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:
| ||||||
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[1] 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[2] 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.[3][4][5] 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 [6]
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 [7] 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 [7] 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 [6]
- 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 [8] and Getty Images [9] 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."[10]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. [11] 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."[12] 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.[13]
- 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. [11] Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- But here is more: [14], [15], [16] [17]. 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: [14], [15], [16] [17]. 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)
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)
- FWIW - Citations stating "Jan 6th committee calls the attack a coup" include PBS - The Guardian - AP News - ABC News...DN (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- COMMENT: We now have a separate section in this list for List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts#Claimed_coups_and_coup_attempts_since_1950. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Request Could an uninvolved editor with experience and knowledge of our practices regarding Categories have a look at this new category that OP has recently created. Seems as if it might be pointy and misleading to our readers. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable for their own words. If Congressperson X makes statement S, they are reliable for they sentence "According to Congressperson X, S is true." However, they are not reliable for the sentence "S is true". Just to emphasize the point, I'd like to make an analogy from the other side. If former President Donald Trump says "the 2020 election was stolen", that's a good source for the sentence "According to Donald Trump, the 2020 election was stolen." However, it's not a good source for the sentence "The 2020 election was stolen". Hope that clears things up. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- There’s now a talk page section about editing the list of coups and coup attempts to remove the items that reliable sources say are only claimed or alleged, and putting them in a new section that is separate from items that reliable sources say actually occurred. See Talk:List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts#New_section?. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course he is a reliable source for his own view, thats always true. He is also probably a reliable source for the view of the committee as its chair, though that may depend on if his view is challenged. Is he a reliable source for if there was actually an attempted coup? Hell no. With all due respect to the people missing the point here, a politician is not a reliable source for his political opponents or allies for that matter. The DNC is not a reliable source for the RNC, AOC is not a reliable source for Madison Cawthorne, MJT is not a reliable source for Nancy Pelosi, none of them are reliable sources for the actual events of January 6th or any other day besides maybe their birthday and only for saying it is their birthday, provided they have some form of proof. You cant seriously be suggesting that a politician is a reliable source for a historical fact. Cmon, separate the principle from the particulars here and you have to see that. nableezy - 05:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
RFC about coups and coup attempts
An RFC has started related to this matter. See Talk:List of coups and coup attempts#RFC: How should we deal with alleged coups and alleged coup attempts?. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 18 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)
- On the flipside, the actual WP:PAYWALL policy notes says
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives
. That last part about rare historical sources seems to indicate that these sources are OK, even if they're in special archives or museum collections, which cuts directly against the notion thatif 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
. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- On the flipside, the actual WP:PAYWALL policy notes says
- Because it doesn't look like anyone else has said it yet: WorldCat isn't perfect. I've failed to find things in it before. The fact that it isn't in WorldCat really just means its a relatively obscure by English-speakers' standards. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- WorldCat has major loiitations: itsi nclusions is based primarily upon Us library holdings; it is not complete for books not likely to be found in libraries, and drastically incomplete for nonacademic publications outside the US and the UK. There are vaious ways for getting enough information to scites: see WP:Boook sources./ I'll check this one in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 20 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)
- @Bobfrombrockley As do I. Certainly something needs to be done. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
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." [18]
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)
- Thank you. Enough was said in the last sentence. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
RFC: Bitter Winter
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Bitter Winter?
- Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
- Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
- Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
- Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail
Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: CESNUR is listed as unreliable on WP:RS/P, but there's nothing explicitly noted for the affiliated magazine Bitter Winter, which mainly focuses on oppression in China, and whose reliability may be different from CESNUR itself. From the section for Bitter Winter on CESNUR, I can see it being used by other WP:RS such as Le Monde, The Manila Times, Radio Free Asia, World, and the Department of State. This may call for a different evaluation of reliability than for CESNUR.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- The US Department of State is an arm of the US government, and would not be a reliable source for anything but the most mundane, uncontroversial facts. Here, we're discussing a publication focused on China. Any statements by the State Department about China have to be viewed as political, and are not necessarily accurate. Radio Free Asia is also an arm of the US government, and per previous discussions at WP:RSN, caution is advised for subjects that the US government could have a political interest in. During the pandemic, for example, RFA has promoted disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China, pushing figures that are a factor of 10 (here, 40k or more) to 50 (here, 150k) times higher than scientific estimates (approximately 5k). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Thucydides411: I'm not seeing where it says that RFA has promoted disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China. Is there a missing link? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know what "it" you're referring to, but we've had this discussion a number of times already. You know the articles I'm talking about (and I linked them above). RFA's recent history of pushing disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China is absolutely clear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have WP:RS which support the fringe claim that RFA has a "recent history of pushing disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thucydides411 is quite obviously comparing scientific studies to RFA reports to indicate that we should conclude that the latter are unreliable. It seems to me you're asking that question rhetorically because you feel that it's necessary to have a source that explicitly accuses RFA of pushing misinformation. But that's not the case. Thucydides411's argument is, in principle, in an acceptable format: WP:OR
does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources
. However, I personally disagree with Thucydides411 on this: it could be a case of good-faith disagreement between sources or a case of early speculation on the part of RFA. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)- Just to clarify, Radio Free Asia is considered generally reliable per RSP, with attribution suggested where US has a geopolitical interest. I think in terms of WP:USEBYOTHERS, citation by RFA would count positively towards seeing it as a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thucydides411 clearly said disinformation not misinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know what "it" you're referring to, but we've had this discussion a number of times already. You know the articles I'm talking about (and I linked them above). RFA's recent history of pushing disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China is absolutely clear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Thucydides411: I'm not seeing where it says that RFA has promoted disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China. Is there a missing link? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- The US Department of State is an arm of the US government, and would not be a reliable source for anything but the most mundane, uncontroversial facts. Here, we're discussing a publication focused on China. Any statements by the State Department about China have to be viewed as political, and are not necessarily accurate. Radio Free Asia is also an arm of the US government, and per previous discussions at WP:RSN, caution is advised for subjects that the US government could have a political interest in. During the pandemic, for example, RFA has promoted disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China, pushing figures that are a factor of 10 (here, 40k or more) to 50 (here, 150k) times higher than scientific estimates (approximately 5k). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 I don't see any evidence that Bitter Winter is necessarily free from the concerns that plague CESNUR as a source of information. This doesn't mean that they aren't working in China and aren't the subject of unethical reprisals by the Chinese government. I don't see their work cited by those sources, I see that those sources are reporting on the basic facts about the source. There's something of a use-mention distinction here; the source is being mentioned and described, but not being used as a source of information by reliable sources. --Jayron32 15:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Upon closer inspection, it seems like you're correct that many of the sources in the article aren't relying on Bitter Winter for information but rather are reporting on Bitter Winter itself. However, it does seem to be the case that some WP:RS do cite Bitter Winter as a source for information, including Radio Free Asia 1 2 and Voice of America 3. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Both of which are U.S. Government funded sources, they are generally reliable, but with a caveat, from WP:RSP "Many editors consider that VOA is biased towards the interests of the American government and that its interference is enough to cast doubt on its reliability in some topics, particulary in news related to American foreign policies." for example. For non-politically-charged topics, I'd consider VOA and RFA fine. For one like this, no. --Jayron32 16:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Upon closer inspection, it seems like you're correct that many of the sources in the article aren't relying on Bitter Winter for information but rather are reporting on Bitter Winter itself. However, it does seem to be the case that some WP:RS do cite Bitter Winter as a source for information, including Radio Free Asia 1 2 and Voice of America 3. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 The source is used by other WP:RS such as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. There are no known examples of the source spreading misinformation and not correcting it. The only controversy I can see related to the source is a brief spat with ChinaSource that was seemingly resolved somewhat amicably with no conclusive evidence of falsehood being spread by Bitter Winter. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Bad RfC No indication where it's being used on Wikipedia that's causing a dispute. Even if there was, it could go on the relevant talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 Looking at Bitter Winter it's clear that as well as being published by CESNUR its editorial staff is drawn from the same group of individuals. A look at some of their content suggests the same distorting advocacy that renders CESNUR unreliable. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- From what I can see regarding CESNUR, most of the objections to using CESNUR as a source are based on its stance in favour of new religious movements rather than repeated examples of false content. The main objection is a conflict of interest objection, not a truthfulness one. Given this, since Bitter Winter covers a different subject area—the persecution of religious minorities by the Chinese government, regardless of whether they belong to new religious movements—it may not be subject to the same conflict of interest considerations. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can only assume you’ve misread or misunderstood the objections. The comments above and below, including my own, refer to the problem of the group’s advocacy mission distorting its reporting of the facts. Its desire to achieve its ends frequently takes precedence over accurate and complete reporting, and leads to serious omission, distortion or alteration of the facts. These render it useless as an RS. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- From what I can see regarding CESNUR, most of the objections to using CESNUR as a source are based on its stance in favour of new religious movements rather than repeated examples of false content. The main objection is a conflict of interest objection, not a truthfulness one. Given this, since Bitter Winter covers a different subject area—the persecution of religious minorities by the Chinese government, regardless of whether they belong to new religious movements—it may not be subject to the same conflict of interest considerations. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: CESNUR is listed as unreliable on WP:RS/P, but there's nothing explicitly noted for the affiliated magazine Bitter Winter, which mainly focuses on oppression in China, and whose reliability may be different from CESNUR itself. From the section for Bitter Winter on CESNUR, I can see it being used by other WP:RS such as Le Monde, The Manila Times, Radio Free Asia, World, and the Department of State. This may call for a different evaluation of reliability than for CESNUR.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 Insufficient information available to pass judgement. What is the context? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3. Not enough indication of any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which means we can only go by the reputation of the parent organization... which is terrible. It could perhaps sometimes be used for opinion but even that should be done cautiously for WP:DUE reasons. I don't think being cited by Radio Free Asia and VOA are sufficient in this context for the reasons outlined above - they're WP:BIASED sources with a bias that would specifically push them to rely on weaker sources, so they're not sufficient to overcome the problems with the publisher or the lack of usage outside of that bubble. --Aquillion (talk)
- Option 3. Bitter Winter is the house organ of CESNUR, an activist group working to hold China accountable for human rights violations. Their goal may be worthy, but the publication exists to achieve the larger goal rather than to print the truth. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- The consensus for outlets with a similar set of goals (e.g. VoA, RFA) is that they are generally reliable and able to be used, even for coverage on China. I don't see how this is any different. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- For RFA, the consensus is that it should be treated with caution for any subject that the US government has a political interest in. That makes use of RFA for any China-related subjects highly questionable. Just to illustrate the risks of using RFA for China-related subjects: during the COVID-19 pandemic, RFA has promoted disinformation about the death toll in China (inflating it by a factor of 10 to 50, relative to scientific estimates) which I discussed in a comment above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- The consensus for outlets with a similar set of goals (e.g. VoA, RFA) is that they are generally reliable and able to be used, even for coverage on China. I don't see how this is any different. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 with the note that their research/reporting is very well reported by WP:RS so there will still be a lot of legitimate uses here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- If the research/reporting is
very well reported by WP:RS
, WP:USEBYOTHERS applies, and it is most likely a reliable source. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)- Except when it isn't as in this case, WP:USEBYOTHERS is a gate not a trump card. Zero chance in hell Bitter Winter is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- If the research/reporting is
- Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. It is not as if the Chinese Communist party is a white dove that benevolently oversees the country; Bitter Winter merely chronicles the government's abuses.XavierItzm (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3: No justification or context has been provided why Bitter Winter would be any better than CESNUR. I would put no weight on the usages by VOA & RFA due to the rationale provided by Aquillion. If RS do use them in more than a "According to X, Y happened" I would cite the RS directly. Jumpytoo Talk 22:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Explicit justification has been provided in favour of the position that it would be better than CESNUR.
