the insurrection/coup attempt. You yourself even use "undue" as your reason, which is besides the point and misses the point. Makofakeoh (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
This thread and related article talk threads have called attention to the fact the lead to this list article needs improvements setting forth listing criteria. I've started a thread at article talk for that purpose NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not in this case, no. One reason we know she's not reliable is that she might be wrong -- it's not incontrovertible that 1/6 was a coup by the commonly understood meaning of the word. I'm not sure myself that that's the correct word. "Might be correct" is well beneath our standards for sources. Not only that, there's plenty of motive here for the congresswoman to use words for polemic effect. She's not an academic historian disinterestedly discussing 18 Brumiere.
- The question is "does her opinion have standing' -- is it worthwhile telling the reader about her opinion?" Sure, but the passage as doesn't give opposing opinions by other people with standing, such as Kevin McCarthy or other Republican leaders, and those would need to be including if you're going to use the congressperson's words.
- Hmnh here we have something called "Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project" which is an arm of the the University of Illinois Champagne-Urbana, flat out saying "It Was an Attempted Coup: The Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project Categorizes the January 6, 2021 Assault on the US Capitol". Since these guys spend their careers specifically studying coups, and are (in theory at least) disinterested and expert acadamecians, maybe there is the source you want. Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- FYI, Bennie Thompson is a man; thanks for the ref. FYI, I've started adding refs from the academic professional literature to Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Description_as_an_attempted_coup NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wrong question/venue. No one is disputing that he (it's this Bennie Thompson, right?) said it. The real questions are whether his opinion should be mentioned in the article (which is a due weight issue), and also what should be the inclusion criteria for the list of coups. Neither of this questions has anything to do with reliability. Alaexis¿question? 14:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The question absolutely is about reliability, as the statement we know he made is up for debate whether it should be treated as fact in wikivoice or require attribution, which changes how the material is included in List of coups (which is presenting all information in factual wikivoice). --Masem (t) 14:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Masem:The article edit cited by OP, and to which the objected, did not state it as fact in Wikivoice. Do you have a diff to where that was done? SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The diff in the OP - adding the Jan 6 as a coup or attempted coup on that list page based on that source is treating that as factual in wikivoice --Masem (t) 15:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. But isn't that properly attriuted ("according to...") and cited to numerous secondary RS? Similar editor-selected items appear in most of our list page, and I think list pages are full of UNDUE content, possibly including this. But I am not seeing Thompson used as a source in OP's diff. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Mere inclusion on a list like this implies that the event is factually a coup, even if the explanatory text included the attributed statement. And yes, any other such elements that do not have strong backing from a multitude of legal/academic sources should be removed too--Masem (t) 16:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- See our guideline at WP:LISTCRIT, which explicitly anticipates lists that might be at least somewhat subjective. " In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." since the our P&G anticipates the problem with hints of wikivoice by directing us to use inline citation, and since the text at issue goes the extra mile via inline attribution, I don't see the problem. We're complying with the P&G NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Consider List of alleged Chinese spy cases prosecuted in the United States. This list is split up into people clearly acquitted and people clearly convicted. There’s also a more subjective section about people accused who may be guilty or innocent. By the same token, if you’d like to expand this list to include coups, attempted coups, and other alleged coups too (including conspiracy theories about coups), then that can be done by following the China spy example: put “alleged” in the article title, explain scope in the lead, and include inline attribution in the subjective section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would read the LISTCRIT to imply that you have an RS, not an RSOPINION, to back it up. And that RS should be appropriate as a subject-matter expert or source in the assessment of a list. To use the example Anythingyouwant gives, for a list of spy cases, the only allowed sources for a list of convicted persons would be sources reporting on a court's decision to convict, not an opinion that argues the person was clearly guilty. The same case here, for a coup or attempted coup to be added, the sourcing should be pointing to legal decisions or wait for long-term academic analysis that has decided the event was a coup, in the absence of where a legal entity can rule it that way. Not the opinion of a congressperson or a judge in a non-decision document. --Masem (t) 18:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- See our guideline at WP:LISTCRIT, which explicitly anticipates lists that might be at least somewhat subjective. " In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." since the our P&G anticipates the problem with hints of wikivoice by directing us to use inline citation, and since the text at issue goes the extra mile via inline attribution, I don't see the problem. We're complying with the P&G NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The diff in the OP - adding the Jan 6 as a coup or attempted coup on that list page based on that source is treating that as factual in wikivoice --Masem (t) 15:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Masem:The article edit cited by OP, and to which the objected, did not state it as fact in Wikivoice. Do you have a diff to where that was done? SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The question absolutely is about reliability, as the statement we know he made is up for debate whether it should be treated as fact in wikivoice or require attribution, which changes how the material is included in List of coups (which is presenting all information in factual wikivoice). --Masem (t) 14:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Alaexis and @Masem... I've found new facts however. It wasn't merely Thompson's opinion. Several months earlier the committee subpoenaed records from Trump advisor John Eastman, who tried to refuse via a lawsuit in federal court, in which Thompson was the lead defendant. The court ruled in Eastman v Thompson et al that the Eastman/Trump "campaign" was a "coup looking for a legal strategy."