Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
These two sources, among many others, are currently being used in the Muhammad article.
Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? — Kaalakaa (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Books published by university presses" are among "
the most reliable sources." Rodgers is the command historian of the US Army and an adjunct professor of history. There are currently only two biographies of Muhammad written by military historians: this Russ Rodgers' book and Richard A. Gabriel's book published by the University of Oklahoma Press. I believe their perspectives are crucial given that Muhammad's life after moving to Medina was filled with battles, including the Battle of Badr (which was demoted from featured article status, apparently in part due to a lack of sources from military historians [1]). Rodgers' book has also been cited and reviewed positively by various other reliable sources [2] (not just random blogspots or websites). As for Maxime Rodinson, he was for many years a professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Études at the Sorbonne and, after working several years in Syria and Lebanon, supervised the Muslim section of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris [3]. Some reviews of his book include [4] [5]. — Kaalakaa (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Muhammad was a historical figure, like Napoleon, Buddha, Constantine, Joan of Arc. As such, the highest quality material we should be using are academic books published by historians because they are written by experts, and go through extensive peer review, and are written a very neutral and factual manner. Thus they typically represent the best sources. If you look at FA quality pages on figures such as al-Musta'li or Theodosius III they extensively use university press published works. The second book is published by the New York Review of Books, which is a publisher I am less familiar with and am not sure about the quality, but it appears to be less academic. So it may present slanted information. On any article with any kind of hotly debated or controversial topic, we should rely more on the highest quality sources (typically academic books by university presses) more and more. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable?is a non sequitur, using different sources in the article would not 'deem' these sources as unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 15:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
belongs in user space" [7] [8]. @AndyTheGrump also put @Anachronist's understanding of WP:FRINGE into question [9]. Furthermore, if one looks at the article, many statements cited to Rodgers also have supporting sources. Moreover, that Rodgers' book has also been cited and reviewed positively by various other reliable sources [10] [11] (not just random blogspots or websites). So this seems to be yet another instance of @Anachronist misunderstanding our policies and guidelines, aside from what has been listed here. — Kaalakaa (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
self-described "Islamicist"is John Walbridge, professor of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures at Indiana University, Bloomington. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad." Jonathan E. Brockopp, in his book Muhammad's Heirs: The Rise of Muslim Scholarly Communities, 622–950, published by Cambridge University Press, on page 28, seems to classify Karen Armstrong among modern authors who "
misrepresent the earliest period of Islam" by "
downplay[ing] the confusion of the early community on how to be a Muslim." — Kaalakaa (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Banu Qurayza broke their treaty with Muhammad" without attributing the statement to Muhammad or Islamic sources, please open a new section in WP:NPOVN. I will refrain from commenting on those two matters here because it would be off-topic. — Kaalakaa (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
[Muhammad's] hatred of poets was well known", "
Muhammad hired his own poets to spread his propaganda among the tribes" and "
killed on Muhammad’s order...These killings were political murders carried out for ideological reasons or personal revenge." Kaalakaa then proceeds to add at least one of these claims in wikivoice, and this is a violation of WP:NPOV. VR (Please ping on reply) 10:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Non serious RSN. These are undoubtedly important sources that offer insightful information on Muhammad's life and the early days of Islam.
As shown at Pfander Films, no surviving Islamic sources exist from the first hundred years after Muhammad's death. So the Muslims are making it up as they go along. JRSpriggs ( talk) 04:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
What is the reliability of The Times of India?
-- Amigao ( talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
worry about editorial independenceand
the poor quality of the journalism attracts the heaviest criticism.Size/distribution is independent to reliability. Very important newspaper, yes. Reliable newspaper, no. — MarkH21 talk 19:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
*Option 2–3 Option 2 for matter-of-fact reporting such as the weather; but Option 3 in any topic with political ramifications, such as the numbers of people who may have died in a riot, or the numbers of malnutritioned chidren, because of the newspaper's history of a pro-government bias, especially after the 1970s. It is India's second-oldest newspaper after the Statesman, founded in 1838, and for many decades carrying only advertisements and obituaries on its front page. I own some historic editions: the beginning and end of WW2, India's independence, Gandhi's assassination, Nehru's death, ... If I have time, I'll take a look at the older editions to examine their quality. However, by the 1970s when Indian newspapers had come out of the shadow of nationalism and begun to show their independence, the Times did not quite. It has some major people writing in its op-ed columns; those are definitely worth a read, but not for citing on WP. Britannica 's lead sentence says it all: "The Times of India, English-language morning daily newspaper published in Mumbai, Ahmadabad, and Delhi. It is one of India's most influential papers, and its voice has frequently coincided with that of the national government." F&f 12:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Is
The Dorchester Review reliable for the statement A tooth and rib were found in the area in the 1990s and early 2000s, both of which were of animal origin.
[1]
that is for some reason currently in the lede of
Kamloops Indian Residential School? The Wikipedia article for the Review says: In 2022, the Review posted an article by
Jacques Rouillard on their blog, suggesting there was no concrete evidence of mass unmarked burials at Indian Residential Schools.
[2] which was cited in an article in the United Kingdom's
The Spectator.
[3] In 2022, Canada's Crown-Indigenous Relations minister
Marc Miller expressed concern about the rise of residential school denialism and rebuked those that criticized "the nature and validity of these and other recovery efforts" following the announcement of the discovery of potentially unmarked grave at the St Joseph's Mission School.
[4]
[5] In a Dorchester Review blog entry,
Tom Flanagan and Brian Giesbrecht replied to Miller.
[6] In another Review blog post, anthropologist Hymie Rubenstein challenged Miller's statement about the reliability of indigenous knowledge.
[7]
Elinruby (
talk)
22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Further reading: [22] (for level of emotional reaction and some back history) Elinruby ( talk) 14:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
semi-annual journal of history and historical commentarybut regrettably, not even a single article has managed to be cited in peer-reviewed literature in an approving manner till date. [a] It is mostly described as a
conservative media outletand all I see are fellow conservative and far-right media outlets harping about how great a magazine it is; now, while being a conservative media outlet is NOT grounds for unreliability, the rare academic reviews of articles published in TDR point to the lack of peer review among other things and bias-to-the-extent-of-wild-inaccuracies, which are all deal-breakers:
The commentary itself was clearly written to spark a debate. Like many of the editorials that fill Canadian newspapers, it is written in a conversational style without footnotes or references and – more importantly – it attempts to challenge what Coates’ sees as hegemonic narratives characterizing the study of Indian residential schools. And given that the online version of the article (like every page on The Dorchester Review website) is flanked by quotes from David Frum proclaiming that the journal is "Setting Canadian history right," the essay's ambition to upend the sacred cows of the Canadian historical profession, itself, are immediately apparent.
— Cochrane, Donald (2015-04-07). "Setting Canadian History Right?: A Response to Ken Coates' 'Second Thoughts about Residential Schools'". Active History.
Admittedly, some historians have tried to advocate for a ‘positive’ interpretation of residential schooling, but they have mostly done so in non-peer reviewed publications. See, for example, Ken Coates, ‘Second Thoughts about Residential Schools’, The Dorchester Review 4, no. 2 (Autumn/Winter 2014): 25–9.
— Carleton, Sean (2021-10-02). "'I don't need any more education': Senator Lynn Beyak, residential school denialism, and attacks on truth and reconciliation in Canada". Settler Colonial Studies. 11 (4): 466–486. ISSN 2201-473X.
Contributing to The Dorchester Review (a journal whose mission is to "engage and challenge the politically correct vision of history often found in the media and in academe"), historian Ken Coates echoed Niezen in 2014, arguing that the IRS system's positive aspects had been downplayed, and "not all students left the residential school broken." The lack of nuance was troubling, he thought, and provided "the country with a distorted view of Indigenous realities." He therefore called for historians to focus on the future and move past the negative history.
— MacDonald, David B. (2019-05-16), "Genocide and the Politics of Memory: Discussing Some Counterarguments", The Sleeping Giant Awakens: Genocide, Indian Residential Schools, and the Challenge of Conciliation, University of Toronto Press, pp. 146–162, ISBN 978-1-4875-1804-2
Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[T]he notes on pages 345—51 [of Biggar's work] regurgitate known denialist talking points from questionable sources, like the right-wing outfit The Dorchester Review, to justify a lack of engagement with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's (TRC) final report. This will be a red flag for most Canadian readers.
— Perry, Adele; Carleton, Sean; Wahpasiw, Omeasoo (June 2024). "The Misuse of Indigenous and Canadian History in Colonialism". In Lester, Alan (ed.). The Truth About Empire: Real Histories of British Colonialism. Hurst (Oxford). ISBN 9781911723097.
References
What is the reliability of The Dorchester Review?
Note, see previous discussions at RSN: here and here. See previous discussion on an article's talk here TarnishedPath talk 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
No need for RfC How often is this source being used? It seems it's being mentioned only in context of the Canadian Indigenous Schools topic. Is the source being used so widely that we need a universal statement? Are we past the point where we can ask "is this source acceptable for this claim"? We really need to limit these general RfCs for cases where we have had many discussions regarding a source (Fox News for example). Since this isn't such a case I would suggest closing this RfC and focusing on specific uses. Note, my view is more procedural vs anything related to the specific use question above. Springee ( talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
My initial reaction is that this seems premature: the source has barely been discussed (just two tiny discussions of barely 1 screen each), and never outside of one very specific context; I have not seen evidence provided of whether the source is reliable or unreliable outside of that context: we need such evidence, and RFCBEFORE discussion of it as a general source, before having an RFC about it whether it is "generally reliable" or "generally unreliable". (In the most recent of the only two tiny discussions there've been about it, it turned out it wasn't even making the claim it was being cited for, so the reliability or unreliability of the source was irrelevant, the user who cited it had just erred.) -sche ( talk) 15:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree with above comments that this is premature or unnecessary. This does not seem to be an especially notable source, so a thorough RFCBEFORE is required. The two previous discussions linked above are not particularly informative. Astaire ( talk) 16:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
"They were put through hell" and yet they are having an absolute blast on that play structure. What gives?That's clear propoganda pushing the position that there must not have been abuse because of the existence of a picture which showed them playing. TarnishedPath talk 10:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Twitter accounts should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. In this instance the user's identity is confirmed as being the official twitter account of the publication and we have what seems to be a reliable source discussing the tweet. TarnishedPath talk 11:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Tweets from the official accounts of a publisher should be taken as publications of that publisherI disagree. Official social media accounts are often operated by different employees than would be involved in the activities of the rest of the organisation - and we have no information about what editorial process applies to the tweets. By its nature the medium is akin to an attention-grabbing WP:HEADLINE which we wouldn't treat as reliable even in a reliable publication. Bad tweets from an org don't automatically infect the parent org's reliability. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 11:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
semi-annual journal of history and historical commentarybut regrettably, not even a single article has managed to be cited in peer-reviewed literature in an approving manner till date. [a] It is mostly described as a
conservative media outletand all I see are fellow conservative and far-right media outlets harping about how great a magazine it is; now, while being a conservative media outlet is NOT grounds for unreliability, the rare academic reviews of articles published in TDR point to the lack of peer review among other things and bias-to-the-extent-of-wild-inaccuracies, which are all deal-breakers:
The commentary itself was clearly written to spark a debate. Like many of the editorials that fill Canadian newspapers, it is written in a conversational style without footnotes or references and – more importantly – it attempts to challenge what Coates’ sees as hegemonic narratives characterizing the study of Indian residential schools. And given that the online version of the article (like every page on The Dorchester Review website) is flanked by quotes from David Frum proclaiming that the journal is "Setting Canadian history right," the essay's ambition to upend the sacred cows of the Canadian historical profession, itself, are immediately apparent.
— Cochrane, Donald (2015-04-07). "Setting Canadian History Right?: A Response to Ken Coates' 'Second Thoughts about Residential Schools'". Active History.
Admittedly, some historians have tried to advocate for a ‘positive’ interpretation of residential schooling, but they have mostly done so in non-peer reviewed publications. See, for example, Ken Coates, ‘Second Thoughts about Residential Schools’, The Dorchester Review 4, no. 2 (Autumn/Winter 2014): 25–9.
— Carleton, Sean (2021-10-02). "'I don't need any more education': Senator Lynn Beyak, residential school denialism, and attacks on truth and reconciliation in Canada". Settler Colonial Studies. 11 (4): 466–486. ISSN 2201-473X.
Contributing to The Dorchester Review (a journal whose mission is to "engage and challenge the politically correct vision of history often found in the media and in academe"), historian Ken Coates echoed Niezen in 2014, arguing that the IRS system's positive aspects had been downplayed, and "not all students left the residential school broken." The lack of nuance was troubling, he thought, and provided "the country with a distorted view of Indigenous realities." He therefore called for historians to focus on the future and move past the negative history.
— MacDonald, David B. (2019-05-16), "Genocide and the Politics of Memory: Discussing Some Counterarguments", The Sleeping Giant Awakens: Genocide, Indian Residential Schools, and the Challenge of Conciliation, University of Toronto Press, pp. 146–162, ISBN 978-1-4875-1804-2
Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[T]he notes on pages 345—51 [of Biggar's work] regurgitate known denialist talking points from questionable sources, like the right-wing outfit The Dorchester Review, to justify a lack of engagement with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's (TRC) final report. This will be a red flag for most Canadian readers.
— Perry, Adele; Carleton, Sean; Wahpasiw, Omeasoo (June 2024). "The Misuse of Indigenous and Canadian History in Colonialism". In Lester, Alan (ed.). The Truth About Empire: Real Histories of British Colonialism. Hurst (Oxford). ISBN 9781911723097.
As far as I can see, this passage exists in WP:RS.POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
Option 2 - No need for RfC How often is this source being used? as User:Springee said, there is no need to RFC. And it is also being based on invalid issues — there was no prior question about reliability here. The two prior discussions linked to were on content of a readers comment/blog post, and of an opinion piece. Neither of those reflect on the reliability here, so the RFC is not showing prior TALK on their reliability in question. Those were just not publication pieces to cite and not about the reliability of the publication. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Because we are committed to publishing different points of view on controversial issues, the opinions of the authors whose work we have posted are not necessarily our own. Nor do their writings necessarily reflect the underlying ethos of this journal. This reads to me like a disclaimer that they take no editorial responsibility for the reliability of their content, and are thus a purveyor of WP:RSOPINION. I have seen no smoking gun evidence in the discussion above that they publish false information - just lots of insinuation that they are conservative, far-right, controversial, questionable, and non-peer-reviewed, none of which are synonyms for unreliable. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 19:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
{{The schools with which Ryerson was involved were designed for older students who attended voluntarily [footnote: as were the later residential schools — Ed.], and were intended to build upon the foundation established in local mission schools. Students spoke their native languages, [footnote: it is becoming increasingly clear, through research that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has suppressed, that children at many later residential schools spoke, and were even taught in, their native languages. — Ed.] and were taught largely by teachers trained in the new Normal School, which Ryerson created, not by clergy. The religious instruction was more like Sunday school classes than the indoctrination of the federal schools. Students in those early schools were learning a marketable skill, not merely producing goods the sale of which would in turn finance the school. All of these are markedly different from the way many Canadians today understand the later federal residential schools.}} [28]
This is well beyond opinion and into FRINGE territory. Elinruby ( talk) 19:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
oh and lookie here [29] Elinruby ( talk) 19:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
|
The Sun was a broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969. It was a replacement for a similar broadsheet newspaper called the Daily Herald, which it resembled. It was owned by the International Publishing Corporation and the Mirror Group. Rupert Murdoch and Kelvin Mackenzie had nothing to do with it. In 1969, it was replaced by a very different and disimilar tabloid newspaper with the same name, called The Sun, which was owned by Rupert Murdoch. That tabloid newspaper has an entry in WP:RSP located at WP:THESUN. Unfortunately that entry fails to indicate whether it applies to the previous broadsheet newspaper, and the broadsheet newspaper does not appear to have been discussed during previous discussions of "The Sun" at RSN. We need to decide whether the broadsheet newspaper published from 1964 to 1969 is reliable, so that the entry at WP:THESUN can be clarified.
Accordingly this Request for Comment asks:
What is the reliability of the national daily broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969 called The Sun?
James500 ( talk) 08:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
"unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed"; with 15 prior discussions, that's certainly enough. Non-policy arguments such as WP:BEFORERFC aren't relevant either, as what you "should do" and required to do are two separate concepts. As long as editors criticise the RfC itself and not the proposal, there's a good chance the proposed changes can be made sooner rather than later. CNC ( talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
" It's evident that the change is contentious and that further discussion is needed". CNC ( talk) 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
for the sake of everyone's sanity, moving the following into its own section; left collapsed in original thread for attribution
::When did the National Post and the Toronto Sun become unreliable?? I can't find these "archived discussions" you refer to and there's no WP:RSP listing (perhaps we need an RfC?). The best is an opinion column from the National Post accusing others of plagiarism. [35] These are two of Canada's most-circulated newspapers. [36] You can't just handwave them away as being unreliable. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- The National Post put an op-ed piece by Jason Kenney on its front page. In it, he said that people need to just get over these little matters of genocide and move on for the the good of the country, and this right after the discovery of graves in Kamloops. That was unforgivable. I didn't know questions had been raised about it, and I do not know why, but I definitely applaud the sentiment. And yes, it is one of Canada's highest-circulation newspapers. Which is terrifying. As for the Toronto Star, do you dispute it? I am not in Ontario so I don't see the print publication, but I've described their recent offerings (possibly even here) as akin to People magazine, so I definitely wouldn't use it for anything more complicated than 'on this day person x said y', and certainly not for a fraught and nuanced topic like the genocide at residential schools in Canada. Elinruby ( talk) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't know the difference between the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun you shouldn't be judging Canadian newspapers. Vague claims that a publication is like People magazine is not enough to make a source unreliable.