[M]ost of the objections to using CESNUR as a source are based on its stance in favour of new religious movements rather than repeated examples of false content. The main objection is a conflict of interest objection, not a truthfulness one. Given this, since Bitter Winter covers a different subject area—the persecution of religious minorities by the Chinese government, regardless of whether they belong to new religious movements—it may not be subject to the same conflict of interest considerations.
Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Explicit justification has been provided in favour of the position that it would be better than CESNUR.
- Option 3 if not option 4: One look at the site's coverage of Falun Gong, for example, tells me that this is by no means a reliable source and under no circumstance should it directly be used as a reference on English Wikipedia. It is an obvious WP:RS fail. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are there any particular articles that are factually inaccurate? If not, this seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT applied to sourcing. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, there's the whole uncritically parroting every imaginable talking point from the notorious Falun Gong, for starters ("Falun Gong was successful and popular because, although this was later denied by critics, people found that it did deliver the health benefits it promised"—those pesky critics! "The CCP vehemently denied the practice, and successfully recruited international academics and journalists who insisted that either it never took place or was discontinued after an initial phase, although governments and international organizations did mention organ harvesting in their criticism of China’s abysmal human rights record." — those pesky international academics and journalists!). This entry reads like it was written by the group itself, complet with no mention of the New York compound, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, extreme right-wing politics, Trump administration intermingling, hope that Trump would bring on the apocalypse, etc., just a bunch of doubt tossed on "critics", "scholars", and "journalists". Get outta here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is claiming that Bitter Winter should be MEDRS, so a passing statement that Falun Gong has health benefits should not discredit the source any more than the low quality of health and wellness reporting across the board in major newspapers should discredit all major newspapers.
- Criticizing "critics", "international academics" or "journalists" does not inherently make a source untrustworthy. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, there's the whole uncritically parroting every imaginable talking point from the notorious Falun Gong, for starters ("Falun Gong was successful and popular because, although this was later denied by critics, people found that it did deliver the health benefits it promised"—those pesky critics! "The CCP vehemently denied the practice, and successfully recruited international academics and journalists who insisted that either it never took place or was discontinued after an initial phase, although governments and international organizations did mention organ harvesting in their criticism of China’s abysmal human rights record." — those pesky international academics and journalists!). This entry reads like it was written by the group itself, complet with no mention of the New York compound, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, extreme right-wing politics, Trump administration intermingling, hope that Trump would bring on the apocalypse, etc., just a bunch of doubt tossed on "critics", "scholars", and "journalists". Get outta here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are there any particular articles that are factually inaccurate? If not, this seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT applied to sourcing. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 or possibly 3. They have an editorial board, along with regular contributors who all seem to be professionals [19]; there is an editorial control. The content does not raise any serious and obvious red flags as outright misinformation, at least for me (including even examples linked above). Yes, this is definitely a case of WP:BIASED. I think it might be useful as a source for human right issues, although not the best source. CESNUR does look suspicious (probably would be "3"). My very best wishes (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 The publication is not independent from the owners and has no journalistic oversight. The publication publishes anything that makes China look bad, regardless of whether it is true. While it may be that they have discovered important information, we can assess that by looking at reliable sources that pick up their stories. TFD (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Ipnsaepl28's arguments. they are used by BBC and other papers of record. Cononsense (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 if not 4 per Bloodofox. Links to CESNUR apparatus strongly suggests option 4, those guys did PR for Aum Shinrikyo AFTER the Tokyo subway sarin attack Feoffer (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Indian caste sources
Anyone know whether these two sources would be reliable for information about an Indian "caste clan"? (Article's words, I have no idea what that means.)
- Krishna Majumdar, "Kumawat", in K. S. Singh, People of India: Rajasthan, pp. 562–564, Popular Prakashan, 1998 ISBN 8171547699.
- Shankarlal C. Bhatt, Gopal K. Bhargava, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories, vol. 23 (Rajasthan), Gyan Publishing House, 2006 ISBN 8178353792.
Someone recently tried to add a bunch of content to Kumawat and was blocked by an edit filter. The filter is private, so I can't just post the edit's contents. A lot of it was unsourced, inappropriate to an encyclopedia, blatantly false, etc. But if the sources are any good, I might try to salvage a little bit of the edit. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Neither o these works is a reliable source for the topic:
- For The people of India: Rajasthan see WP:RSCASTE#The People of India and follow the links to previous discussions, academic reviews etc.
- Anything published by Gyan is unusable (see various previous discussion on this board) since it is known to copy content from other sources including wikipedia and publish them with false and possibly fictitious "author" names; I haven't checked but it may be what activated the filter. That said, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories seems to have been published by Kalpaz Publications, which is a generic non-academic publisher whose process borders that of self-publishing. I didn't find any reviews of the particular works and the editors info (see here) doesn't suggest any particular expertise in the area.