[1] When Thompson made his televised remarks he was standing on that court ruling, which is law until its overturned. So its no longer just an alleged coup and its not just Thompson's opinion. The federal courts say so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's nowhere close to a legal conclusion that the Jan 6 was a coup, that's just the RSOPINION of the judge and not a final actionable decision on the nature of the event. That would not be sufficient to call the Jan 6 events a coup. --Masem (t) 16:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Had the judge made this comment before the local Rotary, I'd agree that WP:RSOPINION applies. However the judge included this in the concluding judgment section of a 44-page federal court decision, so I'll need some convincing that its "just the judge's opinion" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- For better of for worse, court rulings don't get special treatment on Wikipedia so this ruling does not automatically mean we should be calling it a coup in wikivoice. Usual standards of WP:NPOV apply as always. Again, this is not a question for this board. Alaexis¿question? 17:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- In this case, its used with both inline attribution and citation, so that's not a worry per WP:LISTCRIT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's nowhere close to a legal conclusion that the Jan 6 was a coup, that's just the RSOPINION of the judge and not a final actionable decision on the nature of the event. That would not be sufficient to call the Jan 6 events a coup. --Masem (t) 16:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Alaexis and @Masem... I've found new facts however. It wasn't merely Thompson's opinion. Several months earlier the committee subpoenaed records from Trump advisor John Eastman, who tried to refuse via a lawsuit in federal court, in which Thompson was the lead defendant. The court ruled in Eastman v Thompson et al that the Eastman/Trump "campaign" was a "coup looking for a legal strategy."[1] When Thompson made his televised remarks he was standing on that court ruling, which is law until its overturned. So its no longer just an alleged coup and its not just Thompson's opinion. The federal courts say so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will remind everyone that “Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion”. Does the source (reliably) verify the attributed statement that Congressman Thompson sees Jan 6 an attempted coup? Yes. Should that attributed statement be included in the article? No. Mentioning Congressman Thompson’s view is UNDUE. Debating the reliability of an UNDUE viewpoint is irrelevant. If there are other (better) sources to support listing Jan 6, they might be used… but Thompson should not be included. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since the P&G provide for them (e.g., WP:LISTCRIT), that's probably a conversation for the Vpump. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Eastman v Thompson, et. al., 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM Document 260, 44 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2022) ("Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.").
- I mean come on, using attribution so that we can say that we're not saying it in our own voice is often used as a fig leaf for a disengenous way to slip in an opinion. Any editor that denies that this happens sometimes is, in my personal opinion, demonstrating a less-than-excellent knowledge of Wikipedia history or a less-than-excellent level of coldblooded fair-mindedness.
- And I believe that the distinction is lost on many readers. Human brains work such that "Smith is a scaramouche"[refs] and "Smith has been described as a scaramouche"[refs] and "according to [person with standing], Smith is 'a scaramouch'"[ref] pretty much give a similar effect. That's mediocre, but: people.
- If it's sky-is-blue true and/or accepted by virtually everyone with standing, it doesn't much bother me. That is not true in this instance. If the passage is like "[person with standing] has described Smith as 'a scaramouche', while [other person with standing] has called him 'a model of probity'"[refs] it's usually OK. Altho clever editors can twist this a bit if they want (famous popular source vs obscure or unpopular source, cherry-pick the characterizations).
- If you're wiling to add an opposing quote from Kevin McCarthy or even Speaker Gingrich or VP Candidate Palin or whomever, OK. I still wouldn't include it except in a section "Debatable events" or whatnot. But that's a different matter. Herostratus (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Show me an RS that walks through a critical thinking logic-based analysis that says it was not a coup, and I'll be really interested to study it. In this case, Thompson was the prevailing lead defendant and based his comments on the 44 page federal court analysis I've already linked in this thread. Partisan table pounding on either side has no place here, but reasoning on either side certainly merits consideration, at least. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP assumes innocence until proven guilty, and in the same manner, we cannot treat Jan 6 as a coup in a factual voice. there's enough sourcing to call the event as an attack, but to call it a coup is implicitly laying guilt on any of the politicians close to it (including Trump, etc.), which we absolutely do not do. Masem (t) 18:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that "coup" is against the law. This is not the only item on that page that suffers from the same issue you are addressing. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Attempted coup" is not a crime, you won't find it in any law code, it's an evaluation of a circumstance. So, it's only ever going to someone's evaluation, not a court's judgement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Still, there's no question that implying someone was in a coup before (in this case) the Congressional panel concludes and establishes that as the fundamental conclusion that that is applying a contentious term towards those involved. We can discuss that they were planning/executing a coup with attribution all day long, but can't do that factually in wikivoice without running into BLP/NPOV problems. --Masem (t) 19:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Implying what? No one is implying. Like the University scholars cited above, they are flat out saying it, not implying it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's one academic source, and that would be a case of using SPLC to classify hate groups - they should still be attributed - meaning that that one source still isn't sufficient to include as a fact. Again, this is basically cherry picking to force a certain viewpoint. There certainly might be a weight of sources to do that in the future (and I would bet that that will be the case in the future) but RECENTISM tells us to make sure we have more than enough sources, and not RSOPINIONS, to do that. --Masem (t) 19:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone arguing about attribution. And what "other sources", at present, all the sources brought here are saying the same thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- If we're using something with attribution , it cannot be taken as fact. Inclusion on the coup list based on attributed statements is a problem for that reason, because by simple inclusion