- WP:RSOPINION says you can't cite op-eds anyways. To declare the National Post as unreliable you should be showing how citing it can be used to support untrue information on-wiki, not just publishing editorials you disagree with. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think this needs its own thread. But a) I am talking about the Star, ie the one with the star in its logo. I was until now blissfully unaware that there was a Toronto Sun, I think. And worse, you say, huh. b) I would never cite Jason Kenney except in a discussion of the problems in Canadian political discourse c) yes, op-eds are inherently unreliable, and that is why they shouldn't be on the front page. It really bothers me that I have to explain this d) I am as patriotic as the next person and probably more so, but the ostrich approach to the issue isn't solving anything. e) The National Post may need to be used for traffic news in Ontario or inside baseball on the budget bill perhaps, but in general it should be avoided imho. Elinruby ( talk) 19:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Being amongst a country's most circulated newspapers does not speak in the slightest towards a publication's reliability. TarnishedPath talk 10:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Flippantly excluding it as unreliable would affect any article on Canada. [37] Both the Toronto Sun and the National Post regularly win National Newspaper Awards (Canadian Pulitzer) because they are recognized by their peers as being of high quality. [38] [39] Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{failed verification}} Ok the Star won for photography and the National Post for a column. About the shameful Hunka episode to boot. This is not the flex you think it is. Elinruby ( talk) 19:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll repeat again that the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun are two very different newspapers, despite being named after astronomical objects. If you look at the full awards list [40] the National Post has won 13 NNAs in its 25 year history, 11 of which were not in editorials or columns. The Toronto Sun has won 22, 5 of which were not editorial cartoons/photos.
- Clearly we need a new discussion on this. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Look, of course the sun is a star, but I am talking about the Toronto Star. The fact that I offtopicto your offtopic post in the offtopic spinoff from my original question does not make me the one that is confused here. I am taking your post as support for refactoring however. Elinruby ( talk) 21:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was just looking at prior discussions of those sources on this noticeboard that turned up when I searched the archives, in which it looked like editors thought they were unreliable; if you read those discussions differently and/or think it's important to start an RFC on either source, feel free. I suggest starting a new section for it, as this section has already left its initial topic (Catholic Reporter) in the dust and is now even veering off even the secondary topic it had veered onto (that Blacklock's has no reputation for fact-checking, use by other RS, etc, and in general has no signs of being RS). -sche ( talk) 16:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
TL;DR from the above: The National Post put an op-ed by a politician on the front page of its print edition. Apparently @ Chess: feels this has no bearing on the newspaper's reliability. There also seems to be some disagreement about the reliability of the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star. I consider that they are mostly irrelevant, but usable for simple statements of fact like "x said y on this day". This is in part due to their intense absorption with their own region, probably. Maybe they are reliable for national politics also. I avoid them because I don't care who got arrested in Hamilton. For British Columbia, which is all I am talking about right now, much better sources exist for the most part, although I may recall one or two long-form explainers from them that were pretty good. Unsure.
The third Toronto paper, The Globe and Mail, is unquestionably reliable, if a but stodgy and banker-ish. I have compared it to the New York Times; we can discuss that too if anyone wants to.
As for the Sun and the Star, meh, I would put reliability on a par with, idk, have previously said People magazine for the Star, but I admit it's a little more newsy than that. Not much, though. And to be fair, I have to say that I never see the print edition of either one, so that may be part of it too,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
masqueradingas anything but the opinion of the then-premier of Alberta. Elinruby ( talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Jason Kenney: Cancel John A. Macdonald and we might as well cancel all of Canadian historymakes it clear that the words are Kenney's take. Was the headline different in print? I'm struggling to comprehend why running this op-ed have any bearing on the reliability of National Post, which by all accounts appears to be a standard established Canadian WP:NEWSORG that is generally reliable for news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
In it, he said that people need to just get over these little matters of genocide and move on for the the good of the country. That was an atrocious misrepresentation. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 12:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
No policy-based evidence that these two newspapers are unreliable has been presented here. Judging the the description of the Toronto Sun
here it's an established and reliable media outlet.
Alaexis
¿question?
13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
|
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:RS says Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people
. I am alarmed by the fact that some editors do not see the problem with not distinguishing between news fact and opinion about the news. There is a very large one: opinion about the news is never considered reliable except for the opinion of the writer. I have done a fast survey of National Post online coverage -- nobody around here sells the print edition -- and find the problem is if anything worse that I thought. If while looking at an article that is definitely about a news event (the French election for example) the reader should click on a main menu item for "Canada" or "World", the resulting list of links seems to consistently contain more than 50% opinion pieces. Nor could I find a retraction policy, as per WP:RS at Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.
This is further discussed here; [45], here and About the Committee on Publication Ethics here and here. A lot of the publications that follow this policy are journals: Springer, Nature, British Medical Journal; however this standard is by no means limited to peer-reviewed publications. CBC has a corrections policy [46]. The Globe and Mail has a formal retraction policy [47] and the Washington Post has a form where readers can request corrections [48]. Even the very middlebrow USA Today has a corrections policy [49].
(*=labeled as comment)
I did not find any sort of retraction or editorial policy for the National Post. It also quotes the disparaged Blacklock's Reporter (see above) [50] and published a fawning review of a book by a writer at True North, which apparently is never RS, per comments elsewhere. [51].
On specific issues, I did not find any neutral news coverage of COVID vaccines at all, although perhaps there was some at the time. [52]* ("blind hate?) [53]*, [54]* [55] [56] [57]*
Coverage of the trucker protests of the vaccine mandates, which it called "Freedom Convoy", was extremely sympathetic. [58]*, [59]*, [60], [61]. The current coverage of the insurrectionist truckers charged with attempted murder of a police officer in the border blockade is more neutral and mostly rewritten from Canadian Press coverage, but still framed in a sympathetic manner: [62] [63] [64] Indigenous protests met rants about "handout culture" however, [1] and coverage of Gaza is lurid. [65], and not labelled as comment: “the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR.”.
In politics, the pattern persists: the language in news stories is far from neutral, and many opinion pieces are linked from the news menu, like this one [66]*, [67]*, [68]*, [69]*. Not labelled as opinion: [70]. Yesterday's lead article on the front page of the print edition, with a headline in 72pt type or possibly higher: Does Trudeau plan to put the squeeze on older home owners?* Today it is somebody calling for a boycott of Kentucky Fried Chicken for introducing halal chicken. Since there isn't a KFC within a couple of hundred miles of here at least -- maybe in Vancouver -- this couldn't be more irrelevant to the concern in my community right now: the next wildfire.
On climate change, Climate change in the Arctic is often framed through the lens of Canadian national interests, which downplays climate‐related social impacts that are already occurring at subnational political and geographical scales (Cunsolo Willox et al. [ 10] ; Trainor et al. [ 39] ). As such, the climate justice dimensions of climate change in the Arctic are often not being translated to audiences through (the National Post and Globe and Mail )
[2] while also undermining government efforts:The media is more interested in sensational and controversial stories than they are in simply supporting the status quo
[3]
Elinruby (
talk)
02:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I did not find any sort of retraction or editorial policy for the National Post, they do appear to issue corrections, even in their opinion section. One such correction from an opinion piece can be found here, and one for a wire story can be found here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article.
the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PRdoes appear in this piece, and that piece indeed is a news piece. But you are misrepresenting the quote as if it were in the publication's voice when it is not—it appears in quotation marks, and the full paragraph (
Still, jihadists believe that the destruction and civilian casualties are the cost necessary to destroy Israel, Kedar said. The Quaran preaches that dying for Islam is praiseworthy, he said, and therefore “the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR.”makes it incredibly clear that they are reporting a properly attributed quote from Mordechai Kedar.
References
Before everyone gets too excited voting that the National Post has no problems apart from its frequently vile and inappropriate comments, opinion and sometimes news, there's at least one issue where option 1 appears demonstrably inadequate: climate change. In this peer -reviewed, journal-hosted media review assessing 17 sources over 15 years across 5 countries (US, UK, AUS, CAN, NZ), the National Post came out as the hands down least objective source on climate change ... And that's with the UK's Daily Mail also in the running. The National Post was found to represent scientific consensus only 70.83% of the time, while 9.17% of the time it presented anthropogenic climate change and natural climatic variance as equally relevant (basically climate change denial-lite) and 20% of the time, in one-in-five articles, presented anthropogenic climate change as a negligible phenomena (full-throated climate change denial). So basically 30% of everything that the National Post publishes on climate change is unscientific nonsense. That alone should be worthy of Option 2 (additional considerations apply) on the count of: don't touch with a bargepole on climate change-related issues and related politics. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
In addition to news articles, the analysis included letters, editorials, and other publications that contained the keywords 'global warming' or 'climate change'. These latter units of analysis may be outside the bounds of journalistic norms—for example, the author of a letter or editorial may not follow guidelines on balance or 'truth' in reporting—but these still reflect the overall content of the sources in which they are published and, thereby, impact readers. In other words, the analysis lumps together news reporting alongside opinion pieces, and concludes that the paper (when including opinion pieces) does not do great on climate change. And that's no surprise for a newspaper that existed in the first decade of the 2000s and had a conservative editorial outlook (or had a conservative audience, considering that letters to the editor are included in the analysis). But that sort of study is somewhat useless here, since it muddles news reporting (which is WP:GREL) with opinion reporting (which, per WP:RSEDITORIAL, are
are rarely reliable for statements of fact), and we only care about the news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
ran beneath the headline “De-bunking climate and other varieties of alarmism.” A subhead stated that Moore’s book shows how environmental claims are “fake news and fake science.”In the interview, where the interviewee's views went unchallenged, the guy also misrepresented the research of actual climate scientists. When the newspaper was contacted to either retract the material or add a caveat to the articles promoting the book to let readers know they contained
“numerous demonstrable misrepresentations of scientific sources and findings”they did neither. Very editorially responsible. Iskandar323 ( talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Last year, the country recorded the worst fire season in its history. Drier and hotter conditions in many parts of the country caused by climate change have increased the risk of major fires in recent years, according to experts. Canada is currently battling 575 active fires with more than 400 considered out of control. Many fires have broken out in recent days, particularly in the west of the country that has experienced a heat wave.
Blair Feltmate, head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo, noted that these heavy rain events are driven by climate change that has already happened and is irreversible, so cities and their citizens must adapt. “We are not going backwards on climate change. We can slow it down but we can’t stop it,” Feltmate said. “So yes, we should be mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to slow down the rate of change, but also recognizing that we need to adapt to the extreme weather conditions that are upon us with increasing frequency; flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, etc.”
is a clear pattern, and I would definitely call that dilution? I'm a bit confused here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
There is considerable on-going dispute at Talk:Yasuke regarding the reliability of the source "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" by Thomas Lockley, which has been used as a citation in the article at various times, as well as cited by a number of tertiary sources which were utilized throughout the Wikipedia article. Chiefly, opponents of the inclusion of the Lockley source contend that because Lockley does not use in-text citations and that the source is categorized as popular history, that it should not be considered reliable. They point to the review by historian Roger W. Purdy and his criticism of Lockley's lack of in-text citations as making it hard to easily verify the claims. However, the proponents of the Lockley book have argued that Purdy still recommends the book in his review and explicitly states that he is not questioning the veracity of the scholarship and that while Purdy specifically calls out a number of elements of Lockley's book as incorrect, he does not call out the conceit that Yasuke is a samurai. Moreover, historian Jonathan Lopez-Vera's History of the Samurai also notes Yasuke as a samurai, as well as his Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los europeos which reads "El nombre que se le dio fue Yasuke (h. 1555-?), y desde ese momento acompañó siempre a Nobunaga como unaespecie de guardaespaldas. Cabe destacar que a partir de entonces dejó de ser un esclavo, puesto que al estar al servicio del daimyō recibió un estipendio como el resto de vasallos, obteniendo así la condición de samurái" (175-176). In Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos, the Lopez-Vera does utilize in-text citation. The dispute boils down to whether or not Lockley's assumption that Yasuke is a samurai is reliable for the purpose of the article, given the amount of tertiary sources that are citing Lockley. As neither party of the debate has made use of the RSN, I am bringing the issue up here in the hope of forming a consensus to put an end to the back-and-forth arguing about the reliability of the Lockley. Chrhns ( talk) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editor complained about
black supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera. They would like Wikipedia to ignore these sources because of an endless stream of unsupported theories about what a samurai truly was and about Yasuke. I agree with DarmaniLink: enough of this, it's ANI time. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
a historian at the University of Oxford. BBC interviewed Floyd Webb and Deborah DeSnoo, described as
filmmakers working on a documentaryabout Yasuke. CNN claimed that
Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan. Secondly, by interviewing and quoting Lockley, these sources have shown that they consider him to be an expert, a reliable source of information, and in doing so they have strengthened his status as an RS whose views are far more authoritative for Wikipedia than the views of us anonymous editors arguing to the contrary on a talk page. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 23:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
especially when there is any trouble in the scholarship? There has never been any scholarly debate on this. Apart from some very argumentative editors on the Yasuke discussion page, no one has ever denied that Yasuke was a samurai. The only reason it seems necessary to attribute the claim that Yasuke was a samurai to Lockley is the fact that Yasuke was a black man of African descent. But this is not a good reason: there were foreign samurai in Japan. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 08:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
"Content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it"
We publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted source material for themselves.
wrong or uninformed, did you have any reliable sources to the contrary, or did you rely only on your personal knowledge of the historical events in question? Because here we have editors arguing that they know that Yasuke was not a samurai "properly called", a samurai "in the strict sense of the word", but they cannot provide any sources to support their knowledge (see lastly this comment by DarmaniLink, who also removed the policy-based comment made by an unregistred editor).
findingof Lockley's research: it's just an undisputed statement of fact from a reliable source (subject-matter expert), which is also consistent with identical statements on the matter from several other academics (see Silver seren's excerpts from academic sources).
not a common conception outside of fiction, but Silver seren's source analysis suggests that it is also common in the English-speaking academic literature, apart from Lockley. Since you speak Japanese, may I suggest that you do some similar research on Japanese academic sources? That might be helpful. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 08:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
anyone who served a noble, even in a nonmilitary capacity, so that
a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a “samurai.”The fact that later on, in the 17th century, the samurai became a relatively closed and prestigious hereditary class is irrelevant to the question of Yasuke's status. We should use the modern and contemporary notion of samurai - a warrior of higher ranking, a
title for military servants of warrior families- which is certainly the notion used by the academic RSes referring to Yasuke as a samurai (Lockley, Lopez-Vera, E. Taylor Atkins, Esi Edugyan). Otherwise, it would be simply impossible to have a List of foreign-born samurai in Japan. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 09:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I've made lengthy posts detailing a proper, comprehensive definition of samurai and the importance of nobility (petty nobility?) with the samurai from its inception in the Kamakura period to its most fluid state during the Sengoku period to a more restrictive state in the Edo period, with a plethora of secondary sources, which you can read my post on a comprehensive definition of a samurai and initial analysis of Lockley, an additional reply to X0n under that in the Samurai status subsection, as well as comparing it to Lockley's definition of a samurai and lack of proper citation and comparing Lockley's definition to other academic definitions of samurai and related arguments. Just to be clear, the sources provided are by no means a comprehensive list, and was collected for the sake of time saving and demonstrating that I did not do WP:OR. In the future, when I get more time, I will look further for academic secondary sources that make these arguments as well (which I know of their existence but do not have at hand at the moment), and honestly it is already reflected in the Samurai wikipedia article, but nonetheless a consistent definition is required. When we talk about historical topics, we must use historical definitions, as modern definitions are not aligned with the past. As I noted before when @ Theozilla brought up that Pluto switched from planet status to dwarf planet status by the scientific community, this is a correct statement. However, that does not change the fact that Pluto was considered a planet historically before that definition change. We should not be using modern definitions for historical topics.
Also the thing I do not understand most about this entire argument is the insistence that we are using "editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information" for our contentions. We have made it abundantly clear that we are not, I do not care one way or the other if Yasuke was a samurai, but to paraphrase @ Eirikr, it has to be proven with proper citation and research for the sake of academic integrity. I keep seeing that Lockley was "peer reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts, who also support the claims in them," yet everytime Purdy is mentioned, his peer review is downplayed and completely diminished! And any time we try to bring up this as well as the lack of in-line text citations (which Purdy based his review off of), it is completely ignored. I do not know what else to say here, but the lack of acknowledgement and insistence on repeating the same thing over and over as some here are doing almost seems like desperation to get this topic settled as soon as possible, relying solely on academic background rather than the apparent poor research applied, which editors are allowed to make their own reasonable judgement on in accordance with WP:REPUTABLE, WP:SOURCEDEF, and WP:CONTEXTFACTS. I've still yet to see one that is still pushing Lockley as reliable to actually acknowledge these points.