- (TL;DR) don't waste your time with these sources. Abecedare (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- They felt questionable, but castes is not my wheelhouse and I wasn't sure where to even begin looking for info. Thanks a bunch! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Daily Mail as a semi-primary source
Hi, so I am a kind of infrequent editor of Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is the wrong place. I recently made an edit to Port Arthur massacre (Australia)#Gun laws in Australia before the Port Arthur massacre, adding in Barrie Unsworth's comments on a potential massacre happening in Tasmania if gun laws are not changed. However, I want to add a quote that says that he later regretted saying it, as:
- Unsworth said in a 2019 interview with Daily Mail Australia that he regretted the quote, saying "I just regret that I said that but you've got to understand the history of the movement against the proliferation of guns."[1]
The issue is that the quote was said in an exclusive interview with Daily Mail Australia, so the source of the quote is Unsworth, just published through The Daily Mail. Considering the article mentioned that the interview with the former Premier is rare, I personally think it should be notable enough, but am not too fussed either way. Thanks, Phillycj 14:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is banned as a source .
- Notability in Wikispeak refers to a criterion for article creation. You mean noteworthiness. Noteworthiness is determined by the degree of coverage in reliable sources. Coverage in a banned source does not establish noteworthiness.
- TFD (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is not banned as a source; WP:DAILYMAIL explicitly says that
The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail
[my emphasis], and that the use of the Mail for WP:ABOUTSELF claims is permitted. So the Mail article is certainly a reliable source for "the Daily Mail Australia reported that Unsworth said in 2019 that he regretted the quote". It's at least arguably reliable for "In a 2019 interview with the Daily Mail Australia, Unsworth said 'I just regret that I said that but you've got to understand the history of the movement against the proliferation of guns'": I would think that even the Mail would baulk at straight-up fabricating interview quotes. Whether it's WP:DUE to include in an article would be a question for talkpage consensus – it's certainly possible to argue that if no more reliable source has reported on this quote, Unsworth's position in 2019 is not sufficiently relevant to include in the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)- Agree it's not "banned" but, no, that is not about-self. That is not the Daily Mail writing about the Daily Mail (employees, writers, publications, corporation) -- it is the Daily Mail writing about an unrelated "third party"living person, so does not fall within the exception. (As an aside, I believe there was a problem with the DM and fabrication regarding interviews, that led in part, to its disqualification). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is not banned as a source; WP:DAILYMAIL explicitly says that
References
- ^ Johnson, Stephen. "The REAL story behind a premier's eerie prediction there would be massacre in Tasmania that's fuelled a conspiracy theory about Port Arthur for two decades - and why he'll ALWAYS regret saying it". The Daily Mail. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
- A with the above it is the DM quoting someone. So I would say its use is iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Acknowledged exceptions to the ban include opinions and very old articles and aboutself, but not interviews. In theory one could get something in if there was clear consensus (since WP:DAILYMAIL1 only prohibits as a reference "generally" and is not a policy), but I think it's already clear that won't happen for this case. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Although WP:DAILYMAIL says the paper is not banned, that is how it is described in reliable sources. WP:ABOUTSELF can only apply if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source." Furthermore, being reported in an unreliable source does not establish weight, which is based on coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Book of Revelation
This is about [20]. Partitioning the Bible into verses happened much later, after John of Patmos died. So it is quite anachronistic to attribute him patters which became apparent only after the Bible was partitioned into verses. I don't know if such error could pass for scholarship at any major university, apparently Liberty University is not a major university, to say the least. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is this leaning into numerology enough to be as much of a WP:FRINGE question? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not WP:DUE for the article. The strength of a doctoral dissertation is not enough, especially when a text is so often dissected and discussed. Then again, reasonable minds can always differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, if it's a dissertation, that's another indication of unreliability. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not WP:DUE for the article. The strength of a doctoral dissertation is not enough, especially when a text is so often dissected and discussed. Then again, reasonable minds can always differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The source is also citing translations of The Apocalypse of John written thousands of years after the fact. That's not reliable for a text written around 60-90 C.E., even if the years 1560 and 1611 sound ancient by 2022 standards. A lot of the JudeoChristian theology from the medieval period was also made-up from trying to "fill in the blanks" (rather than discerning the author's intentions through scholarship). Case of point, the current "canon" version of Lucifer/Satan doesn't even exist in the Bible and comes from other sources (like Milton, Enoch, and Dante). And of course, there was no such as thing as a Holy Bible when Apocalypse was written.
TL;DR: This citation is bollocks. Darkknight2149 00:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- The cite appears to be a doctoral thesis, which are generally not great sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. They can sometimes be used, but on a topic like the Bible which has received so much scholarship from higher-quality sources it would be hard to argue that a dissertation is WP:DUE anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Meta-analysis and systematic review of Feldenkrais Method
Article(s): Feldenkrais Method and List of topics Characterized as Pseudoscience
Claim: A 2015 systematic review in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine found that Feldenkrais has "broad application in populations interested in improving awareness, health, and ease of function". Meta-analysis showed significant improvements in both balance and functional reach. The authors noted, "as a body of evidence, effects seem to be generic, supporting the proposal that [Feldenkreis] works on a learning paradigm rather than disease-based mechanisms. Further research is required; however, in the meantime, clinicians and professionals may promote the use of [Feldenkreis] in populations interested in efficient physical performance and self-efficacy."
Cite: Hillier S, Worley A. The effectiveness of the feldenkrais method: a systematic review of the evidence. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:752160. doi: 10.1155/2015/752160. Epub 2015 Apr 8. PMID: 25949266; PMCID: PMC4408630.