on the list, its being treated as a fact. (Of course, as if suggested elsewhere, "alledged coups" was added as a section, then that would be fine to include with the attributed statements. --Masem (t) 21:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- No. Calling something a "coup" is always an analysis, it is never a simple fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- If we're using something with attribution , it cannot be taken as fact. Inclusion on the coup list based on attributed statements is a problem for that reason, because by simple inclusion on the list, its being treated as a fact. (Of course, as if suggested elsewhere, "alledged coups" was added as a section, then that would be fine to include with the attributed statements. --Masem (t) 21:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone arguing about attribution. And what "other sources", at present, all the sources brought here are saying the same thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's one academic source, and that would be a case of using SPLC to classify hate groups - they should still be attributed - meaning that that one source still isn't sufficient to include as a fact. Again, this is basically cherry picking to force a certain viewpoint. There certainly might be a weight of sources to do that in the future (and I would bet that that will be the case in the future) but RECENTISM tells us to make sure we have more than enough sources, and not RSOPINIONS, to do that. --Masem (t) 19:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Implying what? No one is implying. Like the University scholars cited above, they are flat out saying it, not implying it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Still, there's no question that implying someone was in a coup before (in this case) the Congressional panel concludes and establishes that as the fundamental conclusion that that is applying a contentious term towards those involved. We can discuss that they were planning/executing a coup with attribution all day long, but can't do that factually in wikivoice without running into BLP/NPOV problems. --Masem (t) 19:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Masem, comment 18:59, no one is debating over listing the 2021 United States Capitol attack as a coup, so that argument doesn't apply. At issue is describing Trump's overall Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. So sources that are just trying to frame the attack with whatever label aren't addressing the issue presented here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Which is likely part of the problem, that the connection between Jan 6 and the rest of the activities that Trump and the GOP did are rather tightly connected so making sure to distinguish Trump and his allies' part separately from those that specifically attacked the Capitol is going to require careful evaluation of the sources. --Masem (t) 19:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well if that issue-framing argument is made sometime when I'm around, I'll likely say it's a strawman argument, since the the most substantive sources with the most analysis about "coup" don't bifurcate the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election in that manner. But since you seem to be ruminating about a future hypothetical, we can call it wrap for now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The argument above you had was suggesting the Jan 6 attack, and then "attempts to overturn...", are separate topics, since the Jan 6 was being listed as a coup. I don't think you can separate them, as they are too tied together to make it hard without engaging in OR to determine where the line is drawn. They should be treated as the same event (the Jan 6 attacks as one part of the attempts to overturn), and whether coup applies to the whole thing should be the point of discussion Masem (t) 21:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- One could discuss NAEG's education, or NAEG's college undergraduate, or NAEG's senior year in college, and even though they are all part of the final product (my education) it is possible to discuss them at any level. The attack was an element of what is being claimed was a failed coup. I agree with you it would be POV/OR for Wikipedia to use the attack or simply "January 6" as a standalone event or standalone date as though those are adequate synonyms for the entirety of Trump's (alleged?) coup attempt. But since we're not doing that at the article which produced this dispute, this seems to be a case of no smoke, no fire. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well if that issue-framing argument is made sometime when I'm around, I'll likely say it's a strawman argument, since the the most substantive sources with the most analysis about "coup" don't bifurcate the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election in that manner. But since you seem to be ruminating about a future hypothetical, we can call it wrap for now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- No one is debating over listing the 2021 United States Capitol attack as a coup? That’s just not true. You have not provided reliable sources that say it was a coup or coup attempt, with or without Trump’s involvement, have you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since you are one of the primary objectors at the origin of this dispute, you should know that the proposed text does not link that article. Instead, the proposed text links Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. It's looking at the overall package of Trump's efforts, not just the attack itself. That said, I think the article on the attack mentions "coup" somewhere. But we haven't been debating proposed changes to that article here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The 2021 United States Capitol attack says "coup" 43 times at present. Lots of discussion about that and the abundant sources that it was decided are sufficient to support the standing text there. The only real issue is how we should define a list article's content and whether that can be editor-curated based on consensus as to NPOV or whether we should not be publishing lists that aren't based on readily availalbe objective metrics. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reviewing where that term is used, most of the cases are in statements of attribution. What really is the case here is that we're still really in the case of RECENTISM. History will decide whether it was a coup or now, but even just 1.5 years out, I would not expect history to have come to a conclusion yet. Including statements of attribution is fine and dandy, but they should be treated as such until we know we've gotten past that point where there is good widespread agreement. Which may be a year, may be 5 years out, may be 20 years out. We are not in a rush and neutrality (not favoring any side) is more important than being timely. --Masem (t) 21:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- And attribution is appropriate. But OP misstated the issue that's now grown into this confused thread. The statement in the list page at issue is also attributed. There is no objective list or source for "coup", so the remedy would be to decide on and tell our readers the criteria for the list. A subjective list is always goint to be based on the weight of the sources. I don't like list articles or labels much at all, but if we have subjective lists like this one, the page should simply define the standard for inclusion, i.e. tell the reader what it's a list of. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, if there was going to be a section on "claimed coups" where a multitude of attributed sources back (and represent a DUE opinion, not one random wacko making the claim), that would be a solution. But those should be disguished from those coups or attempted coups that history has well concluded were really coups. That would be a way to fix the problem and keep this on there. --Masem (t) 21:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- And attribution is appropriate. But OP misstated the issue that's now grown into this confused thread. The statement in the list page at issue is also attributed. There is no objective list or source for "coup", so the remedy would be to decide on and tell our readers the criteria for the list. A subjective list is always goint to be based on the weight of the sources. I don't like list articles or labels much at all, but if we have subjective lists like this one, the page should simply define the standard for inclusion, i.e. tell the reader what it's a list of. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reviewing where that term is used, most of the cases are in statements of attribution. What really is the case here is that we're still really in the case of RECENTISM. History will decide whether it was a coup or now, but even just 1.5 years out, I would not expect history to have come to a conclusion yet. Including statements of attribution is fine and dandy, but they should be treated as such until we know we've gotten past that point where there is good widespread agreement. Which may be a year, may be 5 years out, may be 20 years out. We are not in a rush and neutrality (not favoring any side) is more important than being timely. --Masem (t) 21:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The 2021 United States Capitol attack says "coup" 43 times at present. Lots of discussion about that and the abundant sources that it was decided are sufficient to support the standing text there. The only real issue is how we should define a list article's content and whether that can be editor-curated based on consensus as to NPOV or whether we should not be publishing lists that aren't based on readily availalbe objective metrics. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since you are one of the primary objectors at the origin of this dispute, you should know that the proposed text does not link that article. Instead, the proposed text links Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. It's looking at the overall package of Trump's efforts, not just the attack itself. That said, I think the article on the attack mentions "coup" somewhere. But we haven't been debating proposed changes to that article here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Which is likely part of the problem, that the connection between Jan 6 and the rest of the activities that Trump and the GOP did are rather tightly connected so making sure to distinguish Trump and his allies' part separately from those that specifically attacked the Capitol is going to require careful evaluation of the sources. --Masem (t) 19:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP assumes innocence until proven guilty, and in the same manner, we cannot treat Jan 6 as a coup in a factual voice. there's enough sourcing to call the event as an attack, but to call it a coup is implicitly laying guilt on any of the politicians close to it (including Trump, etc.), which we absolutely do not do. Masem (t) 18:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Show me an RS that walks through a critical thinking logic-based analysis that says it was not a coup, and I'll be really interested to study it. In this case, Thompson was the prevailing lead defendant and based his comments on the 44 page federal court analysis I've already linked in this thread. Partisan table pounding on either side has no place here, but reasoning on either side certainly merits consideration, at least. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Of course not I really can’t believe I have to make this comment, but no a politician making a political statement is not a reliable source in any shape, form, or fashion. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Was Bill Clinton a reliable source when he said he didn’t have sexual relations with Lewinsky? Or when Nixon said he was not a crook? It’s sad to see how far our standards have fallen. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Point of order The heading of this section asks if a person is a reliable source. We do not typically consider people to be sources; we focus on documents - written articles, recorded videos, etc. - created by or about people to be sources. ElKevbo (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the New York Times articles cited in the diff in the original question are reliable sources. Of course, reliability is a necessary but not sufficient question for inclusion of information in an article; WP:DUE is not an appropriate discussion for this noticeboard but that is likely the question that should be on the table. ElKevbo (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with ElKevbo. The answer is yes to any intelligible issue here, the source is reliable, and the title of this section is a red herring. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral - Can we please use the correct title "Representative"? Senators are also Congressmen & women, as they 'too' are a member of the US Congress. Yes, I know about WP:COMMONNAME, but let's use the correct titles. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the reception wikis on Miraheze
I think these "wikis" should not be trusted as a reliable sources because of amounts of horrible biases and from what I heard from actual critics, the behavior of the users and the mods:
- Terrible TV Shows & Episodes Wiki
- Best Shows & Episodes Wiki
- Amazing Gameplay Wiki
- Atrocious Gameplay Wiki
- Crappy Games Wiki
- Awesome Games Wiki
- Reverse Crappy Games Wiki
- Awful Movies Wiki
- Greatest Movies Wiki
- Cancelled Movies Wiki
- Dreadful Literature Wiki
- Magnificent Literature Wiki
- Worst Music & Songs Wiki
- Delightful Music & Songs Wiki
- Upsetting Toys Wiki
- Fantastic Toys Wiki
- Amazing YouTubers Wiki
Who's with me on this one? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:UGC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- They're already not considered reliable sources due to being user generated content pointed out by Headbomb above. So there's really nothing more to discuss. Canterbury Tail talk 02:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Sydney Morning Herald and outing
Hello all,
For those of you who don't keep up with celebrity gossip, Rebel Wilson came out as lesbian/bisexual this week, to pre-empt an attempt by the Sydney Morning Herald to out her (i.e., what the Murdoch press did to Will Young and Simon Hughes in the UK in the mid-2000s). The gossip columnist for the SMH then took the paper to complain that he had been "gazumped".
The same columnist also had a hand in forcing Australian swimmer Ian Thorpe out of the closet, and also wrote a rather lurid article about a Senate candidate's OnlyFans, which raises further questions about the standard of his journalistic work; a modern-day Peter Tatchell, he is not.