Also just to quote Gitz, who seemingly is making implications on other editors intent by saying "Apparently the only reason why editors find Lockley's statement WP:EXCEPTIONAL is that Yasuke was black," this is not the reason why. The reason why it is an exceptional claim is that it was not the default status for Japanese people in Japan nor retainers/warriors. Toyotomi Hideyoshi is a prime example of this (which I go into detail in the diffs I posted) where he was explicitly stated as not a samurai and only properly became one with his marriage to his wife One in 1561 (at minimum, or his adoption by Oda senior vassals when he gained the surname Hashiba, the documentation on Hideyoshi is not so great before he gained the Hashiba surname), which took years of service with Nobunaga, and even as a personal sandal bearer for Nobunaga, he was still not considered a samurai, instead being an ashigaru. So yes, it is an exceptional claim on those grounds, not because of contemporary race politics, which I do not understand why people are still bringing up. Hexenakte ( talk) 15:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Although this lens may not be detailed enough for the academic, African Samurai’s lively writing style does offer the reader of popular history and historical fiction a glimpse of samurai values from late sixteenth-century Japan.
この時代、武士とそれ以外の身分の垣根は曖昧であり、本当に弥助が「サムライ」となったのかについては議論があるものの、少なくともその身一代においては、彼は間違いなく信長の家臣に取り立てられたと考えられている。
結局、信長と確認できる死骸は見つからなかった。
Ultimately, no remains confirmable as Nobunaga's were found.
I already mentioned in past discussions that I honestly don't care much about Lockley. Purdy's review is enough that we can set that source aside regardless, since we have plenty of other academic sources to use instead of him. Which I also already posted in the past and which Gitz linked to above. Here's excerpts from them:
"It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyō’s service and enjoyed the same comforts as other vassals. He was granted the rank of samurai and occasionally even shared a table with Nobunaga himself, a privilege few of his trusted vassals were afforded."
"...Yasuke's height and strength (which "surpassed that of ten men"), Nobunaga gave him a sword signifying bushi status. Yasuke served as Nobunaga's retainer and conversation partner for the last year of the warlord's life, defending Azuchi castle from the traitorous Akechi forces in 1582, where Nobunaga committed ritual suicide (seppuki). Although there are no known portraits of the African samurai, there are some pictorial depictions of dark-skinned men (in one of which he is sumo wrestling) from the early Edo period that historians speculate could be Yasuke."
...Yasuke already possessed skills as a warrior, as he is believed to have become a samurai after only one year, a remarkably short period of time. Samurai usually trained from boyhood. Nobunaga granted Yasuke the role of sword bearer in the royal guard, for he felt Yasuke had the "might as that of ten men." This was an era in which Japan was still suffering the aftershocks of a civil war in which hundreds of petty warlords had vied for control of the country."
"Nobunaga had believed that Yasuke must either be a guardian demon or a god; he was black as only temple statues were black. But touching Yasuke, hearing him speak his rich, inimitable foreigner's Japanese, Nobunaga realized he was only a man. He threw a feast in Yasuke's honour, made him gifts of money, and requested that they train him to become a samurai - an honor never before bestowed upon any foreigner. It would elevate him into Japan's warrior class, the top echelon of society. Yasuke accepted and was granted a house, a stipend, and even, in a turn that may have felt uncomfortable to him, his own manservant. That Yasuke had arrived fluent in Japanese was a great asset."
So take Lockley out and put these in instead. We can even use refquote with the quotes above so more explicit detail is included. Silver seren C 15:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
So take Lockley out and put these in instead.
avoid stating facts as opinions- we cannot attribute this statement to Lockley in the article text without manufacturing, whole-cloth, a sense of doubt that Yasuke was a samurai, which is entirely unsupported by any source; therefore, Lockley can reasonably be used to state unattributed in the article voice that Yasuke was a samurai (as the recent RFC on the topic concluded!); and nothing should be stated or implied that might cast doubt on that, anywhere in the article, unless actual sources unambiguously casting that doubt can be found. The quibbling over precisely how high-quality Lockley is misses the point; it is a sufficient source for unexceptional and uncontested statements like these. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
1) You are correct that yes, the collaboration effort itself would not make himself unreliable, if we had not been using his novel in the first place added on top of the fact it is being purported as objective fact. @ Eirikr has ordered Lockley's Japanese edition of the book, which is supposedly more academic, however Lockley did say in his interview (mentioned in one of the diff links I posted) that he did not translate it himself. That being said this edition is not being dismissed and will be given a proper analysis when Eirikr receives the book.
2) The sources themselves seem to be in contention with one another on what a samurai is, regardless if they agree or not on whether Yasuke is a samurai. This only makes the case more confusing as more sources are being added in support of the positive claim of his samurai status, since as I said before, we must understand the historical usage of the word rather than our modern understanding of it, as they are completely distinct.
3) And this is exactly why I brought up Toyotomi Hideyoshi. I apologize for forgetting to link one of my diff links regarding that (more specifically here in this topic for other diff links), but we must keep in mind I have been talking about the de jure stipulations which have largely stayed the same from the Kamakura to the Muromachi all the way throughout the Sengoku period, with its enforcement on how social mobility works varying, which is the de facto.
[According to Morillo, there] does seem to result in confusion even among academics [on the definition of samurai] (at least around 2001 when the chapter was written).
Kugyō (公卿) is a collective term for the very few most powerful men attached to the court of the Emperor of Japan in pre-Meiji eras. Even during those years in which the court's actual influence outside the palace walls was minimal, the hierarchic organization persisted. (Emphasis mine)
Standing at more than six feet tall and described as having the strength of 10 men, Yasuke left a strong impression on Nobunaga. “It seems like he was a confidant, Nobunaga is recorded as talking often with him,” Lockley said in a follow-up email. “He was also a weapon bearer, and probably served in some kind of bodyguard capacity.” Lockley also explained that in Yasuke’s time, the idea of a “samurai” was a very fluid concept. “You don’t have to possess any particular killing skills to be a samurai,” the author said. “Anybody who took up weapons on behalf of a lord could technically call themself a samurai, or could be called a samurai.”
I will also empathize on how difficult it is to pierce the language barrier for claims at times, as I recently heard a claim of "Sengoku Jidai Samurai didn't fight on horseback outside of the Takeda because Japanese horses were generally less capable in combat" and intuitively knew it was wrong and guessed why, but it was painful to dig out the academic sources discussing unit organizational changes, Japanese horses, etc in a way which could be explained to an American audience whose main exposure to the material would be in video games like Samurai Warriors and Total War Shogun - or in Youtube series like the erroneous Extra Credits series on the subject.
Source text: 然に彼黒坊被成御扶持、名をハ号弥助と、さや巻之のし付幷私宅等迄被仰付、依時御道具なともたさせられ候、
Lockley's translation: This black man called Yasuke was given a stipend, a private residence, etc., and was given a short sword with a decorative sheath. He is sometimes seen in the role of weapon bearer.
Translation on Wikipedia article: A black man was taken on as a vassal by Nobunaga-sama and received a stipend. His name was decided to be Yasuke. He was also given a short sword and a house. He was sometimes made to carry Nobunaga-sama's tools.
Going back to the source material provided earlier today by @ Thibaut, the Japanese uses the term さや巻 (sayamaki), also spelled in modern dictionaries as 鞘巻 (sayamaki, literally saya "scabbard, sheath" + maki "winding", in reference to decorations on the sheath). If you can read Japanese, the Japanese Wikipedia article at ja:短刀 describes the sayamaki as a specific kind of tantō. See also the entries here at Kotobank, further describing this as a kind of 腰刀 (koshi-gatana, "hip-sword").
However, a sayamaki is not any kind of knife or dagger that is smaller than a wakizashi. The main difference between the sayamaki and the wakizashi is not size, but rather that the sayamaki has no tsuba or hilt-guard, whereas the wakizashi does have one.
Source text:
1 助けること。扶助すること。
2 主君から家臣に給与した俸禄。江戸時代には、<人1日玄米5合を標準とし、この1年分を米または金で給与した。
3 俸禄を支給して臣下とすること。
Machine translation:
1. To help. To provide assistance.
2 A stipend paid by a lord to his vassals. During the Edo period, the standard was 5 cups of brown rice per person per day, and this year's worth was paid in rice or gold.
3 To pay a stipend and make him a vassal.
I do think that this is a reductive answer, but given the context of the article I understand why. I would say that while the example of Hideyoshi shows how much effort he expended to legitimize his rise up the social ladder, it could likewise be said that Yasuke having been given property, a position in Nobunaga's retinue, and other context is the root of many historians viewing that if he was not formally considered a samurai via the exact customs and noble requirements commonly attached to that rank, he was clearly of a status that was indistinguishable from such rank. I would even contend that one could say Nobunaga's awarding Yasuke property could demonstrate intent to have Yasuke meet the basic expectations.
Source text: 甲賀の伴正林と申者年齡十八九に候歟能相撲七番打仕候次日又御相撲有此時も取すぐり則御扶持人に被召出鐵炮屋與四郞折節御折檻にて籠へ被入置彼與四郞私宅資財雜具共に御知行百石熨斗付の太刀脇指大小二ツ御小袖御馬皆具其に拜領名譽の次第也
Academic translation: A man from Kōka whose name was Tomo Shōrin, some eighteen or nineteen years old, showed good skills and scored seven wins. The next day, too, Nobunaga put on sumo matches, and Tomo again outclassed the others. As a result, Nobunaga selected Tomo to become his stipendiary. At about that time Nobunaga had to take disciplinary measures against a gunsmith by the name of Yoshirō, whom he locked up in a cage. Now Tomo Shōrin received the private residence, household goods, and other possessions of this Yoshirō. Nobunaga also gave him an estate of one hundred koku, a sword and a dagger with gold-encrusted sheaths, a lined silk garment, and a horse with a complete set of gear—glorious recognition for Tomo.
Again, I have to reiterate, I am not arguing for the explicit statement that Yasuke is not a samurai in the Wikipedia article, I am simply not for explicitly stating it as an objective fact. I have stated many times my willingness to accept Lockley's work as a claim, just not as a fact, because of the many issues that Lockley has that was already stated. The arguments I have laid out are yes, they are for the definition of samurai, and are more fit to be discussed for the Samurai article, however I have not suggested to have changed anything in this article, not even once, throughout those arguments I have made. I do not think it is therefore considered WP:SYNTH since most of what I was arguing for was for the sake of the discussion, as we are in a talk page and not editing the actual article. I hope you understand where I am coming from, and I apologize if I did not make this clear enough.
• From what we have gathered from verifying the claims in those sources, Lopez-Vera lacked the proper in-line citation for Yasuke, and it was limited to a box in one page, as his paper was not focused on Yasuke but rather the "History of the Samurai", and because of that I believe in accordance with WP:CONTEXTFACTS that verification is needed for this one.
Do note that as long as these claims are attributed and not stated as an objective fact, I would be fine with their inclusion in the Yasuke article. If we were to give Yasuke a title that is unattributed, it should be a retainer/attendant/retainer attendant, as these claims seem to be reflected in several of the secondary academic sources mentioned and are properly cited and supported, then we can put the positive claim of his samurai-ness in a separate section of the article where it is "claimed" and attributed. I would very much agree to this arrangement instead. Hexenakte ( talk) 15:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
verifying the claims in those sources,
agree[ing] with the [source's] commentand correcting the source's
factual errors and blatant misattributions, is not our job. Per WP:NOR, we should disseminate the existing body of knowledge on a subject as reflected in reliable sources, not add to it and improve it by correcting what reliable sources claim. Your interpretation of WP:CONTEXTFACTS is simply wrong. This guideline does not say or imply that editors are entitled to review and validate or falsify the claims made by the sources; it says that in order to understand what those claims are, we need to take context into account, e.g., a literature professor who uses an analogy with Einstein's theory of relativity to explain a philosophical concept is not a reliable source on Einstein's theory of relativity. How can you argue that Jonathan Lopez-Vera's book History of the Samurai cannot be used as a reliable source on Yazuke's status as a samurai because of WP: CONTEXTFACTS? This is what Lopez-Vera says:
. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyō’s service and enjoyed the same comforts as other vassals. He was granted the rank of samurai and occasionally even shared a table with Nobunaga himself, a privilege few of his trusted vassals were afforded
As has already been pointed out to you many times, this is not the kind of source analysis we are supposed to be doing according to policy.
Your interpretation of WP:CONTEXTFACTS is simply wrong. This guideline does not say or imply that editors are entitled to review and validate or falsify the claims made by the sources; it says that in order to understand what those claims are, we need to take context into account, e.g., a literature professor who uses an analogy with Einstein's theory of relativity to explain a philosophical concept is not a reliable source on Einstein's theory of relativity. How can you argue that Jonathan Lopez-Vera's book History of the Samurai cannot be used as a reliable source on Yazuke's status as a samurai because of WP: CONTEXTFACTS?
The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc.
Per WP:NOR, we should disseminate the existing body of knowledge on a subject as reflected in reliable sources, not add to it and improve it by correcting what reliable sources claim.
[...]editors are [not] entitled to review and validate or falsify the claims made by the sources[...]
The Southern Tang is not the Tang. Claiming that an incident in 976 happened "at the court of the Tang Emperor" is problematic wording. Moreover, the Southern Tang fell in 975, as described at Song conquest of Southern Tang.
Russell himself dates the Tang Dynasty as ending in 907, and the mention of 976 is in a quote that Russell includes from a different work, "(Coupland, quoted in Filesi 1962, 21)". Filesi 1962 is listed in Russell's bibliography as China and Africa in the Middle Ages, which I cannot currently track down (though I will look more later).
Manatsha does not cite Russell, but rather "(Tsujiuchi, 1998; Wyatt, 2010; Welsh, 2012)" for the mention of kuronbo and kunlun.
Tsujiuchi makes no mention of kurombo / kuronbo / kurobo anywhere in the body of the text, and only mentions kurobo in the bibliography as part of a title. No mention of kunlun.
The actual source for the "Tang Court" claim can be traced back to
, the start of a paragraph where an anon gave us a link to the sources where this content originated. Apparently, somewhere along the line of authors playing "telephone", the original statement was alterered. ‑‑
Eiríkr Útlendi │
Tala við mig
22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yasuke was the first samurai of African descent, if not the first non-Japanese samurai in Japanese history(Google translation). The author is described as a "prospective Japanologist at Freie Universität Berlin" [80]) and JapanDigest is a specialised online magazine published by the Japanese media company News Digest International. The article looks like an accurate summary of published material and primary sources on Yasuke. Among the former, the article relies heavily on Lockley, plus a couple of essays published in the "Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies", 1998, which have already been analysed on the talk page (they neither call Yasuke a "samurai" nor exclude that he became a samurai).
A former slave born on the East African coast in the mid-16th century, Yasuke became the first foreign samurai in Japanese history(DeepL transaltion). The article was published before the publication of Lockley's book and has nothing to do with it. It is based on a French book about Yasuke as a samurai, Yasuke, le samurai noir by Serge Bilé (Owen, 2018), which is defined by the publisher as an "essay, fictional biography" (essai, biographie romancée) [81]. The article also includes an interview with Julien Peltier, author of "Samouraïs, dix destins incroyables" (Prisma, 2016).
Weiterführende Literatur ["Continuing Literature", i.e. "See also"]:
- Lockley, Thomas & Girard Geoffrey (2019): African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan, Herausgeber: Hanover Square Press
- Tsujiuchi, Makoto (1998): Historical Context of Black Studies in Japan, in: Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, 30, No. 2, pp. 95-100
- Wright, David (1998): The use of Race and Racial Perceptions among Asians and Blacks: The case of the Japanese and African Americans, in: Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)« Il est aujourd’hui impossible de connaître la fin de Yasuke, explique Julien Peltier, auteur de Samouraïs, dix destins incroyables (éd. Prisma, 2016). Yasuke était un homme respecté et on peut aussi envisager qu’il soit resté au Japon. Mais c’est spéculatif. »
“Today it is impossible to know the end of Yasuke,” explains Julien Peltier, author of Samurai, ten incredible destinies (ed. Prisma, 2016). “Yasuke was a respected man and we can also imagine that he remained in Japan. But that's speculative.”
Here is a quote from Lockley's book - the page where Lockley reconstructs Yasuke's status as a samurai (or better a " hatamoto", he claims). I know nothing about Japanese history, but it is clear that this is one of the most academic and least fictional parts of the book. This does not mean that Lockley is right in his reconstruction, of course, but anyone can see that it is a well-reasoned and deliberate assessment on his part.