Rejected by: @roxythedog @Ixocactus
Is the source reliable for the claim?
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, our article Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine currently notes that
"One of the founding editors, Edzard Ernst, has described the journal as 'useless rubbish', primarily due to ineffective peer review."
. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
o001oo.ru
Is this forum post a reliable source? (o001oo.ru) https://o001oo.ru/index.php?showtopic=47389
- No. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Forums are never considered to be a reliable source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
John Stossel's views on Wikipedia
Article: John Stossel (section on Political Positions)
Claim: In 2022, John Stossel stated that he loved Wikipedia, but complained that it was biased.
Cite:
- Stossel: What's Going On With Wikipedia's Attitude Towards Communism? (realclearpolitics.com)
- Wikipedia Bias (Foundation_for_Rational_Economics_and_Education#Ron_Paul_Institute_for_Peace_and_Prosperity)
- Google News search for primary sources, first one in the list is the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; the sources are papers which carry his syndicated column.
Rejected by: @User:Zaathras
Which, if any sources should be used in the article, given the standards of reliability and notability? If this will require an RfC about including the sentence or something similar, which source or sources would you recommend for the proposed text?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sourcing is piss-poor, but it isn't really a question of that. John Stossel is just a longtime talking head, a pundit. Pundits criticize lots and lots of things, that is the nature of their profession. We don't need a laundry list of everything a pundit doesn't like in their biography. Being a conservative male who doesn't like something the (arguably) liberal-leaning Wikipedia did is not noteworthy in his career. We're not talking about a Larry Sanger here, a Wiki-critic who at least has a Wikipedia connection. Zaathras (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- In order to include his opinions, you need to show they have weight, i.e., they have been reported in reliable sources. So if tonight, CNN says "Breaking news, Stoessel comments on Wikipedia," then we could consider it. Otherwise, it's just a wholly predictable commentary by someone who thinks that Wikipedia should give equal weight to science and superstition. TFD (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am unclear as to why his opinion on Wikipedia would belong in a "Political Positions" Section. Wiki is, or at least aspires to be neutral and accurate above all else. So the question itself seems a bit flawed. To TFD's point, for his view on Wiki to be considered for inclusion, it should have a certain amount of WEIGHT to be included, not to mention, in a section where it is relevant to the article. Finally, Realclear is not a good source for much of anything. If you are intent to include this quote, there would preferably be a consensus among reliable sources about this. You seemingly have a collection of very biased sources aside from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (presumably, I'm not familiar with that one either), to put it in a section that doesn't seem to fit the context. Unfortunately, I can't seem to think of any suggestions for inclusion of an opinion about Wiki, even if it is a direct quote from the article's subject. DN (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. Instead of bringing up opinions, the addition could just be "Stossel edits Wikipedia, and has donated in the past". It could go in the part about his personal life. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is the "second largest daily newspaper serving metropolitan Pittsburgh" according to the article on it. My dilemma is that it is a primary source, one of many papers reprinting his column. What is better, a higher quality primary source, or two lower quality secondary sources?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This would need high quality secondary sources to establish significance. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because of your advice I went and looked for another source. This one from El American doesn't say that he loves wikipedia, but it does say that Stossel thinks it is biased. Is El American good enough to establish significance for a shorter addition of "Stossel's opinion is that Wikipedia is biased"?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- No. It's still blatantly undue emphasis to include it at all. Pundits pontificate; it's what they do. They have to grind out stuff to maintain an audience. That does not make their assertions notable in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is this discussion enough to count as one of the two discussions for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Inclusion_criteria? I mean for El American, not the think tank. Or should I start a new discussion just about El American?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- This discussion isn't really about the reliability of the sources at hand at all, despite its appearance on this noticeboard. It's about whether Stossel's opinion about Wikipedia is sufficiently noteworthy to mention. That is, the question at hand is one of WP:WEIGHT, not WP:RS. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do we care if he rakes his own yard or gave five bucks to the local food bank? So he edits Wikipedia. So what? Is there some insane controversy or success story so popping about his Wikipedia life that its reported by independent secondary sources, (not just his own)? I agree this is a WEIGHT question and if you had better sources I doubt we'd be here so the answer is likely "not sufficient weight to include". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can tell that this is being perceived as part of his punditry. I see it as part of one of his other career facets, described in "Give Me a Break". The article links to a preview of it on Google Books for reference 80; the book describes a series of hands-on fact-finding projects.
- Is this discussion enough to count as one of the two discussions for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Inclusion_criteria? I mean for El American, not the think tank. Or should I start a new discussion just about El American?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- No. It's still blatantly undue emphasis to include it at all. Pundits pontificate; it's what they do. They have to grind out stuff to maintain an audience. That does not make their assertions notable in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with separating the question of El American's reliability from the question of weight. I get the impression that some sources are guilty until proven innocent. Regardless of what happens with Stossel's article I think it would be good to start a discussion just about El American. I think it might be good enough to get colored green in the list. Would anyone object to me starting a new discussion just about El American?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
India Today
India Today is a weekly English-language news magazine in India owned by Living Media; it is the largest magazine in the country. There is an online edition at [21], and a TV channel with the same name. Although the website is linked from nearly 19,000 articles, it has never been thoroughly discussed on RSN, and does not have an entry at WP:NPPRS. The only substantive discussion I found at RSN is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262#India_Today_or_IndiaToday.com, which judged the print edition to be generally reliable, but did not make any consensus about the website or the TV channel. I intend to start an RfC if there is a substantial dispute.