Of course, the SMH were the newspaper who famously outed the 78ers. It appears that despite their editor's statements to the contrary, outing is still seen as acceptable at the SMH. It is worrying, then, to see a bunch of his columns being cited on Wikipedia; would it be possible for editors more au fait with Australian issues these and see if they pass muster under WP:RS and, if not to replace or remove the citation.
And similarly, should a note at WP:RSPS be made to indicate that Private Sydney, as a gossip column, should not be cited unless absolutely necessary to do so? Sceptre (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The SMH was once seen as an important journal of record in Australia, but since December 2018 it has been owned by Nine Entertainment a large media conglomerate chaired by former Australia federal treasurer, Peter Costello, of the right wing Liberal Party of Australia. Yes, for non-Australians, right wing IS correct. It has definitely changed it's style. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of which paper - whether even the NYTimes or BBC - gossip is gossip and should not be referenced on WP, preferring to have self-statements on aspects like this, or until BLP no longer applies, or when the context comes up beyond gossip. --Masem (t) 04:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Related issue: Talk:Rebel_Wilson#The_LGBT_categories. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Citing a book that's not in WorldCat
WP:V tells us: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." And I have no argument with that. But what about citation of something that's claimed to be a book but examples of which can't be located via WorldCat and clear evidence of whose very existence can't be found via Google?
For those wondering what prompts me to ask, see Draft:Cora Sheibani, and my comment at its head. And no, of course I don't suffer from the popular delusion that every published book, or even every recently published book that's worth citing, has an ISBN: I'm merely asking about an ISBN; I'm not demanding one.
(Pinging Astreapt and Gusfriend.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I initially thought that this related to something else as I declined something at AfC as which had 9 ISBNs from 2004 to 2021 which, when added to the cite tool, gave a handful of different books and didn't find the others. Gusfriend (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- PS Neither do I suffer from the popular delusion that the verifiable existence of an ISBN for such-and-such a book proves that the book exists. Still, an ISBN for a book generally does have an actual book to go with it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the book exists, and is reliable, that OCLC has an entry on it or not is rather immaterial. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The book is Valence by Cora Sheibani, Ettore Sottsass, and Ashkan Sahihi btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Having spent some time on Wikidata and seen items which don't match up as they should I agree about the book existing being the important thing but it needs to be referred to accurately. Gusfriend (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Headbomb, Gusfriend, I'll concede that Valence exists. But WorldCat doesn't show it. Are assertions about somebody verifiable if they are sourced to a book that can't be found via WorldCat (and that may be, or have been, published by that same person)? I'd expect to see that the book is in some library somewhere: London, Buenos Aires, Poznań, New Haven or wherever. I wouldn't be able to go to any of these libraries myself, but I'd know that some people would. Of course, plenty of good libraries don't participate in WorldCat; I'm open to finds in the OPACs of other libraries. (Also pinging the knowledgable DGG.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The book exists regardless of whether or not Worldcat knows anything about it. You don't need Worldcat's data or approval to obtain the book. If you have the book, all you need to do is open it to verify whatever is being said by it. Worldcat is not involved at any point in the verification chain.
- These artists books are generally self published, so they usually meet WP:ABOUTSELF, but little else, and certainly don't count towards WP:N. There's also a question of WP:DUE. Is it really important to mention that some guy wrote a paragraph in a self-published book? I doubt it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair, Headbomb, he's described as having written an "essay". That aside, you say "If you have the book,..." And of course I don't. And I'd guess that none of the regular denizens of WP:RSN does either. In itself, no matter. Consider the article Teikō Shiotani, in which I make 26 references to a book that lacks an ISBN, that I bet isn't on your shelf, and that you won't find at Amazon -- however, I do provide an OCLC for it (OCLC 986526024) (and an NCID as well), showing that yes, it is in some libraries, and so some people would be able to check that the book indeed says what I describe it as saying. Of course the question I'm posing is a verifiability rather than a reliability question; but though WP:VN exists, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Visual novels. -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Headbomb, Gusfriend, I'll concede that Valence exists. But WorldCat doesn't show it. Are assertions about somebody verifiable if they are sourced to a book that can't be found via WorldCat (and that may be, or have been, published by that same person)? I'd expect to see that the book is in some library somewhere: London, Buenos Aires, Poznań, New Haven or wherever. I wouldn't be able to go to any of these libraries myself, but I'd know that some people would. Of course, plenty of good libraries don't participate in WorldCat; I'm open to finds in the OPACs of other libraries. (Also pinging the knowledgable DGG.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- "the book exists" is a red herring. WP:V requires "reliable, published sources", which implies that every member of the public can in principle access the source. Yes, that doesn't mean that this access has to be cheap or easy. But if the book only exists in form of some sheets of bound paper located in a private collection or archive, it can't be regarded as published and is not usable as a source for Wikipedia, even if the fact that it exists is verifiable via (self-)published sources. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Leftist and Left-leaning publications aren't listed as such on Wikipedia.
I was deeply disturbed to see that ABC, The Atlantic, BuzzFeed News, CNN, The Economist, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, Vox, and the Washington Post are all listed on Wikipedia as being generally reliable, despite them all being either Leftist or Left-leaning publications (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart). On the other hand, practically all of the Right-leaning or deeply Right-wing publications as shown on that chart are either listed as unclear, generally unreliable, or deprecated. This would suggest a left-wing bias in Wikipedia itself. I recommend that all of the Leftist or Left-leaning publications I mentioned above be moved into at least unclear status posthaste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates Finch (talk • contribs) 17:53, June 12, 2022 (UTC)
- Without commenting on the accuracy of the All Sides Media Bias Chart you cite, do you see on that page that it says
We don't rate accuracy or facts — just bias.