Lockley on Yasuke as a samurai
|
---|
During the fifteenth century and The Age of the Country at War, the endless battles took their toll on the limited ranks of the traditional samurai families, and many daimyō lords decided they needed to expand their armies. Gone were the days when a few hundred highly trained, magnificently attired samurai squared off against each other with swords in battle. By Yasuke’s era, the armies were tens of thousands strong and the need for cheap soldiers had provisionally overridden the need to keep peasants exclusively growing rice. Many men now regularly dropped their tools and lofted spears when they were called upon, leaving the women, elderly and children to work the fields until they returned, if they ever did. Eventually, as the wars expanded in scope, the distances covered made returning home regularly an impossibility. Many of the peasants now found themselves receiving regular wages and better arms from their lords and they held an ambiguous dual status as farmers and lower-ranking samurai, known as ashigaru. (The key difference from traditional samurai being that ashigaru were not normally permanently retained, nor did they hold fiefs.) This development led in many areas to a more assertive lower class with a sense of their own power and military utility. These farmers had now also been to war, and held a spear or fired a gun. No longer would they be so easily bullied around by the samurai. They wanted a bigger portion of the proverbial rice bowl, perhaps even with some real rice in it. Thus, following The Age of the Country at War, there was no shortage of “samurai” in Japan. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps up to half a million, could have claimed the epithet, though few would have any real family pedigree beyond the last couple of generations in the elite warrior world. A daimyō could call upon both direct personal retainers such as Yasuke, and part-time ashigaru warriors to swell his ranks. The direct personal retainers could be classified into four groups. Family members, hereditary vassals, officers of the levies and hatamoto, who were the lord’s personal attendants. Family members and vassals who held their own fiefs were expected to bring their own samurai and ashigaru with them when called upon to fight. It is not known exactly which rank Yasuke held, but it would probably have been equivalent to hatamoto. The hatamoto saw to the lord’s needs, handling everything from finance to transport, communications to trade. They were also the bodyguards and pages to the warlord, traveling with him and spending their days in his company. |
Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 15:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Lockley on the Samurai as caste
|
---|
The Samurai as caste: In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. At the end of The Age of the Country at War, around the end of the sixteenth century, most of those who’d fought on the samurai side in the civil wars, even some of the peasants, pirates and ninja, were classified as “samurai” in a formalized caste structure with the samurai at the top—a hereditary warrior/administrator/ruling class. The caste ranking continued with peasants, artisans and merchants, who took the lowest status (because they lived off everybody else’s hard work). Outside of the scope of the caste system were eta, impure people who dealt with death, and hinin, nonpersons such as ex-convicts and vagrants who worked as town guards, street cleaners or entertainers. Legally speaking, an eta was worth one-seventh of a human being. The Age of the Country at War had been probably the most socially fluid period since the eighth century. Able men and women, like Yasuke, were able to rise through the ranks due to the chaos. No more. From this time until their caste was abolished by law in 1873, the samurai were forbidden (in most of the country) to farm or engage in mercantile activity and had to live in castle towns rather than country villages. This was the time when the word samurai takes on its modern meaning of a warrior caste rather than actual warrior role. In the virtual absence of war or any challenge from below between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, the samurai caste had little warring to do and the martial arts we now associate with this class were codified and formed the roots of modern sports like kendo, judo and aikido. Samurai were still furnished with a stipend by their lord, determined by rank, although over time, the value of the stipend was devalued so much by inflation that many samurai families were forced to find other ways to make ends meet. A few, such as the Mitsui family, founders of the modern-day multinational conglomerate, gave up their samurai swords and lowered themselves to merchant status. For the overwhelming majority, this was a step too far, and they starved or lived in abject poverty rather than “lower” themselves. |
Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 20:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
According to this page, [82] Lockley spread different information in Japanese and English, and while his writings in Japanese are mostly based on historical facts, his writings in English seem to be full of fanciful statements.-- SLIMHANNYA ( talk) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
この時代,武士とそれ以外の身分の垣根は曖味であり、本当に弥助が「サムライ」となったのかについては議論があるものの、少なくともその身一代においては、彼は間違いなく信長の家臣に取り立てられたと考えられている。
In this period, the boundaries between samurai and other statuses were blurred, and although there is some debate as to whether Yasuke really became a 'samurai', it is believed that he was definitely taken on as a vassal/retainer of Nobunaga, at least in his own lifetime.
I've never read an author that wrote his work in the form of a novel.- some of the olds like me may remember Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Please watch this video [84] with English subtitles. This video shows in detail the contradictions between the descriptions in the primary sources that describe Yasuke and the descriptions in several books that are secondary sources presented by Lockley. He changes the descriptions in the Japanese and English books, and in the English books he often presents speculation and fantasy as historical fact. Therefore, I do not believe that Thomas Lockley's sources or sources based on his sources are reliable. All of his sources should be rejected. Rather than the issue of whether or not to describe Yasuke as a samurai, I think a more serious issue is the spread of Lockley's speculative and fanciful descriptions and statements to the world as historical fact.-- SLIMHANNYA ( talk) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Lockley & Girard's works "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" & "Yasuke: The true story of the legendary African Samurai" clearly contain a significant amount of speculative or fictional historical content which is not based on, or is contradicted by, known historical record. Examples include: Yasuke's origins in North East Africa (contradicted by Solier); Yasuke's childhood training as a Habshi warrior (unsourced); Yasuke's position as a bodyguard for Valignano (unsourced); Yasuke's travels in India and China prior to arriving in Japan (speculative); Japanese viewing Yasuke as a god, demon or Buddha (unsourced); Yasuke's Japanese language prowess (presented as greater than in the sources); Yasuke training in Japanese martial arts (unsourced); Yasuke taking Oda Nobunaga's head after the Honnoji Incident (attributed to "Oda family legend"); Yasuke's involvement in battles (only his being attacked while with Nobunaga's brother after the Honnoji attack is in the sources); Yasuke's travels after Oda's death (unsourced); A black man, possibly Yasuke, being represented on a lacquerware inkstone box (speculative, erroneous).
A
staff review from the Peabody Institute Library includes the following:
Yasuke’s story is extremely compelling and Lockley tells it in a fast pace intimate fashion. Sometimes a little to intimate. He often refers to Yasuke’s facial expressions in different situations and it always made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end “how could he know that?” Historical documents are rarely that specific. And it turns out that much of the specifics story of the book were based on educated guesses. Most of what is known of about Yasuke comes from letters written by the Jesuits which are admittedly detailed for the time. He is also occasionally referenced by Japanese diarists. But facial expressions and discussions of what he was thinking are the authors creation not that of the historical record. ... So if you are prepared to take some of Yasuke’s story with a grain of salt it will be a very enjoyable and educational read.
I have no idea how reliable the Peabody Institute Library is, but that seems a fair enough summary.
Lockley & Girard's works are not always clear as to what is known, sourced, fact, and what is "educated guesses" or speculative fiction.
Given the amount of speculative or unsupported content, it is difficult to conceive of the book being generally reliable on the subject of Yasuke.
Same or similar speculations are also present in Lockley's interviews & presentations in support of his work, which would suggest that these too are not generally reliable on the subject.
As the writer of the only book on Yasuke, Lockley's views have had heavy influence on a broad range of downstream sources; including the tertiary news & current affairs sources mentioned above, which might normally be considered reliable. Yasuke as (super?)heroic warrior samurai is a nice story which suits the present Zeitgeist, and has captured the imagination. Given the context, however, we should consider that these news sources are not situationally or contextually reliable for historical fact. Per
WP:BESTSOURCES (and
Hemiauchenia's comments elsewhere), we should be preferring academic scholarship over current affairs sources.
Suggest that Lockley's views, where & if included, should be attributed, unless corroborated by other independent scholarship; and that, where corroborated, we might prefer that other scholarship.
Rotary Engine
talk
13:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Lockley's viewpoints in the Yasuke article, provided that they are clearly attributed to Lockley. We have a few experts (Lockley, Lopez-Vera and Atkins) who speak of Yasuke as a samurai, and in the case of Lockley they also explain their reasons for doing so. Then we have an abundance of news sources (BBC, CNN, TIME, etc.) and tertiary sources (Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine) that do the same; some of these sources predate Lockley's book (see Le Monde and Serge Bilé's book). On the other hand, we don't have any reliable scholar or news organisation that explicitly disagrees with them. I feel that if we were to attribute "Yasuke as a samurai" to Lockley, we would be suggesting that this view is controversial, as if there were an academic debate about Yasuke's status, which isn't the case: there is a huge debate on the WP talk pages, as we can see, and in various online communities, blogs, social media, but no controversy among historians.
In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. Obviously Yasuke did not belong to a caste and was not a hereditary warrior known for his martial skills and code of honor. And yet it is possible that for professional historians there is nothing wrong with calling him samurai.
On the other hand, we don't have any reliable scholar or news organisation that explicitly disagrees with them. I feel that if we were to attribute "Yasuke as a samurai" to Lockley, we would be suggesting that this view is controversial, as if there were an academic debate about Yasuke's status, which isn't the case: there is a huge debate on the WP talk pages, as we can see, and in various online communities, blogs, social media, but no controversy among historians.
Why is there no controversy between historians? There may be several plausible explanations for this, and one is the following: it may well be that in English (and in languages other than Japanese) there is nothing wrong with calling a warrior of high rank and prestige, who belongs to the retinue of a warlord and has direct personal relations with his lord, 'samurai'. It is possible that this is particularly true before the Edo period if, as Lockley claims, In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. Obviously Yasuke did not belong to a caste and was not a hereditary warrior known for his martial skills and code of honor. And yet it is possible that for professional historians there is nothing wrong with calling him samurai.
Let's make an analogy to clarify the point. We call, as many reliable sources do, Julius Caesar a "general". Yet the Romans called him something else: dux and imperator (as well as by the names of other offices he held: dictator, consul, tribune of the plebs, pontifex maximus, etc.). Caesar was not a general in the technical sense that the word takes on in modern armies (say, someone below the minister of war or defence and above lieutenants and captains). But he was a general in the sense of supreme commander of the army, just as Yasuke was a high-ranking swordsman in feudal Japan who lent his services to a warlord. Is there any scholarly controversy about Caesar's status as a general? No, therefore we don't write "According to John Doe, Caesar was a general", because that would be misleading and wrong, and would only serve to appease those online communities that have built an ideological trench around the word "general". We stick to the sources, that's it.
In general, I think WP articles are the better the closer they are to the sources. People should learn to read our articles not as 'The Definitive Truth' about something, but as a tentative, source-based description that can be used to get a flavour of the topic and start researching by going to the sources.
celui du roman, c'est-à-dire que l'on insiste sur la narration parfois en introduisant des épisodes non avérésemphasis added. Bilé suffers from the same issues as Lockley & Girard; his work is explicitly speculative. This is not a bad thing; works of speculative or functional history should be produced, but we should not regard them as reliable for unattributed factual statements. Bilé, Girard & Lockley might well be correct, but the speculative nature of their works means those works (and derivatives thereof) are not reliable.
Why is there no controversy between historians?
various online communities, blogs, social mediaand any
ideological trenchesthey might have dug. I care about us, ourselves; and how we accurately reflect the quality of sources and sourced content.
In general, I think WP articles are the better the closer they are to the reliable sources, with that one, important addition.
Yasuke was a high-ranking swordsman in feudal Japan who lent his services to a warlordThere are no historical sources which support the italicised text. Descriptions of Yasuke as a warrior or swordsman appear only in speculative histories. Lockley assumes warrior and backfills his rationale. This is particularly apparent with his heterodox claim in African Samurai's end notes that Yasuke is originally from the Sudan or Ethiopia, in part because the Makua people of Mozambique are too peaceful. Rotary Engine talk 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Although there are no known portraits of the "African samurai," there are some pictorial depictions [...]
Also in the article body the claim is presented as commonly accepted by "historians":Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people
I don't think these two quotations support the view that there's a controversy among historians about Yasuke's status as a samurai. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 06:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank. This is where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates.
There is no consensus among Japanese historians that Yasuke was a Samuraiis not proved. Neither they nor others have yet provided a quotation from a single Japanese or non-Japanese historian stating that Yasuke was not a samurai. On the other hand, Lockley writes "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians" and "historians think that". Is he wrong, is he lying? We don't know - since he's signing the article in Britannica, he's taking full scientific responsibility for what he claims (contrary to us anonymous WP editors); if he's wrong, someone would or could contradict him. But until this happens, we have a reliable source saying that the view commonly accepted by contemporary historians is that Yasuke was a samurai. Frankly, that's all we need. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 09:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Without getting into the merits of Lockley himself I do not think his work should be dismissed because it is “popular history” which is a somewhat nebulous term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, for God's sake. Purdy doesn't specifically "contend with" (and you better look up contend in a dictionary) that point, he "contends with" the entire book:
The idea that we'd use something like this as a fact source is just laughable. E Eng 13:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I've been unwillingly following this discussion because I have RSN, ANI and (after commenting there some years ago) Eirikr's Wiktionary talkpage on my watchlist. On one hand, I've seen Eirikr's great work on Japanese entries, and how he and Hexenakte have dug through primary sources, and as a person, living my life, I'm inclined to trust that when he says the historical sources he's looked through don't call Yasuke by the Japanese term that reflects the narrower interpretation of 'samurai', that's true... but as a Wikipedia editor, writing Wikipedia, I know we can only say what's verifiable in reliable sources (including modern, non-contemporary ones, as mentioned above w.r.t to Caesar), not editorial original research. Many sources (even independent of Lockley) are cited above by Silverseren and others, saying Yasuke was a samurai.
I have not seen a reliable source (only tweets) presented that says "Yasuke wasn't a samurai". Even Purdy's review of Lockley doesn't dispute that: some editors say even Purdy seems to accept Yasuke as a samurai, others argue Purdy's mention of Yasuke's samurai-ness shouldn't be taken as agreeing he was a samurai, but no-one can show that Purdy or any Reliable Source states Yasuke wasn't a samurai. (As the claim of Yasuke being a samurai is the very title of Lockley's work, it seems implausible Purdy or anyone else would've forgotten to dispute it, had they meant to, but more importantly, even if the reason no RS say something is that they all forgot to say it... we can't say it.)
Our policies specifically say not to "attribute" facts like this, which many RS report and none dispute, as if they were personal opinions (as some have suggested here); we have to present them as facts. (Attributing the statement to Lockley would be particularly incorrect given the other sources saying the same thing.)
We can indeed hope the attention on him will prompt scholars to write new reliable sources which either support or contradict the idea that he was a samurai, but... This has been putting me in mind of the
Timothy Messer-Kruse spat, where he wanted to change Wikipedia to say "the truth" but couldn't do that until his (Reliable) book came out, and then Wikipedia got bad press for being so resistant to "correct" changes... and yet, when we and reliable sources looked into it, it was determined based on the totality of available reliable sources that what we'd been saying was broadly more correct than what Kruse was saying, and so our article is still much closer to the scholarly consensus than to some of Kruse's outlier claims.
Since several RS have discussed Yasuke and called him a samurai and none have disputed it yet, our article should continue to reflect the fact that RS call him a samurai, until and unless the 'expected' new RS come out... and as with Kruse, it's notably possible those new RS will conclude the same thing that reliable sources so far have concluded, that he was a samurai.
As to the specific point which started this RSN discussion, I find Gitz's point above persuasive, that the number of other reliable sources which have treated Lockley as a subject-matter expert (including now Encyclopedia Britannica, which had him write their article) is suggestive that he is indeed an expert (until such time as the contradictory sources some people think will materialize do materialize), but as Silverseren and others said, even if we dismiss Lockley's African Samurai, or even other works by Lockley, we still have other sources making the same claim and (again) no RS claiming otherwise. If people think that Lockley's Britannica article, Lockley's Japanese article, Lopez-Vera, and/or Atkins are better sources than Lockley's African Samurai, I have no problem with just citing the sentences about Yasuke being a samurai to those works instead.
As for the question of other content which is currently sourced only to Lockley's African Samurai: if no other sources for it can be found, I humbly suggest it would be best to start a separate discussion very specifically and narrowly about those other non-samurai claim(s), because the odds of anyone reaching or divining a consensus about that kind of secondary issue in this long discussion (not to mention its other half over on AN), focussed as it is mostly on the samurai claim, seem low.
-sche (
talk)
20:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
From Geographical v91n6 (June 2019) p. 55:
Needless to say, a source with a scholarly approach (i.e. not Lockley) is an absolute requirement for this samurai claim. I'll also point out that only one major academic library anywhere owns a copy. Add in Purdy and honestly, there's nothing to discuss here. E Eng 17:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Purdy's review notably also refers to Yasuke as having been a Samurai in the opening paragraph of his review: "In this turbulent era, the authors introduce Yasuke, a black African brought to Japan by the Jesuits and presented as a gift to arguably the most powerful feudal lord at the time, Oda Nobunaga, who raised him to the rank of samurai." As well as his summary of the content: "Part 2, “Samurai,” ... During this fifteen-month period, Nobunaga elevated Yasuke to samurai rank, and the two formed a close bond. The section ends with Yasuke defending Nobunaga against the warriors of the traitorous Akechi Mitsuhide at the warlord’s Kyoto stronghold, Honno-ji Temple." One could interpret the latter as just restating Lockley's unsourced conjecture, but contrast it to how he writes of Lockley's other conjecture immediately after where that is made explicitly clear: "The final section, “Legend,” includes a speculative chapter on Yasuke’s activities after the death of Nobunaga — Lockley and Girard suggest he joined the forces that Nobunaga’s successor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, dispatched to conquer Korea—and a chapter on Yasuke’s post-Nobunaga legacy and reinvention in the mass media." Purdy's review ... does show that he seems to agree with the attribution of Samurai - and that he is familiar with the requisite primary sources of Yasuke enough to have cast doubt on this claim if he did not also agree. Purdy's primary issue with Lockley is that the sources are all shoved into a 'recommended' and 'associated' reading section at the back of the book, with any research lockley did not being able to be built upon by others.