The associated opinion outlet, DailyO.in [22], has an entry at NPPRS, based on discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#DailyO.in which deemed it unreliable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
USA Today
Regarding the listing of USA Today in Wikipedia's perennial sources where it states "There is consensus that USA Today is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its centrist alignment.", there should be an update regarding its reliability and the way it sources its references. It recently removed 23 articles due to fabricating sources or organizations. One of its reporters was forced to resign. This proves it does not have a robust editorial process. Also most of the articles in question are news articles attributed to social media sources or emails. Here is the news reports on this matter:
Even if they had done an audit, there are many articles from that said reporter that haven't been removed. This is something here at Wikipedia we have cannot tolerate. eg Daily Mail, Sputnik. Time for a review.F2Milk (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Issues with one reporter – with a publication retracting their articles, and the reporter in question being forced out – are rather different from the Daily Mail case (the 2019 RfC concluded in part that "evidence for unverified, fabricated, and incorrect information is widespread"), let alone Sputnik (described in its RSP entry as a "Russian propoganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation"). A more comparable case might be the 2018 revelations about Claas Reloutius' articles for Der Spiegel (RSN discussion), where a note was specifically added to RSN to say that his articles were considered unreliable. Unless there is evidence of more widespread issues at USA Today, that might be the way to go. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, USA Today's behavior is what we expect of an RS with editorial oversight. Editors are not going to be able to fact check everything and when wrong facts do make it through, we expect a good RS to redact and take steps to correct in a timely manner, which is what happened here. --Masem (t) 13:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly: issuing retractions is what generally reliable sources do, what we need to address is the specifically unreliable articles, at a minimum the retractions and the rest on a case-by-case basis. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, there's no clear difference, Daily Mail corrects stories too and WP:DAILYMAIL2 said "widespread" not "more widespread than what you find in USA Today". That said, I see nothing that needs doing about the perennial sources description except to observe yet again that it's an essay-class page which only reflects some opinions. What might need doing is a look at the particular pages that Google tells me that "Miranda, Gabriela" has been cited for: Tiffany Yu, Disability Pride Month, Melinda French Gates, Jetpack man, SARS-CoV-2 in mink, SARS-CoV-2 in white-tailed deer, 2022 State of the Union Address, Dika Toua, 2022 New York City Subway attack, White-tailed deer, Sofía Jirau. I didn't try to match the cites to the list of retracted articles that USA Today listed. I think they're harmless but maybe somebody who knows those subjects should care. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- DM may fix a few, but they still have plenty of articles that have been shown to be containing false information, and that's across multiple staff editors. The USA Today issue here was one specific writer and doesn't extend to anywhere else (that we yet know about). They're clearly different when it comes to RS evaluation. --Masem (t) 17:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you are suggesting that 1. when the closer of the Daily Mail 2 rfc said widespread they meant and the community understood them as meaning "confined to a few dozen articles by a single reporter who has since left" or 2. USA Today has more widespread problems than just a single reporter. Feel free to provide any evidence at all for either of those claims. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I made neither of those claims. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, USA Today's behavior is what we expect of an RS with editorial oversight. Editors are not going to be able to fact check everything and when wrong facts do make it through, we expect a good RS to redact and take steps to correct in a timely manner, which is what happened here. --Masem (t) 13:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was a problem with a single reporter. They fired her, and deleted the offending articles. Is there any reason to believe that USA Today has issues beyond this one individual? If no, I see no reason to change anything in the RSP entry. Endwise (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Is a Thesis from Boğaziçi University a reliable source?
I recently added a source titled "The scramble for Iran: Ottoman military and diplomatic engagements during the Afghan occupation of Iran, 1722 - 1729" by Mehmet Yılmaz Akbulut from Boğaziçi University onto the Ottoman–Hotaki War (1726–1727) page. It was labeled with the better source needed template by another user, inferring that the source isn't reliable. I don't understand why though, since the university is relatively well known and the source is cited in other reliable sources. I would like to hear other users' opinions on this, since I am not as familiar with the guidelines. Is it a reliable source? Kailanmapper (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- It might be helpful for you to ask the editor who placed that template what concerns they have about that source. ElKevbo (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- See the heading “Dissertations” at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. —108.48.69.126 (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding GitHub to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
Whilst looking at an AfC which uses GitHub at a reference I was searching for information about reliability so I could explain it to an editor and saw that there has been a discussion of GitHub in the past at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_368#Github_as_reliable_source_for_software_topics and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_352#Github and possibly other times and I was wondering if it could be added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? I wanted to start a discussion here before adding it there. Gusfriend (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also brief discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_72#Addition_of_source-code_hosting_places I think only one of those discussions is substantial so shouldn't be added to RSP until another discussion had. Looks like strong consensus however is can be reliable as a primary source, rarely reliable as a secondary source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think GitHub would clearly be generally unreliable, since it's basically a repository of user-generated content (WP:UGC). Similar sources are marked generally unreliable in WP:RSP (e.g. WP:RSPAMAZON, WP:CRUNCHBASE, etc). - GretLomborg (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Is statmuse.com a reliable source?