? Reliable sources are deemed so because they are reliable for accuracy. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC) - What's that phrase? "Reality has a liberal bias"? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could you point out a specific example in which the sources (not opinions but news pieces) prove to be inaccurate or misleading? IMO most sources are fairly balanced or only slightly to the left, but I agree that some sources (including CNN, Vox, and MSNBC) definitely are biased to the left of centre or left, but
they are not to the extent that reliability is impacted.
You will see that I linked to some controversies of the sites which you may be aware of, but most are opinion pieces or talk shows, not straight news reporting on their website, which most editors believe are generally reliable. See the RSP entry on CNN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#CNN); it states the following, which is the consensus for some editors:Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.
- Could you point out a specific example in which the sources (not opinions but news pieces) prove to be inaccurate or misleading? IMO most sources are fairly balanced or only slightly to the left, but I agree that some sources (including CNN, Vox, and MSNBC) definitely are biased to the left of centre or left, but
- I am also confused about your argument that "practically all of the Right-leaning or deeply Right-wing publications as shown on that chart are either listed as unclear, generally unreliable, or deprecated". For example, WSJ is slightly right-leaning editorially (about as much as NBC leans slightly to the left, the WP article has some credible refs commenting on its moderate centre-right views, so check it out if it helps at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editorial_page_and_political_stance), but its straight news is mostly balanced and definitely generally reliable.
- By the way, AllSides is not a reliable source itself; see its RSP entry and the linked RfC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#AllSides). It is listed as no consensus as considerations apply, and there are instances in which the site cited Wikipedia or has unclear methodologies. Nevertheless, I believe that the previous response already commented on that
We don't rate accuracy or facts — just bias.
. Some other similar sites, including MBFC and Ad Fontes, also claim to check the reliabilities of articles, but they are self-published and are unreliable. Therefore, please provide specific examples of perceived inaccuracies of the outlets. Otherwise, I don't think that this discussion is impactful in changing the well-established consensus. Many thanks, and I hope this helps. VickKiang (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Reality has a well-known liberal bias", as they say. A general, mainstream fact of mainstream media doesn't need to be stated. We say "Barack Obama is the first African-American President", however we do not state that "Ronald Reagan was the 40th white president". There's a reason for that, and I have every confidence in you being able to figure out why. Zaathras (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- We really should make a new WP:WHATABOUTCNN essay... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps inspired by What is a Woman? which is a mystifying question to some people. It has an interesting edit history. --SVTCobra 05:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- We really should make a new WP:WHATABOUTCNN essay... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Reality has a well-known liberal bias", as they say. A general, mainstream fact of mainstream media doesn't need to be stated. We say "Barack Obama is the first African-American President", however we do not state that "Ronald Reagan was the 40th white president". There's a reason for that, and I have every confidence in you being able to figure out why. Zaathras (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Even leaving aside the fact that reliability and bias are different things, we list a number of right-wing source as reliable, e.g. The Australian, The Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, Reason, The Times of London and The Weekly Standard. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Even WP:FOXNEWS is listed as generally reliable with caveats: that their science and politics coverage lack consensus on reliability, and that their talk shows are only reliable for attributed opinions (as even Fox News themselves have argued). Really, the RS/P difference is just about the lines between reliable news coverage, and opinion pieces and user-generated reports, with right-leaning sources maybe being more likely to either blur that line or not have significant straight ahead news coverage (though left-leaning opinion sites are also yellow/red for the same reasons). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Examples of right leaning sources we regard as RS. given above. So no we do not only use left leaving sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- In general, en-wiki is reasonably tolerant of right-wing British sources (like most of those BobFromBrockley/Slatersteven listed), and tolerant of roughly zero right-wing American sources, so the criticism is a bit American-centric. It's hard to know how much of that is reflective of the biases of the users that participate in RSN discussions and how much of that is reflective of reality, though. From my own (biased) perspective, I do think right-wing American sources tend to have more reliability issues than right-wing British sources in reality as well. P.S., Bobfrombrockley, I think you meant to link Reason (magazine). Endwise (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- it might be worth noting that the few British sources we have banned are notorious for falsehoods and poor journalism. Whereas when they are right wing but have a high standard (such as The Times) they are almost what we might call gold standard RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think the issues The Daily Mail and The Sun have with being, well, awful, aren't all that related to their political slant. Endwise (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- We do list the Wall Street Journal as generally reliable. But in general I think the issue is the nature of the conservative movement in the US, which is a lot more monolithic, more lockstep, and which has done a better job of creating a "bubble", so to speak. This means that there's a ton of sources that significant numbers of people in the US read which have no real purpose beyond right-wing advocacy, without even a token effort at fact-checking and accuracy; and there are others that put in limited efforts in that regard but who were fundamentally created solely for advocacy. It's not like there are no sources like that on the left, of course, but on the American right sources like that make up, for many people, the only sources they use or trust at all. Hence posts like the above where people complain about a huge swath of sources that aren't really ideologically aligned and whose only shared feature is that they're all outside that bubble, because the American conservative movement has succeeded in creating a sufficiently uniform drumbeat that anything that doesn't reflect it is seen by its followers - or anyone who wants to appeal to them - as ideologically suspect. --Aquillion (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- it might be worth noting that the few British sources we have banned are notorious for falsehoods and poor journalism. Whereas when they are right wing but have a high standard (such as The Times) they are almost what we might call gold standard RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- In general, en-wiki is reasonably tolerant of right-wing British sources (like most of those BobFromBrockley/Slatersteven listed), and tolerant of roughly zero right-wing American sources, so the criticism is a bit American-centric. It's hard to know how much of that is reflective of the biases of the users that participate in RSN discussions and how much of that is reflective of reality, though. From my own (biased) perspective, I do think right-wing American sources tend to have more reliability issues than right-wing British sources in reality as well. P.S., Bobfrombrockley, I think you meant to link Reason (magazine). Endwise (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eh? Are we seriously discussing the proposal made? Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The reality is that historically, the great majority of news media came under what you describe as "leftist." I assume you mean liberal. They are more likely to support conservatives over actual left-wing groups.