As for the amount of books Lockley has published, the complete list is:
- A Gentleman from Japan: The Untold Story of an Incredible Journey from Asia to Queen Elizabeth’s Court Hardcover – May 21, 2024
- The Women Who Built Japanese History 東京書籍, Mar 30, 2022
- Japanese Culture and History Tokyo Shoseki, Aug 1, 2019
- 英語で読む外国人がほんとうに知りたい日本文化と歴史 東京書籍, Jul 24, 2019 (ISBN: 4487812887)
- African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan Hanover Square Press (Harper Collins), May 2, 2019 (ISBN: 9781335141026)
- 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍 ロックリー トーマス (Original Author(s): ロックリー トーマス) 太田出版, Jan 25, 2017 (ISBN: 9784778315566)
... Lockley's book has been at multiple academic talks and is in Academic Libraries and in professional development reading groups, some of which are at highly reputable and respectable institutions such as Berkley.
Lockley's book was reviewed by John Rodzvilla of Emerson College in "Library Journal. Mar 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 2, p128-128", with Rodzvilla writing: "Lockley (Nihon Univ., Sch. of Law, Tokyo) and Girard (Cain’s Blood) use primary sources to piece together Yasuke’s immersion into Japanese culture with a novelistic history that takes place at the height of one of Japan’s most important cultural and political moments ... Highly recommended"
And again, in "Library Journal. Winter 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 12, p80-80" as an "Essential Title in Social Studies".
Symphony Regalia ( talk) 15:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
To the other sources mentioned, (Britannica, Lopez-Vera) ALL of them lead back source-wise to Lockley's books
I don't quite understand why the book's inclusion and use in academic talks and libraries would also give it more credit as a primary source, as it still ... not a peer reviewed scholarly article.
This source ( Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential) is cited in Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war, Casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, List of genocides, Israel–Hamas war, Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war, Gaza genocide, Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war, and Palestinian genocide accusation, generally for its estimate of a death toll in the war of 186,000. I've decided to open this discussion here as this is a more central location than any of those articles.
My impression is that this source isn't sufficiently reliable for this estimate.
The lethal burden of armed conflict in 2004–07 was many times greater than the number of direct conflict deaths. A reasonable average estimate would be a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts, which would represent at least 200,000 indirect conflict deaths per year, and possibly many more.This is particularly focused on the 2004–07 time period and says a four-to-one ratio is a "reasonable average estimate", not a "conservative estimate".
For these reasons I'm inclined to remove the source, but I'm taking this here first as I expect this may be controversial. Will also be notifying the talk pages of all relevant articles. Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)This ‘reasonable estimate’ is based on the assumed under-counting of combat deaths, and conservative assumptions about indirect deaths. The figure is explained in more detail below.
A reasonable average estimate would be a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts". It is also quoted elsewhere: "
One path forward in the case of the post-9/11 wars is to generate a rough estimate by applying the Geneva Declaration Secretariat’s average ratio of four indirect for every one direct death...Across all the war zones, therefore, using an average four to one ratio can generate a reasonable and conservative estimate" (further evidence is inside that report). I trust that Berchanhimez will now stop accusing the number 4 of being a "feel good number". VR (Please ping on reply) 07:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Out of the authors, only Martin McKee seems to have any expertise on excess deaths; both Rasha Khatib and Salim Yusuf study cardiologyis not correct. I'm not sure why expertise in excess deaths would be the measure, but in any event Khatib and Yusuf do more than just study cardiology. Khatib has a PhD in clinical epidemiology, according to one bio has "70+ peer-reviewed journal publications" and is a principal investigator of the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological study, a study of 225,000 participants in 1,000+ communities in 27 countries. According to another bio, she leads a team of epidemiologists and biostatisticians. Salim Yusuf, according to the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame [92]: "The leading North American clinical trialist, Dr. Salim Yusuf’s epidemiologic work in more than 60 countries shows the majority of risks of both cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease are attributable to the same few risk factors. His large-scale studies involving several hundreds of thousands of individuals in dozens of countries have changed the way some of the world’s most deadly health conditions are prevented, treated and managed." All three authors seem very well-qualified to estimate indirect deaths.
For instance, the Geneva Declaration Secretariat’s review of prior conflicts found that indirect deaths have, for most conflicts since the 1990s, been three to fifteen-fold higher than direct deaths, and suggest a ratio of four to one as a “conservative” estimate. There are reasons to think this ratio could be on the low end in Gaza given, among other things, the protracted and brutal siege." VR (Please ping on reply) 07:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
It has been frozen since NOVEMBER 2023.Where are you getting your facts from? You know there is this website called Wikipedia that has an article called Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war that has this graph... Levivich ( talk) 15:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The Japan Times is briefly mentioned in a discussion at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_247#Reliable_sources_for_Japanese-related_articles , but I don't see it in the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
There is also a The Japan Times#Controversy section in the article about the newspaper, but outside of this mention and several comments online (Reddit, personal blogs, etc.) I can't find a reliable assessment.
The context of the ask is this article: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2024/05/25/digital/yasuke-assasins-creed-samurai/
The article previously contained information that Sakujin Kirino fact-checked the book "African Samurai" by Thomas Lockley, which was proven not to be true and later amended. In addition, the language and viewpoint of the article appears very one-sided and contains some factual errors (for instance, "he [Yasuke] was addressed as “tono” (literally, “lord” or “master”)" - primary sources show this was contemporary speculation, not statement of fact).
For the purpose of this thread I am interested purely in The Japan Times as a reliable source:
- If it's "situationally" reliable, which sections are more reliable?
- Can individual claims be considered reliable?
- Can we add the newspaper to the list of Perennial sources? SmallMender ( talk) 18:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not about never getting anything wrong ever. And in this case they issued a correction, which is what RSes are supposed to do when they make a mistake. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I posted this story from the Signpost last month. Things have evolved a bit and now Retraction bot handles {{ Erratum}}, {{ Expression of concern}}, and {{ Retracted}}. These populate the following categories:
The first level ones need human review. The second level ones (intentional) have been reviewed.
If the citation is no longer reliable, then the article needs to be updated, which could be as minor as the removal/replacement of the citation with a reliable one, to rewriting an entire section that was based on flawed premises. If the citation to a retracted paper was intentional, like in the context of a controversy noting that a paper was later retracted, you can replace {{
retraction|...}}
with {{
retraction|...|intentional=yes}}
/{{
expression of concern|...}}
with {{
expression of concern|...|intentional=yes}}
/{{
Erratum|...}}
with {{
Erratum|...|checked=yes}}
.
Any help you can give with those are greatly appreciated. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
By "quality" newspapers I mean newspapers that are considered to be quality press in the UK or equivalent newspapers from other countries (such as the New York Times, and presumably the newspapers listed at Newspaper of record#Examples of existing newspapers, though I have a limited knowledge of some of those newspapers). These newspapers are typically broadsheets or former broadsheets.
In relation to whether news reporting is reliable for statements of fact:
I propose that, for the purpose of RfCs at RSN, quality newspapers should be (1) presumed to be generally reliable for topics within competence of newspaper journalists (which would not, for exanple, include topics within the scope of WP:MEDPOP). If an RfC at RSN seeks to classify a quality newspaper as generally unreliable, or as unreliable for a particular topic within competence of newspaper journalists, the newspaper should be (2) presumed reliable until the contrary is proved; (3) the burden of proof and (4) the burden of consensus should be on those claiming the newspaper is not reliable; and (5) the standard of proof should be the Sagan standard.
I am not satisfied that the wording of WP:NEWSORG is sufficiently explicit, precise and unambiguous to prevent editors disputing whether it produces this result. So I suggest we discuss this directly.
I think it is common knowledge that the coverage of topics, within the competence of newspaper journalists, by quality newspapers is usually factually accurate. I think that a claim that a quality newspaper is generally unreliable, or is unreliable for a particular topic within competence of newspaper journalists, is an extraordinary claim.
I also think it would be dangerous to make it too easy to classify quality newspapers as unreliable. We do not want RSN to become a battleground for editors who want to deprecate newspapers whose political opinions they do not like. We do not want political activists to be able to get quality newspapers deprecated merely by shouting loudest and longest. We especially do not want RSN to become a battleground for agents or sympathisers of certain governments and paramilitary organisations who want to deprecate newspapers that are in the habit of saying uncomplimentary (but not factually inaccurate) things about them. And we especially do not want them bombarding us with militarily motivated RfCs during the middle of a war in which they are belligerents. The application of a "braking mechanism" to RfCs here would reduce the risk of these things happening.
WP:NEWSORG says "whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis". Since this proposal applies only to general reliability, and reliability for topics, and does not apply to reliability for particular facts or statements, I do not think it will make it difficult for us to exclude the actual errors that "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains". James500 ( talk) 09:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
These sources are widely used on Indian film pages for boxoffice numbers, reviews, music, budgets, marketing and distribution. I find the reliability of these sources questionable and need help with a Verdict so that I can update the reliability list on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Reliability_of_sources_listed_at_WP:ICTFSOURCES. Please give your verdict on these sources:
RangersRus ( talk) 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The issue I see is that none have a listing of editorial oversight so where do they get their information? Thesouthfirst is only two years old as far as domain age so clearly a blog and not reliable. Behindwoods has a section where you can pay to promote your content. Taking into consideration the information on 123Telugu above, I would in the LEAST not consider any of these reliable for notability purposes. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 04:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
|
An investigative piece titled "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul" was published by The New York Times in August of 2023. The inquiry examined the reported network of groups and persons that American tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham sponsors in order promote Chinese government agendas and interests across the globe. One of organizations apparently getting financing from Singham's network was named in the report specifically as NewsClick. It said NewsClick's coverage presented a positive image of China and at times resembled talking points of the Chinese government.
The reliability of NewsClick is:
14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
the right-wing tendency to elect or appoint politicians and government officials based on aristocratic and religious ties is common to almost all the states of India) and Cryptocurrency (
Review of "The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism"). If there are credible accusations of this outlet spreading Chinese propaganda, we should at least note its bias and make sure it's not given undue weight. Mostly it's used for India-related topics and I'm not really qualified to judge the quality of the articles used there. Alaexis ¿question? 20:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
https://pakmag.net/film/timeline.php
I would like to know if this website is reliable. I’m pretty sure it is because it seems very official and knowledgeable. And all that is stated is facts online. Sanam786 ( talk) 19:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
PAK Magazine is an individual effort to compile and preserve the Pakistan history onlineso this is a self-published source which are generally not acceptable. S0091 ( talk) 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too. Adachi1939 ( talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing dispute for about 2 years now regarding the participating sources during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse and more recently a dispute regarding the subsection covering the same event's subsection on the Battle of Shanghai Article. As the battle seems to have been of little significance in Japanese history, most of the known Japanese sources are un-detailed reports from the Japanese military itself or contemporary news reports. Japanese sources state the participating forces were a reinforced battalion and some artillery companies of the Japanese NAVAL landing forces. [1] Contemporary Japanese newspapers also state the Warehouse was captured by naval landing force units. [2] Likewise, contemporary English news reports support this, noting the participation of the Japanese Naval Landing Forces or "marines." [3] [4] When the warehouse was occupied by the Japanese, it was repeated in a major China-based English newspaper that the "Special Naval Landing Party" were the ones who had taken it. [5]
However several newer English-language sources assert it was the Japanese ARMY's 3rd Division. These assertions not only contradict primary Japanese-language sources and contemporary news reports, but also an academic English-language essay authored by reputable historians which documents the IJA 3rd Division as being outside of the city attempting to cross Suzhou River (while the Defense of Sihang Warehouse took place). [6] A look into the references shows this essay was based largely on primary sources authored by the Japanese military.
Other editors have understandably taken issue with the use of Japanese primary sources for the Japanese Order of Battle and have disputed them with several English language sources.
The main English sources being used to assert the IJA 3rd Division's involvement are as follows:
Adachi1939 ( talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the general reliability of the site Bloody Elbow as a source prior to March 2024, when it changed owners, [97] is questionable. While it currently seems to be a reliable source under the new owners, based on the masthead and the editorial mission statement pledging high journalistic ethics. [98], circumstances were very different prior to change in ownership, when Bloody Elbow was a blog. Please note that I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki.com, which was paid by an organization, ONE Championship, that Bloody Elbow wrote about prior to the change in ownership.
The reliability of Bloody Elbow was discussed back in 2013 and the three editors who weighed in considered it to be a fan blog that was generally unreliable. When GRV bought Bloody Elbow in March 2024, [99] it laid off the existing staff and deleted much of its archival content, which doesn’t say much for GRV’s confidence in the editorial integrity of Bloody Elbow’s past work. Deleting 16-years of archives with all that web traffic must be a significant financial loss for the new owner, but it appears to be taking journalistic standards very seriously, so it’s understandable.
Despite the deletion of the archives, some pre-2024 content (like this post has been reprinted on other blogs and other stories can be found in the Internet Archive. I searched the Internet Archives’ Bloody Elbow page and I could not find a masthead or any information on editorial standards pre-March 2024. I identified perhaps 3 staff. With a staff that small, everyone tends to be focused on posting content rather than assuring it is accurate. Without a masthead or editorial standards, it's not possible to definitively determine whether there was adequate fact checking, a key criteria of WP:RS. It’s also very difficult to determine anything by checking the bylines. For example, I found one author profile on the Internet Archive that makes it seem like the user joined the site as a member and then began posting to the site a “guest author”, as well as leaving thousands of comments. Journalistic ethics discourages engaging with the comments section of other writers' stories because it compromises their neutrality on a topic they may be called upon to cover in the future. The inordinate volume of comments indicates more of a fan-like zeal than professional journalism.
The distinguishing characteristic of blogging sites is the publication of posts without fact checking or with minimal fact checking. Writers might sometimes get things right but they might also get things very wrong at a much higher frequency that reliable news publications.
Additionally, the media rarely cited to Bloody Elbow over its 16 year history, and when it did, it almost always referred to it as a blog. This lends strong support to the argument that it does not have a reputation for editorial accuracy. WP:USEBYOTHERS says: “How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.” I thoroughly researched how other news sources treat Bloody Elbow. The only mentions of Bloody Elbow in news sources I could find was a story on a site called “Fannation” [100] which was written by a contributor to that publication; and story in a small Florida publication which refers to Bloody Elbow as “SB Nation’s comprehensive MMA blog.”
The Washington Post sports blogs also had several instances where Bloody Elbow was used to take quotes from fighters but it always identified it as a blog. [101], [102], [103].
Since Bloody Elbow is rarely mentioned by the news media and, when it is, it is identified as a blog, this suggests it fails WP:USEBYOTHERS.
My suggestion is that Bloody Elbow pre-March 2024 be treated as unreliable for statements of fact, but can be used for statements of opinion if attributed. Can anyone find more pre-March 2024 content that suggests it's more than a blog? Brucemyboy1212 ( talk) 16:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The source is
2020 U.S. Religion Census published by the
ASARB. It was being used as a citation in the
LDS Church article for the statement As of 2020, the church was the fourth-largest Christian denomination in the U.S.