I fairly recently asked the same question but there were no comments/answers. StatMuse is similar to Sports Reference; it documents sports-related records and statistics of the four major United States sports leagues from a user-generated query. Not much appears to be known about it but it's backed by Disney, Google, the NFLPA, and former NBA commissioner David Stern. Any thoughts? NSNW (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
70s/80s Stalinist propaganda
I would like to hear the community's thoughts on The History of Albania: From its Origins to the Present Day. [23]
This work was financed by the Stalinist government of Albania under dictator Enver Hoxha with the goal of influencing the opinion of foreign readers. Originally published in French, it was later translated into English by a respected academic press (Routledge). It has been described in scholarly literature as a book that promotes Greater Albanian expansionism and anti-Slavic bigotry. [24]
Its primary author is described elsewhere as a "nationalist Communist" whose primary goal was nation-building through "constructing a canon of natonal heroes". [25] I don't believe it qualifies as WP:RS but I would like to see what the community thinks. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can you give some context? The way you describe it, it doesn't look like a RS but possibly there are some non-controversial facts it can be used for. Alaexis¿question? 17:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Historians have perspectives. The fact a historian was writing under an authoritarian regime and supported that regime does not in itself render them unreliable. If you find exceptional claims, it may not be reliable for those, if you find opinions they should be attributed if their inclusion is warranted. What is the exact claim the book is sourcing? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, the Routledge book you link does not seem to describe the book as being bigoted, it uses the milder "anti-Slavic tones". Books from a national perspective tend to view foreign invasions into their territory negatively. If you look at Spanish history books from the same time, they almost universally view the Moorish invasion of Spain negatively, and sympathise with the Hispano-Romans who were under Visigothic rule. I would identify both anti-Visigothic and anti-Moorish tones in much of Spanish historiography, even some stuff written today. That wouldn't mean they were not RS...Boynamedsue (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, any historical account from the Soviet era has to be taken with a grain of salt unless it is corroborated by another source. The Soviets and their aligned governments had a great tendency to literally just make stuff up in order to sow either division or unity, or achieve another state goal. A good example of this is the Cäğfär Taríxı, which was forged by the NKVD to sow division amongst the Tatars at a time when that group was experiencing nationalism. General rule of thumb is if it can't be found in another independent source and it seems exceptionally suspect, it is more likely than not a fabrication. Curbon7 (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Blanka Matkovich
I am writing to receive feedback about the reliability of Blanka Matkovich, a Croatian ... uhm, author ... whose views about the Holocaust have been widely criticized in mainstream academia (to put it mildly).
The scholar Jovan Byford, describes her as an "exponent of right-wing revisionist ideas", such as that Jasenovac was "merely a labour camp" or that the site had been used as a concentration camp by the communists in the post-war period. [26]
Historian Rory Yeomans calls her a "prominent ... negationist historian", describes one of the books she co-authored in Croatia as "manipulative, poorly researched and transparently agenda-driven" and notes that her "rhetorical tropes ... will be familiar to scholars of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial." [27]
Ivo Goldstein, Croatia's most prominent Holocaust scholar, has stated that Matkovich likely played a role in last year's David Goldman fiasco, in which a certain "David Goldman" (almost certainly a pseudonym) authored an opinion piece in The Jerusalem Post denying the extent of the killings at Jasenovac. [28] The piece was taken down after an outcry from Holocaust researchers.
Additionally, Matkovich is a close associate of revisionist author Igor Vukić and has co-authored books with him positing that Jasenovac was a myth fabricated by the communists. [29]
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Matkovich is a favourite of revisionists on Croatian Wiki [30] which has historically had quite a problem with neo-Nazis and historical revisionists hijacking its articles. [31] The really unsettling bit is that her works are now being cited on en.wiki as well. [32] I would be interested to hear what users from outside the topic area have to say. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- This indeed seems problematic. Probably we should avoid citing her work in contentious areas. Alaexis¿question? 16:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Uses of AuthorHouse and CreateSpace self-publishers
If anyone's interested in clearing out the inappropriate ones.
Searches:[33] and [34] Doug Weller talk 15:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
CNN interview with Xinjiang police whistleblower
Is this CNN piece a reliable source to support the following?
- Article: Uyghur genocide
- Text in article:
A former Chinese police detective, exiled in Europe, revealed to CNN in 2021 details of the systematic torture of Uyghurs in detention camps in Xinjiang, acts in which he had participated, and the fear of his own arrest had he dissented.
Some editors have recently disputed the reliability of a CNN report on the talk page. One editor pointed to YouTube and Twitter as casting doubt upon the whistleblower actually being a Xinjiang cop. Another said that the interview was questionable, claiming a lack of media reporting about the interview.
Some editors, including me, have argued that the source is reliable, as CNN is WP:GREL on WP:RSP and multiple international news organizations have provided coverage of the whistleblower, including The Times and The Telegraph, as well as Sky News, and Taiwan's Central News Agency. The whistleblower revelations have also been covered by Business Insider, China Digital Times, and has been cited in a 2021 report from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that focused on the state of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
I'm looking to see if there are any other opinions on this board with respect to the source's reliability for the sentence currently in the article.
— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging The Four Deuces, Horse Eye's Back, and Cycw, who participated in the preceding talk page discussion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- We should assume that if this is CNN's original reporting, they have validated the person's identity , former position, and likelihood that he would have these details, but we should still make it clear that what this person claimed is their own words and not fact, which the proposed wording is not quite doing. --Masem (t) 02:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Masem: How would you feel about
A former Chinese police detective, exiled in Europe, told CNN in 2021 that he had participated in or witnessed inmates in interment camps being beaten, having their genitals electrocuted, raped, waterboarded, deprived of sleep for multiple days, and hanged from ceilings
? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Masem: How would you feel about
- was reported, but none of them interviewed the alleged police officer or confirmed the report. Apparently the story was ignored by the vast majority of major mainstream media. Since the original publication, neither CNN or other sources have re-visited the story. It seems dubious because the disguise used by the informant would not have hidden his identity. But it's really an issue of weight. If it fails weight, it doesn't matter if it is reliable. TFD (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are you asking a due weight question or are you questioning whether or not someone interviewed by CNN is telling the truth about their experiences? Those are completely different lines of questioning and the second is wildly inappropriate per WP:BLP unless you have a WP:RS which backs up your aspersions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I raised the issue at NPOVN and notified the discussion in which you were participating. And no, it's not a violation of NOR or BLP to question a source, otherwise this noticeboard would not exist. TFD (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- When you say question the source do you mean CNN or the policeman? The first is appropriate the second (for instance speculating about whether a disguise is credible or not) would in fact be a BLP violation without a WP:RS doing the same. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I raised the issue at NPOVN and notified the discussion in which you were participating. And no, it's not a violation of NOR or BLP to question a source, otherwise this noticeboard would not exist. TFD (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Since the original publication, neither CNN or other sources have re-visited the story
is not true. The Sky News UK coverage of this same individual indicates both that the organization independently vetted his identity and that it conducted a second interview with him as a follow-up to the CNN reporting.- On a possibly related note, there was also a pseudonymous "Wang Leizhan" who has made substantially similar allegations (some of which have recently been revisited by Le Monde), though it's unclear to me if there are RS that connect Wang and Jiang as being the same person. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- By looking at the uniform and similar "disguise", I believe it is the same person. Cycw (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- As well as the head shape, I might add. Cycw (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's a poor disguise then, which detracts from the credibility. TFD (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Must admit they are poor disguises! I thought on first glance they were the same but have come to the conclusion they are different - which rather surprised me as it is quite common for people in that position to make things up to push their position. Every particular feature like ear shape and hair line and eyebrows just seem significantly different. I guess the ones talking about it not being possible for uniforms to leave the country think somebody copied them - personally I'd have though it would be easier to do most of the journey with a policeman uniform! I'm not sure how much a good disguise wouldhelp - their superiors wouldknow they are missing pretty quickly! I guess though not making their identir=ties public does help their families. NadVolum (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- We have (at minimum) two established newsorgs that have vetted the person's identity and published lengthy interviews with the guy that frame him as a whistleblower... and the counterargument is that he had a mediocre disguise? Really‽ Are there any reliable sources that question whether this guy's a former Chinese cop? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The truth is that this person really is not mentioned that much, which means it is even more unlikely to find a rebuttal article of a similar format. Cycw (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't quite true. There are plenty of garbage-level sources (such as Global Times) that are making the claim that the person was not actually a cop, but the difficulty is in finding any reliable sources that provide a rebuttal article. And, to be frank, the fact that only garbage-level sources are the ones who are publishing those attempted rebuttals speaks volumes about how weak the evidence against Jiang's former employment being a police officer truly are—especially when multiple independent reliable sources vetted his identity. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The truth is that this person really is not mentioned that much, which means it is even more unlikely to find a rebuttal article of a similar format. Cycw (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- By looking at the uniform and similar "disguise", I believe it is the same person. Cycw (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are you asking a due weight question or are you questioning whether or not someone interviewed by CNN is telling the truth about their experiences? Those are completely different lines of questioning and the second is wildly inappropriate per WP:BLP unless you have a WP:RS which backs up your aspersions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Sky News story was published days after the CNN interview. Wang Leizhan may be the same person as Jiang, although its unclear why he would use his real name then days later use an alias. So essentially it's a story that received attention in some sources at the time, but was ignored by most reliable sources and has received no attention since then. Unless you think that everything reported about the topic belongs in the article, you have to use some other criterion for inclusion other than RS. That's why there is a weight policy. TFD (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- To me, this raises further suspicion about this person. Cycw (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Raising suspicion about this person is not within the remit of the Reliable sources Noticeboard (we evaluate sources, not sources sources) and is explicitly prohibited by WP:BLP unless a WP:RS does the same. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- To me, this raises further suspicion about this person. Cycw (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Sky News story was published days after the CNN interview. Wang Leizhan may be the same person as Jiang, although its unclear why he would use his real name then days later use an alias. So essentially it's a story that received attention in some sources at the time, but was ignored by most reliable sources and has received no attention since then. Unless you think that everything reported about the topic belongs in the article, you have to use some other criterion for inclusion other than RS. That's why there is a weight policy. TFD (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Unverified stories from a man who claims to be a former police officer from Xinjiang are not a reliable source for the fact of the matter about what occurs in Xinjiang, as multiple editors have pointed out now. The CNN article is only a reliable source for the fact that that interview took place, and the stories would need to be attributed to the whistleblower in his interview with CNN. There are of course separate WP:DUE concerns, but those are probably better left for WP:NPOVN. Endwise (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sources, from the US, UK, and Taiwan, might be completely reliable for most things, but they generally follow their government's line on China. Relations between those countries and China are at a new low, and during a "cold war" it's common for every false or exaggerated report from a refugee to be reported as news. Maybe this report is accurate, and maybe it's not. NightHeron (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Is Militaryland reliable?
I was looking for information on the structure of the Azov Regiment. It would seem to be well done.[35] But I don't know if the site is reliable.--Mhorg (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- From the about page I'd say no. They're a self-confessed military fan, not a recognised expert in the field. There seems to be no evidence of oversight on it, and plenty of their pages and the like seem to support the general public logging in and adding information (such as the Losses database.) Even on the Azov Structure page it states the history is unknown for the 1st company, so clearly they're not making any of this info available from a position of knowledge as any kind of authority. Canterbury Tail talk 17:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Appears to be a self-published source. Unless there is evidence the author is an established subject matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, I wouldn't view it as reliable. Doubly so for any of the user-generated content. Ljleppan (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)