- Conservative media was developed in order to address what they saw as liberal bias. However, their publications are mostly magazines that carry commentary, which is not considered a reliable sources, wherever it is published. Many conservative sources that carry news, such as CBN and the Daily Caller, carry obviously inaccurate and misleading stories.
- There are a few conservative publications, such as the Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal that do carry reliable news stories and they are accepted on Wikipedia. However, their news coverage is the same as liberal media. One study of media bias for example found that the Wall Street Journal's news coverage was more liberal than the sources you listed.
- TFD (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- One thing that we do need to improve… we are quite good at identifying when right leaning outlets stray into opinion/analysis/commentary (and correctly deem it either unreliable or UNDUE for that reason). We are not as good at identifying when left or center leaning outlets stray into opinion/analysis/commentary. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. News media have an expertise in reporting news, but too often their opinions are treated as fact. They are used frequently for political classifications, such as far right, fascist, right-wing populist, when we should be using academic articles or textbooks. While we expect reporters to accurately report what happened at at demonstration, we don't expect them to be experts on the ideologies of the participants. TFD (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this tends to be a problem. We readily take opinion and commentary as fact from left meaning sources (often because of the media mixing news reporting and commentary in the same article), and also tend to reject any commentary from right-leaning sources even.though RSOPINION allows for them. UNDUE is often mised to the end that because we favor left leaning sources, that opinions from major right leaning sources are rejected as fringe because, hey, we have loads of left leaning.sources that are reliable that say the opposite. Basically, overall on partisan issues, we are not well suited to try to summarize opinion and analysis in the short term. Hence why we need more focus on RECENTISM and fight the urge to write about commentary on a current topic until well after the dust settles (eg the 10yr vuew) which should help provide the hindsight of what are the proper approach to summarizing opinions. Masem (t) 17:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I know that everyone here means well, but this question pops up at various noticeboards all the time, riles everyone up, and the various OPs inevitably vanish never to comment on the thread again. After a couple of answers it's really a waste of everyones' time to continue commenting as though there's a genuine discussion to be had here. Someone who is "deeply disturbed to see that ABC ... NPR and the Washington Post are all listed on Wikipedia as being generally reliable" is wp:nothere to really discuss the nuance of reliability vs bias. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Reliability and bias are in many contexts one and the same. For one example of many, a common form of bias is deciding what to cover or not cover, what to minimize or maximize coverage on, or what to give more or less time/space to. Distorted coverage or omissions in coverage / parts of the story are unreliable coverage even if they do not violate the narrow standard of factual errors/falsehoods. And wikilawyers can the interact Wikipedia's voted deprecation list, the binary "RS" criteria and creative use of wp:Undue to implement those omissions/ distortions into articles. North8000 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Bitter Winter RfC archived without closing
Does this RfC] need un-archiving to be closed? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Checking an older version, I couldn't see an RFC proposal tag somehow (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1091511470#RFC:_Bitter_Winter), although that was presumably an error. Still, I think it should be closed with the consensus of option 3. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Are "author manuscripts" reliable sources?
Are "author manuscripts" reliable sources? Author manuscripts are defined here. They are not the final form of the published paper, which might be subject to copy-editing and typesetting, but this is the form that has been accepted after peer-review. This is explained in a diagram in the link above. Author manuscripts are not pre-prints, which are copies before peer-review.