. It has been argued that the source doesn't support this statement. I would argue it does based on text on page 76 of the report. It starts going through the largest organized religions for a commentary of demographics:
These groups, ranked by size, include the 1) Catholic Church, 2) non-denominational Christian Churches, 3) Southern Baptist Convention, 4) United Methodist Church, 5) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 6) Muslim, 7) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 8) Assemblies of God, and 9) Jehovah’s Witnesses... The Catholic Church has been the single-largest religious body in the United States... The third largest religious group is the United Methodist Church (5%)... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (fourth largest, at 4.2% of total adherents)
I think there might be some confusion due to the later paragraphs dropping the "non-denominational Christian Churches" from the ordering when discussing organized religious bodies. It is also possible to look at the data in the table starting on page 88 and see that the reported percentages also support the statement. In my view the claim "4th largest Christian denomination in the US" is supported by the source. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 11:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
https://www.airdisaster.ru/ is a Russian-language website that is currently cited on 575 articles here, mostly aviation accidents in the Soviet Union, Russia, and other former Soviet countries. I admit that I must rely on machine translation to read the site, but it seems to me to be a SPS without any evidence of editorial oversight. Indeed, the home page of the site states that its purpose is to collect and present information that is not available in published sources, and it encourages readers to write in with extra information they might have about the accidents listed on the site. Beyond that, in the few dozen pages that I spot-checked, I did not find a single one that cited any sources for its information. Without that, or any visible editorial policy, or credentials of the site publishers (Дмитрий Ерцов, Александр Фетисов -- Dmitriy Ertsov, Alexander Fetisov), I think that any information published there must be treated as highly suspect and unsuitable as a source for Wikipedia. The absence of citations over there (and its aim of presenting "new" information about these accidents) also makes it of very limited use for chasing down reliable sources. How do others here see it? -- Rlandmann ( talk) 13:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Can I get some eyes on National Union of Students (Australia). There's a couple of very new accounts who seem to be student politicians who are making a number of edits on the basis of very poor sourcing. TarnishedPath talk 03:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
There is an AfD, and Shshshsh is not ready to accept this article as a press release provided by SRV Media, a prominent sponsored PR news provider that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. The article clearly mentions that it is a press release from SRV Media. When I tell him these he starts to say “ Please use WP:RSN to gain consensus pertaining to the label you're using.” He is not ready to accept what WP:PRSOURCE says: “A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is usually written either by the business or organization it is written about.” I want to ask the community to tell him that what he is saying is wrong. GrabUp - Talk 11:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
If the question for RSN is 'is this a press release?' then yes, it very obviously is. The clear nod to SRV media indicates this is the case, along with a quick web search showing several other articles [108] [109] published in other newspapers around the same time with similar/same language. I will just note that while the reference to WP:NEWSORGINDIA is valid, I would be much more concerned if ThePrint article in question was being used as a reference for an article about the the founder of TalenTrack, Vineet Bajpai - the section at the end of the article on him and his company is clearly paid promotion. This is why WP:NEWSORGINDIA was created, and this type of paid promotion is what it cautions against. However, using a press release based article to state a fact about someone winning an award is probably ok and I don't think you can get around it - this is the case for many articles about Hollywood celebrities and walk of fame updates. (I wont speak to the notability of the award itself or whether the AFD in question meets GNG overall here since thats not OP's question). Schwinnspeed ( talk) 14:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
This story is provided by SRV Media. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/SRV Media)and
This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. It might be reliable per WP:PRIMARY/ WP:ABOUTSELF but is certainly not independent of the subject and so doesn't add anything to notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Is it reliable? Shahid • Talk2me 11:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
In this case it's the Reform UK party/limited company. It was using The Telegraph newspaper, now it's a tweet from Farage. The numbers are being stated in the Infobox as fac. I see for the Tories and Conservatives we used newspapers, for the Lib Dems their website. If this is the wrong board, sorry, what should I use? Doug Weller talk 12:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
unduly self-serving. Farages full tweet
Reform UK now has 70,000 members. Join the revolt.🚀shows he has a reason to want that figure to be as large as possible. I don't know what the previous figures from the Telegraph were, but if they are starkly different from the figure given by Farage then I would treat the figure from Farage with a grain of salt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Is this website reliable? TheChronikler7 ( talk) 13:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
These two sources, among many others, are currently being used in the Muhammad article.
Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? — Kaalakaa (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Books published by university presses" are among "
the most reliable sources." Rodgers is the command historian of the US Army and an adjunct professor of history. There are currently only two biographies of Muhammad written by military historians: this Russ Rodgers' book and Richard A. Gabriel's book published by the University of Oklahoma Press. I believe their perspectives are crucial given that Muhammad's life after moving to Medina was filled with battles, including the Battle of Badr (which was demoted from featured article status, apparently in part due to a lack of sources from military historians [1]). Rodgers' book has also been cited and reviewed positively by various other reliable sources [2] (not just random blogspots or websites). As for Maxime Rodinson, he was for many years a professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Études at the Sorbonne and, after working several years in Syria and Lebanon, supervised the Muslim section of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris [3]. Some reviews of his book include [4] [5]. — Kaalakaa (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Muhammad was a historical figure, like Napoleon, Buddha, Constantine, Joan of Arc. As such, the highest quality material we should be using are academic books published by historians because they are written by experts, and go through extensive peer review, and are written a very neutral and factual manner. Thus they typically represent the best sources. If you look at FA quality pages on figures such as al-Musta'li or Theodosius III they extensively use university press published works. The second book is published by the New York Review of Books, which is a publisher I am less familiar with and am not sure about the quality, but it appears to be less academic. So it may present slanted information. On any article with any kind of hotly debated or controversial topic, we should rely more on the highest quality sources (typically academic books by university presses) more and more. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable?is a non sequitur, using different sources in the article would not 'deem' these sources as unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 15:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
belongs in user space" [7] [8]. @AndyTheGrump also put @Anachronist's understanding of WP:FRINGE into question [9]. Furthermore, if one looks at the article, many statements cited to Rodgers also have supporting sources. Moreover, that Rodgers' book has also been cited and reviewed positively by various other reliable sources [10] [11] (not just random blogspots or websites). So this seems to be yet another instance of @Anachronist misunderstanding our policies and guidelines, aside from what has been listed here. — Kaalakaa (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
self-described "Islamicist"is John Walbridge, professor of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures at Indiana University, Bloomington. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad." Jonathan E. Brockopp, in his book Muhammad's Heirs: The Rise of Muslim Scholarly Communities, 622–950, published by Cambridge University Press, on page 28, seems to classify Karen Armstrong among modern authors who "
misrepresent the earliest period of Islam" by "
downplay[ing] the confusion of the early community on how to be a Muslim." — Kaalakaa (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Banu Qurayza broke their treaty with Muhammad" without attributing the statement to Muhammad or Islamic sources, please open a new section in WP:NPOVN. I will refrain from commenting on those two matters here because it would be off-topic. — Kaalakaa (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
[Muhammad's] hatred of poets was well known", "
Muhammad hired his own poets to spread his propaganda among the tribes" and "
killed on Muhammad’s order...These killings were political murders carried out for ideological reasons or personal revenge." Kaalakaa then proceeds to add at least one of these claims in wikivoice, and this is a violation of WP:NPOV. VR (Please ping on reply) 10:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Non serious RSN. These are undoubtedly important sources that offer insightful information on Muhammad's life and the early days of Islam.
As shown at Pfander Films, no surviving Islamic sources exist from the first hundred years after Muhammad's death. So the Muslims are making it up as they go along. JRSpriggs ( talk) 04:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
What is the reliability of The Times of India?
-- Amigao ( talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
worry about editorial independenceand
the poor quality of the journalism attracts the heaviest criticism.Size/distribution is independent to reliability. Very important newspaper, yes. Reliable newspaper, no. — MarkH21 talk 19:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
*Option 2–3 Option 2 for matter-of-fact reporting such as the weather; but Option 3 in any topic with political ramifications, such as the numbers of people who may have died in a riot, or the numbers of malnutritioned chidren, because of the newspaper's history of a pro-government bias, especially after the 1970s. It is India's second-oldest newspaper after the Statesman, founded in 1838, and for many decades carrying only advertisements and obituaries on its front page. I own some historic editions: the beginning and end of WW2, India's independence, Gandhi's assassination, Nehru's death, ... If I have time, I'll take a look at the older editions to examine their quality. However, by the 1970s when Indian newspapers had come out of the shadow of nationalism and begun to show their independence, the Times did not quite. It has some major people writing in its op-ed columns; those are definitely worth a read, but not for citing on WP. Britannica 's lead sentence says it all: "The Times of India, English-language morning daily newspaper published in Mumbai, Ahmadabad, and Delhi. It is one of India's most influential papers, and its voice has frequently coincided with that of the national government." F&f 12:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Is
The Dorchester Review reliable for the statement A tooth and rib were found in the area in the 1990s and early 2000s, both of which were of animal origin.
[1]
that is for some reason currently in the lede of
Kamloops Indian Residential School? The Wikipedia article for the Review says: In 2022, the Review posted an article by
Jacques Rouillard on their blog, suggesting there was no concrete evidence of mass unmarked burials at Indian Residential Schools.
[2] which was cited in an article in the United Kingdom's
The Spectator.
[3] In 2022, Canada's Crown-Indigenous Relations minister
Marc Miller expressed concern about the rise of residential school denialism and rebuked those that criticized "the nature and validity of these and other recovery efforts" following the announcement of the discovery of potentially unmarked grave at the St Joseph's Mission School.
[4]
[5] In a Dorchester Review blog entry,
Tom Flanagan and Brian Giesbrecht replied to Miller.
[6] In another Review blog post, anthropologist Hymie Rubenstein challenged Miller's statement about the reliability of indigenous knowledge.
[7]
Elinruby (
talk)
22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Further reading: [22] (for level of emotional reaction and some back history) Elinruby ( talk) 14:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
semi-annual journal of history and historical commentarybut regrettably, not even a single article has managed to be cited in peer-reviewed literature in an approving manner till date. [a] It is mostly described as a
conservative media outletand all I see are fellow conservative and far-right media outlets harping about how great a magazine it is; now, while being a conservative media outlet is NOT grounds for unreliability, the rare academic reviews of articles published in TDR point to the lack of peer review among other things and bias-to-the-extent-of-wild-inaccuracies, which are all deal-breakers:
The commentary itself was clearly written to spark a debate. Like many of the editorials that fill Canadian newspapers, it is written in a conversational style without footnotes or references and – more importantly – it attempts to challenge what Coates’ sees as hegemonic narratives characterizing the study of Indian residential schools. And given that the online version of the article (like every page on The Dorchester Review website) is flanked by quotes from David Frum proclaiming that the journal is "Setting Canadian history right," the essay's ambition to upend the sacred cows of the Canadian historical profession, itself, are immediately apparent.
— Cochrane, Donald (2015-04-07). "Setting Canadian History Right?: A Response to Ken Coates' 'Second Thoughts about Residential Schools'". Active History.
Admittedly, some historians have tried to advocate for a ‘positive’ interpretation of residential schooling, but they have mostly done so in non-peer reviewed publications. See, for example, Ken Coates, ‘Second Thoughts about Residential Schools’, The Dorchester Review 4, no. 2 (Autumn/Winter 2014): 25–9.
— Carleton, Sean (2021-10-02). "'I don't need any more education': Senator Lynn Beyak, residential school denialism, and attacks on truth and reconciliation in Canada". Settler Colonial Studies. 11 (4): 466–486. ISSN 2201-473X.
Contributing to The Dorchester Review (a journal whose mission is to "engage and challenge the politically correct vision of history often found in the media and in academe"), historian Ken Coates echoed Niezen in 2014, arguing that the IRS system's positive aspects had been downplayed, and "not all students left the residential school broken." The lack of nuance was troubling, he thought, and provided "the country with a distorted view of Indigenous realities." He therefore called for historians to focus on the future and move past the negative history.
— MacDonald, David B. (2019-05-16), "Genocide and the Politics of Memory: Discussing Some Counterarguments", The Sleeping Giant Awakens: Genocide, Indian Residential Schools, and the Challenge of Conciliation, University of Toronto Press, pp. 146–162, ISBN 978-1-4875-1804-2
Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[T]he notes on pages 345—51 [of Biggar's work] regurgitate known denialist talking points from questionable sources, like the right-wing outfit The Dorchester Review, to justify a lack of engagement with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's (TRC) final report. This will be a red flag for most Canadian readers.
— Perry, Adele; Carleton, Sean; Wahpasiw, Omeasoo (June 2024). "The Misuse of Indigenous and Canadian History in Colonialism". In Lester, Alan (ed.). The Truth About Empire: Real Histories of British Colonialism. Hurst (Oxford). ISBN 9781911723097.
References
What is the reliability of The Dorchester Review?
Note, see previous discussions at RSN: here and here. See previous discussion on an article's talk here TarnishedPath talk 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
No need for RfC How often is this source being used? It seems it's being mentioned only in context of the Canadian Indigenous Schools topic. Is the source being used so widely that we need a universal statement? Are we past the point where we can ask "is this source acceptable for this claim"? We really need to limit these general RfCs for cases where we have had many discussions regarding a source (Fox News for example). Since this isn't such a case I would suggest closing this RfC and focusing on specific uses. Note, my view is more procedural vs anything related to the specific use question above. Springee ( talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
My initial reaction is that this seems premature: the source has barely been discussed (just two tiny discussions of barely 1 screen each), and never outside of one very specific context; I have not seen evidence provided of whether the source is reliable or unreliable outside of that context: we need such evidence, and RFCBEFORE discussion of it as a general source, before having an RFC about it whether it is "generally reliable" or "generally unreliable". (In the most recent of the only two tiny discussions there've been about it, it turned out it wasn't even making the claim it was being cited for, so the reliability or unreliability of the source was irrelevant, the user who cited it had just erred.) -sche ( talk) 15:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree with above comments that this is premature or unnecessary. This does not seem to be an especially notable source, so a thorough RFCBEFORE is required. The two previous discussions linked above are not particularly informative. Astaire ( talk) 16:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
"They were put through hell" and yet they are having an absolute blast on that play structure. What gives?That's clear propoganda pushing the position that there must not have been abuse because of the existence of a picture which showed them playing. TarnishedPath talk 10:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Twitter accounts should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. In this instance the user's identity is confirmed as being the official twitter account of the publication and we have what seems to be a reliable source discussing the tweet. TarnishedPath talk 11:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Tweets from the official accounts of a publisher should be taken as publications of that publisherI disagree. Official social media accounts are often operated by different employees than would be involved in the activities of the rest of the organisation - and we have no information about what editorial process applies to the tweets. By its nature the medium is akin to an attention-grabbing WP:HEADLINE which we wouldn't treat as reliable even in a reliable publication. Bad tweets from an org don't automatically infect the parent org's reliability. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 11:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
semi-annual journal of history and historical commentarybut regrettably, not even a single article has managed to be cited in peer-reviewed literature in an approving manner till date. [a] It is mostly described as a
conservative media outletand all I see are fellow conservative and far-right media outlets harping about how great a magazine it is; now, while being a conservative media outlet is NOT grounds for unreliability, the rare academic reviews of articles published in TDR point to the lack of peer review among other things and bias-to-the-extent-of-wild-inaccuracies, which are all deal-breakers:
The commentary itself was clearly written to spark a debate. Like many of the editorials that fill Canadian newspapers, it is written in a conversational style without footnotes or references and – more importantly – it attempts to challenge what Coates’ sees as hegemonic narratives characterizing the study of Indian residential schools. And given that the online version of the article (like every page on The Dorchester Review website) is flanked by quotes from David Frum proclaiming that the journal is "Setting Canadian history right," the essay's ambition to upend the sacred cows of the Canadian historical profession, itself, are immediately apparent.
— Cochrane, Donald (2015-04-07). "Setting Canadian History Right?: A Response to Ken Coates' 'Second Thoughts about Residential Schools'". Active History.
Admittedly, some historians have tried to advocate for a ‘positive’ interpretation of residential schooling, but they have mostly done so in non-peer reviewed publications. See, for example, Ken Coates, ‘Second Thoughts about Residential Schools’, The Dorchester Review 4, no. 2 (Autumn/Winter 2014): 25–9.
— Carleton, Sean (2021-10-02). "'I don't need any more education': Senator Lynn Beyak, residential school denialism, and attacks on truth and reconciliation in Canada". Settler Colonial Studies. 11 (4): 466–486. ISSN 2201-473X.
Contributing to The Dorchester Review (a journal whose mission is to "engage and challenge the politically correct vision of history often found in the media and in academe"), historian Ken Coates echoed Niezen in 2014, arguing that the IRS system's positive aspects had been downplayed, and "not all students left the residential school broken." The lack of nuance was troubling, he thought, and provided "the country with a distorted view of Indigenous realities." He therefore called for historians to focus on the future and move past the negative history.
— MacDonald, David B. (2019-05-16), "Genocide and the Politics of Memory: Discussing Some Counterarguments", The Sleeping Giant Awakens: Genocide, Indian Residential Schools, and the Challenge of Conciliation, University of Toronto Press, pp. 146–162, ISBN 978-1-4875-1804-2
Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[T]he notes on pages 345—51 [of Biggar's work] regurgitate known denialist talking points from questionable sources, like the right-wing outfit The Dorchester Review, to justify a lack of engagement with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's (TRC) final report. This will be a red flag for most Canadian readers.
— Perry, Adele; Carleton, Sean; Wahpasiw, Omeasoo (June 2024). "The Misuse of Indigenous and Canadian History in Colonialism". In Lester, Alan (ed.). The Truth About Empire: Real Histories of British Colonialism. Hurst (Oxford). ISBN 9781911723097.
As far as I can see, this passage exists in WP:RS.POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
Option 2 - No need for RfC How often is this source being used? as User:Springee said, there is no need to RFC. And it is also being based on invalid issues — there was no prior question about reliability here. The two prior discussions linked to were on content of a readers comment/blog post, and of an opinion piece. Neither of those reflect on the reliability here, so the RFC is not showing prior TALK on their reliability in question. Those were just not publication pieces to cite and not about the reliability of the publication. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Because we are committed to publishing different points of view on controversial issues, the opinions of the authors whose work we have posted are not necessarily our own. Nor do their writings necessarily reflect the underlying ethos of this journal. This reads to me like a disclaimer that they take no editorial responsibility for the reliability of their content, and are thus a purveyor of WP:RSOPINION. I have seen no smoking gun evidence in the discussion above that they publish false information - just lots of insinuation that they are conservative, far-right, controversial, questionable, and non-peer-reviewed, none of which are synonyms for unreliable. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 19:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
{{The schools with which Ryerson was involved were designed for older students who attended voluntarily [footnote: as were the later residential schools — Ed.], and were intended to build upon the foundation established in local mission schools. Students spoke their native languages, [footnote: it is becoming increasingly clear, through research that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has suppressed, that children at many later residential schools spoke, and were even taught in, their native languages. — Ed.] and were taught largely by teachers trained in the new Normal School, which Ryerson created, not by clergy. The religious instruction was more like Sunday school classes than the indoctrination of the federal schools. Students in those early schools were learning a marketable skill, not merely producing goods the sale of which would in turn finance the school. All of these are markedly different from the way many Canadians today understand the later federal residential schools.}} [28]
This is well beyond opinion and into FRINGE territory. Elinruby ( talk) 19:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
oh and lookie here [29] Elinruby ( talk) 19:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
|
The Sun was a broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969. It was a replacement for a similar broadsheet newspaper called the Daily Herald, which it resembled. It was owned by the International Publishing Corporation and the Mirror Group. Rupert Murdoch and Kelvin Mackenzie had nothing to do with it. In 1969, it was replaced by a very different and disimilar tabloid newspaper with the same name, called The Sun, which was owned by Rupert Murdoch. That tabloid newspaper has an entry in WP:RSP located at WP:THESUN. Unfortunately that entry fails to indicate whether it applies to the previous broadsheet newspaper, and the broadsheet newspaper does not appear to have been discussed during previous discussions of "The Sun" at RSN. We need to decide whether the broadsheet newspaper published from 1964 to 1969 is reliable, so that the entry at WP:THESUN can be clarified.
Accordingly this Request for Comment asks:
What is the reliability of the national daily broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969 called The Sun?
James500 ( talk) 08:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
"unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed"; with 15 prior discussions, that's certainly enough. Non-policy arguments such as WP:BEFORERFC aren't relevant either, as what you "should do" and required to do are two separate concepts. As long as editors criticise the RfC itself and not the proposal, there's a good chance the proposed changes can be made sooner rather than later. CNC ( talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
" It's evident that the change is contentious and that further discussion is needed". CNC ( talk) 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
for the sake of everyone's sanity, moving the following into its own section; left collapsed in original thread for attribution
::When did the National Post and the Toronto Sun become unreliable?? I can't find these "archived discussions" you refer to and there's no WP:RSP listing (perhaps we need an RfC?). The best is an opinion column from the National Post accusing others of plagiarism. [35] These are two of Canada's most-circulated newspapers. [36] You can't just handwave them away as being unreliable. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- The National Post put an op-ed piece by Jason Kenney on its front page. In it, he said that people need to just get over these little matters of genocide and move on for the the good of the country, and this right after the discovery of graves in Kamloops. That was unforgivable. I didn't know questions had been raised about it, and I do not know why, but I definitely applaud the sentiment. And yes, it is one of Canada's highest-circulation newspapers. Which is terrifying. As for the Toronto Star, do you dispute it? I am not in Ontario so I don't see the print publication, but I've described their recent offerings (possibly even here) as akin to People magazine, so I definitely wouldn't use it for anything more complicated than 'on this day person x said y', and certainly not for a fraught and nuanced topic like the genocide at residential schools in Canada. Elinruby ( talk) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't know the difference between the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun you shouldn't be judging Canadian newspapers. Vague claims that a publication is like People magazine is not enough to make a source unreliable.
- WP:RSOPINION says you can't cite op-eds anyways. To declare the National Post as unreliable you should be showing how citing it can be used to support untrue information on-wiki, not just publishing editorials you disagree with. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think this needs its own thread. But a) I am talking about the Star, ie the one with the star in its logo. I was until now blissfully unaware that there was a Toronto Sun, I think. And worse, you say, huh. b) I would never cite Jason Kenney except in a discussion of the problems in Canadian political discourse c) yes, op-eds are inherently unreliable, and that is why they shouldn't be on the front page. It really bothers me that I have to explain this d) I am as patriotic as the next person and probably more so, but the ostrich approach to the issue isn't solving anything. e) The National Post may need to be used for traffic news in Ontario or inside baseball on the budget bill perhaps, but in general it should be avoided imho. Elinruby ( talk) 19:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Being amongst a country's most circulated newspapers does not speak in the slightest towards a publication's reliability. TarnishedPath talk 10:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Flippantly excluding it as unreliable would affect any article on Canada. [37] Both the Toronto Sun and the National Post regularly win National Newspaper Awards (Canadian Pulitzer) because they are recognized by their peers as being of high quality. [38] [39] Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{failed verification}} Ok the Star won for photography and the National Post for a column. About the shameful Hunka episode to boot. This is not the flex you think it is. Elinruby ( talk) 19:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll repeat again that the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun are two very different newspapers, despite being named after astronomical objects. If you look at the full awards list [40] the National Post has won 13 NNAs in its 25 year history, 11 of which were not in editorials or columns. The Toronto Sun has won 22, 5 of which were not editorial cartoons/photos.
- Clearly we need a new discussion on this. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Look, of course the sun is a star, but I am talking about the Toronto Star. The fact that I offtopicto your offtopic post in the offtopic spinoff from my original question does not make me the one that is confused here. I am taking your post as support for refactoring however. Elinruby ( talk) 21:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was just looking at prior discussions of those sources on this noticeboard that turned up when I searched the archives, in which it looked like editors thought they were unreliable; if you read those discussions differently and/or think it's important to start an RFC on either source, feel free. I suggest starting a new section for it, as this section has already left its initial topic (Catholic Reporter) in the dust and is now even veering off even the secondary topic it had veered onto (that Blacklock's has no reputation for fact-checking, use by other RS, etc, and in general has no signs of being RS). -sche ( talk) 16:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
TL;DR from the above: The National Post put an op-ed by a politician on the front page of its print edition. Apparently @ Chess: feels this has no bearing on the newspaper's reliability. There also seems to be some disagreement about the reliability of the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star. I consider that they are mostly irrelevant, but usable for simple statements of fact like "x said y on this day". This is in part due to their intense absorption with their own region, probably. Maybe they are reliable for national politics also. I avoid them because I don't care who got arrested in Hamilton. For British Columbia, which is all I am talking about right now, much better sources exist for the most part, although I may recall one or two long-form explainers from them that were pretty good. Unsure.
The third Toronto paper, The Globe and Mail, is unquestionably reliable, if a but stodgy and banker-ish. I have compared it to the New York Times; we can discuss that too if anyone wants to.
As for the Sun and the Star, meh, I would put reliability on a par with, idk, have previously said People magazine for the Star, but I admit it's a little more newsy than that. Not much, though. And to be fair, I have to say that I never see the print edition of either one, so that may be part of it too,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
masqueradingas anything but the opinion of the then-premier of Alberta. Elinruby ( talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Jason Kenney: Cancel John A. Macdonald and we might as well cancel all of Canadian historymakes it clear that the words are Kenney's take. Was the headline different in print? I'm struggling to comprehend why running this op-ed have any bearing on the reliability of National Post, which by all accounts appears to be a standard established Canadian WP:NEWSORG that is generally reliable for news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
In it, he said that people need to just get over these little matters of genocide and move on for the the good of the country. That was an atrocious misrepresentation. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 12:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
No policy-based evidence that these two newspapers are unreliable has been presented here. Judging the the description of the Toronto Sun
here it's an established and reliable media outlet.
Alaexis
¿question?
13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
|
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:RS says Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people
. I am alarmed by the fact that some editors do not see the problem with not distinguishing between news fact and opinion about the news. There is a very large one: opinion about the news is never considered reliable except for the opinion of the writer. I have done a fast survey of National Post online coverage -- nobody around here sells the print edition -- and find the problem is if anything worse that I thought. If while looking at an article that is definitely about a news event (the French election for example) the reader should click on a main menu item for "Canada" or "World", the resulting list of links seems to consistently contain more than 50% opinion pieces. Nor could I find a retraction policy, as per WP:RS at Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.
This is further discussed here; [45], here and About the Committee on Publication Ethics here and here. A lot of the publications that follow this policy are journals: Springer, Nature, British Medical Journal; however this standard is by no means limited to peer-reviewed publications. CBC has a corrections policy [46]. The Globe and Mail has a formal retraction policy [47] and the Washington Post has a form where readers can request corrections [48]. Even the very middlebrow USA Today has a corrections policy [49].
(*=labeled as comment)
I did not find any sort of retraction or editorial policy for the National Post. It also quotes the disparaged Blacklock's Reporter (see above) [50] and published a fawning review of a book by a writer at True North, which apparently is never RS, per comments elsewhere. [51].
On specific issues, I did not find any neutral news coverage of COVID vaccines at all, although perhaps there was some at the time. [52]* ("blind hate?) [53]*, [54]* [55] [56] [57]*
Coverage of the trucker protests of the vaccine mandates, which it called "Freedom Convoy", was extremely sympathetic. [58]*, [59]*, [60], [61]. The current coverage of the insurrectionist truckers charged with attempted murder of a police officer in the border blockade is more neutral and mostly rewritten from Canadian Press coverage, but still framed in a sympathetic manner: [62] [63] [64] Indigenous protests met rants about "handout culture" however, [1] and coverage of Gaza is lurid. [65], and not labelled as comment: “the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR.”.
In politics, the pattern persists: the language in news stories is far from neutral, and many opinion pieces are linked from the news menu, like this one [66]*, [67]*, [68]*, [69]*. Not labelled as opinion: [70]. Yesterday's lead article on the front page of the print edition, with a headline in 72pt type or possibly higher: Does Trudeau plan to put the squeeze on older home owners?* Today it is somebody calling for a boycott of Kentucky Fried Chicken for introducing halal chicken. Since there isn't a KFC within a couple of hundred miles of here at least -- maybe in Vancouver -- this couldn't be more irrelevant to the concern in my community right now: the next wildfire.
On climate change, Climate change in the Arctic is often framed through the lens of Canadian national interests, which downplays climate‐related social impacts that are already occurring at subnational political and geographical scales (Cunsolo Willox et al. [ 10] ; Trainor et al. [ 39] ). As such, the climate justice dimensions of climate change in the Arctic are often not being translated to audiences through (the National Post and Globe and Mail )
[2] while also undermining government efforts:The media is more interested in sensational and controversial stories than they are in simply supporting the status quo
[3]
Elinruby (
talk)
02:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I did not find any sort of retraction or editorial policy for the National Post, they do appear to issue corrections, even in their opinion section. One such correction from an opinion piece can be found here, and one for a wire story can be found here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article.
the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PRdoes appear in this piece, and that piece indeed is a news piece. But you are misrepresenting the quote as if it were in the publication's voice when it is not—it appears in quotation marks, and the full paragraph (
Still, jihadists believe that the destruction and civilian casualties are the cost necessary to destroy Israel, Kedar said. The Quaran preaches that dying for Islam is praiseworthy, he said, and therefore “the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR.”makes it incredibly clear that they are reporting a properly attributed quote from Mordechai Kedar.
References
Before everyone gets too excited voting that the National Post has no problems apart from its frequently vile and inappropriate comments, opinion and sometimes news, there's at least one issue where option 1 appears demonstrably inadequate: climate change. In this peer -reviewed, journal-hosted media review assessing 17 sources over 15 years across 5 countries (US, UK, AUS, CAN, NZ), the National Post came out as the hands down least objective source on climate change ... And that's with the UK's Daily Mail also in the running. The National Post was found to represent scientific consensus only 70.83% of the time, while 9.17% of the time it presented anthropogenic climate change and natural climatic variance as equally relevant (basically climate change denial-lite) and 20% of the time, in one-in-five articles, presented anthropogenic climate change as a negligible phenomena (full-throated climate change denial). So basically 30% of everything that the National Post publishes on climate change is unscientific nonsense. That alone should be worthy of Option 2 (additional considerations apply) on the count of: don't touch with a bargepole on climate change-related issues and related politics. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
In addition to news articles, the analysis included letters, editorials, and other publications that contained the keywords 'global warming' or 'climate change'. These latter units of analysis may be outside the bounds of journalistic norms—for example, the author of a letter or editorial may not follow guidelines on balance or 'truth' in reporting—but these still reflect the overall content of the sources in which they are published and, thereby, impact readers. In other words, the analysis lumps together news reporting alongside opinion pieces, and concludes that the paper (when including opinion pieces) does not do great on climate change. And that's no surprise for a newspaper that existed in the first decade of the 2000s and had a conservative editorial outlook (or had a conservative audience, considering that letters to the editor are included in the analysis). But that sort of study is somewhat useless here, since it muddles news reporting (which is WP:GREL) with opinion reporting (which, per WP:RSEDITORIAL, are
are rarely reliable for statements of fact), and we only care about the news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
ran beneath the headline “De-bunking climate and other varieties of alarmism.” A subhead stated that Moore’s book shows how environmental claims are “fake news and fake science.”In the interview, where the interviewee's views went unchallenged, the guy also misrepresented the research of actual climate scientists. When the newspaper was contacted to either retract the material or add a caveat to the articles promoting the book to let readers know they contained
“numerous demonstrable misrepresentations of scientific sources and findings”they did neither. Very editorially responsible. Iskandar323 ( talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Last year, the country recorded the worst fire season in its history. Drier and hotter conditions in many parts of the country caused by climate change have increased the risk of major fires in recent years, according to experts. Canada is currently battling 575 active fires with more than 400 considered out of control. Many fires have broken out in recent days, particularly in the west of the country that has experienced a heat wave.
Blair Feltmate, head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo, noted that these heavy rain events are driven by climate change that has already happened and is irreversible, so cities and their citizens must adapt. “We are not going backwards on climate change. We can slow it down but we can’t stop it,” Feltmate said. “So yes, we should be mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to slow down the rate of change, but also recognizing that we need to adapt to the extreme weather conditions that are upon us with increasing frequency; flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, etc.”
is a clear pattern, and I would definitely call that dilution? I'm a bit confused here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
There is considerable on-going dispute at Talk:Yasuke regarding the reliability of the source "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" by Thomas Lockley, which has been used as a citation in the article at various times, as well as cited by a number of tertiary sources which were utilized throughout the Wikipedia article. Chiefly, opponents of the inclusion of the Lockley source contend that because Lockley does not use in-text citations and that the source is categorized as popular history, that it should not be considered reliable. They point to the review by historian Roger W. Purdy and his criticism of Lockley's lack of in-text citations as making it hard to easily verify the claims. However, the proponents of the Lockley book have argued that Purdy still recommends the book in his review and explicitly states that he is not questioning the veracity of the scholarship and that while Purdy specifically calls out a number of elements of Lockley's book as incorrect, he does not call out the conceit that Yasuke is a samurai. Moreover, historian Jonathan Lopez-Vera's History of the Samurai also notes Yasuke as a samurai, as well as his Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los europeos which reads "El nombre que se le dio fue Yasuke (h. 1555-?), y desde ese momento acompañó siempre a Nobunaga como unaespecie de guardaespaldas. Cabe destacar que a partir de entonces dejó de ser un esclavo, puesto que al estar al servicio del daimyō recibió un estipendio como el resto de vasallos, obteniendo así la condición de samurái" (175-176). In Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos, the Lopez-Vera does utilize in-text citation. The dispute boils down to whether or not Lockley's assumption that Yasuke is a samurai is reliable for the purpose of the article, given the amount of tertiary sources that are citing Lockley. As neither party of the debate has made use of the RSN, I am bringing the issue up here in the hope of forming a consensus to put an end to the back-and-forth arguing about the reliability of the Lockley. Chrhns ( talk) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editor complained about
black supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera. They would like Wikipedia to ignore these sources because of an endless stream of unsupported theories about what a samurai truly was and about Yasuke. I agree with DarmaniLink: enough of this, it's ANI time. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
a historian at the University of Oxford. BBC interviewed Floyd Webb and Deborah DeSnoo, described as
filmmakers working on a documentaryabout Yasuke. CNN claimed that
Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan. Secondly, by interviewing and quoting Lockley, these sources have shown that they consider him to be an expert, a reliable source of information, and in doing so they have strengthened his status as an RS whose views are far more authoritative for Wikipedia than the views of us anonymous editors arguing to the contrary on a talk page. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 23:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
especially when there is any trouble in the scholarship? There has never been any scholarly debate on this. Apart from some very argumentative editors on the Yasuke discussion page, no one has ever denied that Yasuke was a samurai. The only reason it seems necessary to attribute the claim that Yasuke was a samurai to Lockley is the fact that Yasuke was a black man of African descent. But this is not a good reason: there were foreign samurai in Japan. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 08:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
"Content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it"
We publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted source material for themselves.
wrong or uninformed, did you have any reliable sources to the contrary, or did you rely only on your personal knowledge of the historical events in question? Because here we have editors arguing that they know that Yasuke was not a samurai "properly called", a samurai "in the strict sense of the word", but they cannot provide any sources to support their knowledge (see lastly this comment by DarmaniLink, who also removed the policy-based comment made by an unregistred editor).
findingof Lockley's research: it's just an undisputed statement of fact from a reliable source (subject-matter expert), which is also consistent with identical statements on the matter from several other academics (see Silver seren's excerpts from academic sources).
not a common conception outside of fiction, but Silver seren's source analysis suggests that it is also common in the English-speaking academic literature, apart from Lockley. Since you speak Japanese, may I suggest that you do some similar research on Japanese academic sources? That might be helpful. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 08:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
anyone who served a noble, even in a nonmilitary capacity, so that
a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a “samurai.”The fact that later on, in the 17th century, the samurai became a relatively closed and prestigious hereditary class is irrelevant to the question of Yasuke's status. We should use the modern and contemporary notion of samurai - a warrior of higher ranking, a
title for military servants of warrior families- which is certainly the notion used by the academic RSes referring to Yasuke as a samurai (Lockley, Lopez-Vera, E. Taylor Atkins, Esi Edugyan). Otherwise, it would be simply impossible to have a List of foreign-born samurai in Japan. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 09:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I've made lengthy posts detailing a proper, comprehensive definition of samurai and the importance of nobility (petty nobility?) with the samurai from its inception in the Kamakura period to its most fluid state during the Sengoku period to a more restrictive state in the Edo period, with a plethora of secondary sources, which you can read my post on a comprehensive definition of a samurai and initial analysis of Lockley, an additional reply to X0n under that in the Samurai status subsection, as well as comparing it to Lockley's definition of a samurai and lack of proper citation and comparing Lockley's definition to other academic definitions of samurai and related arguments. Just to be clear, the sources provided are by no means a comprehensive list, and was collected for the sake of time saving and demonstrating that I did not do WP:OR. In the future, when I get more time, I will look further for academic secondary sources that make these arguments as well (which I know of their existence but do not have at hand at the moment), and honestly it is already reflected in the Samurai wikipedia article, but nonetheless a consistent definition is required. When we talk about historical topics, we must use historical definitions, as modern definitions are not aligned with the past. As I noted before when @ Theozilla brought up that Pluto switched from planet status to dwarf planet status by the scientific community, this is a correct statement. However, that does not change the fact that Pluto was considered a planet historically before that definition change. We should not be using modern definitions for historical topics.