I am not sure if this has been answered earlier. I searched for "author manuscript" in the archive and came up with nothing. Chaipau (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC) (edited) 15:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- What would be the use case of citing the unpublished form of something that was eventually published? Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to know this too; I can think of uses (maybe a terminus ad quem for a writing process?), though they're all pretty weird and involve usage as primary sources. But both my intelligence and creativity are limited, so I am curious to hear more. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Presumably the same reason they are occasionally cited in the academia: the actual publishing process can occasionally be exceedingly long, with an "accepted for publication" manuscript waiting multiple months before it is actually published by the journal. It is not uncommon for the author manuscript version to be distributed online in the mean time by the authors. As for usage in Wikipedia prior to the publication of the final manuscript, I suppose they can be at minimum treated as WP:SPS. Other than that, it's a bit tricky and I'd be inclined to go with something along the lines of "it's a case by case thing". After the actual manuscript is out, that should naturally be cited instead. Ljleppan (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, should have thought of that "interstitial" period, Ljleppan, thank you. And you're quite right--it has to be a case-by-case basis, but I would be heavily inclined personally to say waiting is generally the better option. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's also the issue that these mansuscripts are often outside paywalls when the final copyedited version is inside. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, should have thought of that "interstitial" period, Ljleppan, thank you. And you're quite right--it has to be a case-by-case basis, but I would be heavily inclined personally to say waiting is generally the better option. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe it is okay to provide links to the author manuscripts for convenience, since they are often not pay-walled (IIRC, many academic publishers allow author's to share the author manuscript, but not the final type-set version, on their peronal/university website), but the citation should be to the actual published work. And if there is any doubt over whether the author's manuscript differs from the published piece in material ways, only the latter should be regarded as reliable and the former as essentially WP:SPS. Is there a specific instance you have in mind? Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, assuming they pass SPS, which means they are an acknowledged expert in the field. No, if they are not. There may be other issues (wp:undue, wp:fringe) that may come into it, so as others have said this must be on a case-by-case basis. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Quite right, this has to do with paywall. An example: Figure 5 here that I want to reproduce in WP. I have seen it in the author manuscript, but which I am not sure exists in the published article which is behind a paywall. The general question here is, if Figure 5 did not appear in the published paper, would it still be reliable? Chaipau (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh then no it's not, as the peer reviews article trumps the non-peer-reviewed one. As (in essence) peer review is quality control, if it was left out there was a reason. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Author manuscripts are peer-reviewed, but pre-published. Pre-prints are not peer-reviewed. Chaipau (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chaipau: FWIW; the same figure (with a minor formatting change of added thousands separators) appears to also exist in the final published version, also as Figure 5. I have access to the final version, so you can ask me if there's something else you'd like me to check. Ljleppan (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I too checked and the Figure 5 in the published Science article does effectively match the one in the Author's manuscript. That is what one would expect for Author's manuscript hosted on NIH, university platforms etc. Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chaipau: FWIW; the same figure (with a minor formatting change of added thousands separators) appears to also exist in the final published version, also as Figure 5. I have access to the final version, so you can ask me if there's something else you'd like me to check. Ljleppan (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Author manuscripts are peer-reviewed, but pre-published. Pre-prints are not peer-reviewed. Chaipau (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh then no it's not, as the peer reviews article trumps the non-peer-reviewed one. As (in essence) peer review is quality control, if it was left out there was a reason. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Quite right, this has to do with paywall. An example: Figure 5 here that I want to reproduce in WP. I have seen it in the author manuscript, but which I am not sure exists in the published article which is behind a paywall. The general question here is, if Figure 5 did not appear in the published paper, would it still be reliable? Chaipau (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for checking this for me. Now for the hypothetical case, what if the figure was not present in the published version. Is the author manuscript reliable on its own, with the understanding that it has been peer-reviewed? Or do we have to address it on a case-by-case basis? Chaipau (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- If, in the hypothetical, the figure had not appeared in the final published version or supplementary material, that would have been a HUGE redflag (either someone is trying to pull off a hoax by posting a manipulated PDF or the reviewers/editors explicitly excluded the figure at a very late stage of editing). In such a scenario, one should not rely on the figure and the author manuscript even as an SPS.Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- The NIH/PMC's own guidelines that you linked above specifically require that the author manuscript has to
include all referenced figures, tables, and supplementary files
(and by the way also that it must belinked to corrections, retractions, and NIH Findings of Research Misconduct (when applicable)
). So I don't think we need to worry about this hypothetical case, just as we normally assume that the version published on a journal's website has satisfied the journal's peer review criteria (even though in some cases it turns out that it didn't). - In other words, author manuscripts as defined by NIH/PMC (not preprints) can be regarded as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the section "Author Manuscript Workflow" in the link describes the post peer-review process. In particular, it says:
The manuscript submission workflow for PMC prioritizes completeness, accuracy, preservation, and currency of all author manuscripts added to the archive.
and then goes on to describe this process in more detail. If this process satisfies WP:V and WP:RS requirements, then that would be a great help. I was earlier planning on cross-checking with the published version but if we trust this process, we could then save ourselves some additional effort. Chaipau (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the section "Author Manuscript Workflow" in the link describes the post peer-review process. In particular, it says:
Die Junge Mommsen
I need an opinion on how reliable is Die Junge Mommsen, a students' journal of the Humboldt University of Berlin.
On the official website of the University, this is written about the journal:
"Die Junge Mommsen is an independent students journal. As an association founded by members of the FSI history at the HU Berlin "Die Junge Mommsen e. V.”, we publish excellent student work in this journal in order to make them freely available as examples.
In addition, Die Junge Mommsen offers an attractive opportunity for student authors to reach a wider readership with their work and to gain initial experience in publishing scientific work." [35]
Are there any peer reviews on the articles publsihed here?
The second issue is - can we cite a master thesis as reliable sources on Wikipedia?
--Governor Sheng (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:SCHOLARSHIP provides some guidance on doctoral theses, and I would suspect a masters thesis would have an even greater level of care called for. It's probably not a blanket 'no', but you'll have to point to multiple reasons why a particular thesis is reliable. For instance, being cited by other scholars. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)