Also the thing I do not understand most about this entire argument is the insistence that we are using "editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information" for our contentions. We have made it abundantly clear that we are not, I do not care one way or the other if Yasuke was a samurai, but to paraphrase @ Eirikr, it has to be proven with proper citation and research for the sake of academic integrity. I keep seeing that Lockley was "peer reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts, who also support the claims in them," yet everytime Purdy is mentioned, his peer review is downplayed and completely diminished! And any time we try to bring up this as well as the lack of in-line text citations (which Purdy based his review off of), it is completely ignored. I do not know what else to say here, but the lack of acknowledgement and insistence on repeating the same thing over and over as some here are doing almost seems like desperation to get this topic settled as soon as possible, relying solely on academic background rather than the apparent poor research applied, which editors are allowed to make their own reasonable judgement on in accordance with WP:REPUTABLE, WP:SOURCEDEF, and WP:CONTEXTFACTS. I've still yet to see one that is still pushing Lockley as reliable to actually acknowledge these points.
Also just to quote Gitz, who seemingly is making implications on other editors intent by saying "Apparently the only reason why editors find Lockley's statement WP:EXCEPTIONAL is that Yasuke was black," this is not the reason why. The reason why it is an exceptional claim is that it was not the default status for Japanese people in Japan nor retainers/warriors. Toyotomi Hideyoshi is a prime example of this (which I go into detail in the diffs I posted) where he was explicitly stated as not a samurai and only properly became one with his marriage to his wife One in 1561 (at minimum, or his adoption by Oda senior vassals when he gained the surname Hashiba, the documentation on Hideyoshi is not so great before he gained the Hashiba surname), which took years of service with Nobunaga, and even as a personal sandal bearer for Nobunaga, he was still not considered a samurai, instead being an ashigaru. So yes, it is an exceptional claim on those grounds, not because of contemporary race politics, which I do not understand why people are still bringing up. Hexenakte ( talk) 15:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Although this lens may not be detailed enough for the academic, African Samurai’s lively writing style does offer the reader of popular history and historical fiction a glimpse of samurai values from late sixteenth-century Japan.
この時代、武士とそれ以外の身分の垣根は曖昧であり、本当に弥助が「サムライ」となったのかについては議論があるものの、少なくともその身一代においては、彼は間違いなく信長の家臣に取り立てられたと考えられている。
結局、信長と確認できる死骸は見つからなかった。
Ultimately, no remains confirmable as Nobunaga's were found.
I already mentioned in past discussions that I honestly don't care much about Lockley. Purdy's review is enough that we can set that source aside regardless, since we have plenty of other academic sources to use instead of him. Which I also already posted in the past and which Gitz linked to above. Here's excerpts from them:
"It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyō’s service and enjoyed the same comforts as other vassals. He was granted the rank of samurai and occasionally even shared a table with Nobunaga himself, a privilege few of his trusted vassals were afforded."
"...Yasuke's height and strength (which "surpassed that of ten men"), Nobunaga gave him a sword signifying bushi status. Yasuke served as Nobunaga's retainer and conversation partner for the last year of the warlord's life, defending Azuchi castle from the traitorous Akechi forces in 1582, where Nobunaga committed ritual suicide (seppuki). Although there are no known portraits of the African samurai, there are some pictorial depictions of dark-skinned men (in one of which he is sumo wrestling) from the early Edo period that historians speculate could be Yasuke."
...Yasuke already possessed skills as a warrior, as he is believed to have become a samurai after only one year, a remarkably short period of time. Samurai usually trained from boyhood. Nobunaga granted Yasuke the role of sword bearer in the royal guard, for he felt Yasuke had the "might as that of ten men." This was an era in which Japan was still suffering the aftershocks of a civil war in which hundreds of petty warlords had vied for control of the country."
"Nobunaga had believed that Yasuke must either be a guardian demon or a god; he was black as only temple statues were black. But touching Yasuke, hearing him speak his rich, inimitable foreigner's Japanese, Nobunaga realized he was only a man. He threw a feast in Yasuke's honour, made him gifts of money, and requested that they train him to become a samurai - an honor never before bestowed upon any foreigner. It would elevate him into Japan's warrior class, the top echelon of society. Yasuke accepted and was granted a house, a stipend, and even, in a turn that may have felt uncomfortable to him, his own manservant. That Yasuke had arrived fluent in Japanese was a great asset."
So take Lockley out and put these in instead. We can even use refquote with the quotes above so more explicit detail is included. Silver seren C 15:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
So take Lockley out and put these in instead.
avoid stating facts as opinions- we cannot attribute this statement to Lockley in the article text without manufacturing, whole-cloth, a sense of doubt that Yasuke was a samurai, which is entirely unsupported by any source; therefore, Lockley can reasonably be used to state unattributed in the article voice that Yasuke was a samurai (as the recent RFC on the topic concluded!); and nothing should be stated or implied that might cast doubt on that, anywhere in the article, unless actual sources unambiguously casting that doubt can be found. The quibbling over precisely how high-quality Lockley is misses the point; it is a sufficient source for unexceptional and uncontested statements like these. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
1) You are correct that yes, the collaboration effort itself would not make himself unreliable, if we had not been using his novel in the first place added on top of the fact it is being purported as objective fact. @ Eirikr has ordered Lockley's Japanese edition of the book, which is supposedly more academic, however Lockley did say in his interview (mentioned in one of the diff links I posted) that he did not translate it himself. That being said this edition is not being dismissed and will be given a proper analysis when Eirikr receives the book.
2) The sources themselves seem to be in contention with one another on what a samurai is, regardless if they agree or not on whether Yasuke is a samurai. This only makes the case more confusing as more sources are being added in support of the positive claim of his samurai status, since as I said before, we must understand the historical usage of the word rather than our modern understanding of it, as they are completely distinct.
3) And this is exactly why I brought up Toyotomi Hideyoshi. I apologize for forgetting to link one of my diff links regarding that (more specifically here in this topic for other diff links), but we must keep in mind I have been talking about the de jure stipulations which have largely stayed the same from the Kamakura to the Muromachi all the way throughout the Sengoku period, with its enforcement on how social mobility works varying, which is the de facto.
[According to Morillo, there] does seem to result in confusion even among academics [on the definition of samurai] (at least around 2001 when the chapter was written).
Kugyō (公卿) is a collective term for the very few most powerful men attached to the court of the Emperor of Japan in pre-Meiji eras. Even during those years in which the court's actual influence outside the palace walls was minimal, the hierarchic organization persisted. (Emphasis mine)
Standing at more than six feet tall and described as having the strength of 10 men, Yasuke left a strong impression on Nobunaga. “It seems like he was a confidant, Nobunaga is recorded as talking often with him,” Lockley said in a follow-up email. “He was also a weapon bearer, and probably served in some kind of bodyguard capacity.” Lockley also explained that in Yasuke’s time, the idea of a “samurai” was a very fluid concept. “You don’t have to possess any particular killing skills to be a samurai,” the author said. “Anybody who took up weapons on behalf of a lord could technically call themself a samurai, or could be called a samurai.”
I will also empathize on how difficult it is to pierce the language barrier for claims at times, as I recently heard a claim of "Sengoku Jidai Samurai didn't fight on horseback outside of the Takeda because Japanese horses were generally less capable in combat" and intuitively knew it was wrong and guessed why, but it was painful to dig out the academic sources discussing unit organizational changes, Japanese horses, etc in a way which could be explained to an American audience whose main exposure to the material would be in video games like Samurai Warriors and Total War Shogun - or in Youtube series like the erroneous Extra Credits series on the subject.
Source text: 然に彼黒坊被成御扶持、名をハ号弥助と、さや巻之のし付幷私宅等迄被仰付、依時御道具なともたさせられ候、
Lockley's translation: This black man called Yasuke was given a stipend, a private residence, etc., and was given a short sword with a decorative sheath. He is sometimes seen in the role of weapon bearer.
Translation on Wikipedia article: A black man was taken on as a vassal by Nobunaga-sama and received a stipend. His name was decided to be Yasuke. He was also given a short sword and a house. He was sometimes made to carry Nobunaga-sama's tools.
Going back to the source material provided earlier today by @ Thibaut, the Japanese uses the term さや巻 (sayamaki), also spelled in modern dictionaries as 鞘巻 (sayamaki, literally saya "scabbard, sheath" + maki "winding", in reference to decorations on the sheath). If you can read Japanese, the Japanese Wikipedia article at ja:短刀 describes the sayamaki as a specific kind of tantō. See also the entries here at Kotobank, further describing this as a kind of 腰刀 (koshi-gatana, "hip-sword").
However, a sayamaki is not any kind of knife or dagger that is smaller than a wakizashi. The main difference between the sayamaki and the wakizashi is not size, but rather that the sayamaki has no tsuba or hilt-guard, whereas the wakizashi does have one.
Source text:
1 助けること。扶助すること。
2 主君から家臣に給与した俸禄。江戸時代には、<人1日玄米5合を標準とし、この1年分を米または金で給与した。
3 俸禄を支給して臣下とすること。
Machine translation:
1. To help. To provide assistance.
2 A stipend paid by a lord to his vassals. During the Edo period, the standard was 5 cups of brown rice per person per day, and this year's worth was paid in rice or gold.
3 To pay a stipend and make him a vassal.
I do think that this is a reductive answer, but given the context of the article I understand why. I would say that while the example of Hideyoshi shows how much effort he expended to legitimize his rise up the social ladder, it could likewise be said that Yasuke having been given property, a position in Nobunaga's retinue, and other context is the root of many historians viewing that if he was not formally considered a samurai via the exact customs and noble requirements commonly attached to that rank, he was clearly of a status that was indistinguishable from such rank. I would even contend that one could say Nobunaga's awarding Yasuke property could demonstrate intent to have Yasuke meet the basic expectations.
Source text: 甲賀の伴正林と申者年齡十八九に候歟能相撲七番打仕候次日又御相撲有此時も取すぐり則御扶持人に被召出鐵炮屋與四郞折節御折檻にて籠へ被入置彼與四郞私宅資財雜具共に御知行百石熨斗付の太刀脇指大小二ツ御小袖御馬皆具其に拜領名譽の次第也
Academic translation: A man from Kōka whose name was Tomo Shōrin, some eighteen or nineteen years old, showed good skills and scored seven wins. The next day, too, Nobunaga put on sumo matches, and Tomo again outclassed the others. As a result, Nobunaga selected Tomo to become his stipendiary. At about that time Nobunaga had to take disciplinary measures against a gunsmith by the name of Yoshirō, whom he locked up in a cage. Now Tomo Shōrin received the private residence, household goods, and other possessions of this Yoshirō. Nobunaga also gave him an estate of one hundred koku, a sword and a dagger with gold-encrusted sheaths, a lined silk garment, and a horse with a complete set of gear—glorious recognition for Tomo.
Again, I have to reiterate, I am not arguing for the explicit statement that Yasuke is not a samurai in the Wikipedia article, I am simply not for explicitly stating it as an objective fact. I have stated many times my willingness to accept Lockley's work as a claim, just not as a fact, because of the many issues that Lockley has that was already stated. The arguments I have laid out are yes, they are for the definition of samurai, and are more fit to be discussed for the Samurai article, however I have not suggested to have changed anything in this article, not even once, throughout those arguments I have made. I do not think it is therefore considered WP:SYNTH since most of what I was arguing for was for the sake of the discussion, as we are in a talk page and not editing the actual article. I hope you understand where I am coming from, and I apologize if I did not make this clear enough.
• From what we have gathered from verifying the claims in those sources, Lopez-Vera lacked the proper in-line citation for Yasuke, and it was limited to a box in one page, as his paper was not focused on Yasuke but rather the "History of the Samurai", and because of that I believe in accordance with WP:CONTEXTFACTS that verification is needed for this one.
Do note that as long as these claims are attributed and not stated as an objective fact, I would be fine with their inclusion in the Yasuke article. If we were to give Yasuke a title that is unattributed, it should be a retainer/attendant/retainer attendant, as these claims seem to be reflected in several of the secondary academic sources mentioned and are properly cited and supported, then we can put the positive claim of his samurai-ness in a separate section of the article where it is "claimed" and attributed. I would very much agree to this arrangement instead. Hexenakte ( talk) 15:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
verifying the claims in those sources,
agree[ing] with the [source's] commentand correcting the source's
factual errors and blatant misattributions, is not our job. Per WP:NOR, we should disseminate the existing body of knowledge on a subject as reflected in reliable sources, not add to it and improve it by correcting what reliable sources claim. Your interpretation of WP:CONTEXTFACTS is simply wrong. This guideline does not say or imply that editors are entitled to review and validate or falsify the claims made by the sources; it says that in order to understand what those claims are, we need to take context into account, e.g., a literature professor who uses an analogy with Einstein's theory of relativity to explain a philosophical concept is not a reliable source on Einstein's theory of relativity. How can you argue that Jonathan Lopez-Vera's book History of the Samurai cannot be used as a reliable source on Yazuke's status as a samurai because of WP: CONTEXTFACTS? This is what Lopez-Vera says:
. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyō’s service and enjoyed the same comforts as other vassals. He was granted the rank of samurai and occasionally even shared a table with Nobunaga himself, a privilege few of his trusted vassals were afforded
As has already been pointed out to you many times, this is not the kind of source analysis we are supposed to be doing according to policy.
Your interpretation of WP:CONTEXTFACTS is simply wrong. This guideline does not say or imply that editors are entitled to review and validate or falsify the claims made by the sources; it says that in order to understand what those claims are, we need to take context into account, e.g., a literature professor who uses an analogy with Einstein's theory of relativity to explain a philosophical concept is not a reliable source on Einstein's theory of relativity. How can you argue that Jonathan Lopez-Vera's book History of the Samurai cannot be used as a reliable source on Yazuke's status as a samurai because of WP: CONTEXTFACTS?
The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc.
Per WP:NOR, we should disseminate the existing body of knowledge on a subject as reflected in reliable sources, not add to it and improve it by correcting what reliable sources claim.
[...]editors are [not] entitled to review and validate or falsify the claims made by the sources[...]
The Southern Tang is not the Tang. Claiming that an incident in 976 happened "at the court of the Tang Emperor" is problematic wording. Moreover, the Southern Tang fell in 975, as described at Song conquest of Southern Tang.
Russell himself dates the Tang Dynasty as ending in 907, and the mention of 976 is in a quote that Russell includes from a different work, "(Coupland, quoted in Filesi 1962, 21)". Filesi 1962 is listed in Russell's bibliography as China and Africa in the Middle Ages, which I cannot currently track down (though I will look more later).
Manatsha does not cite Russell, but rather "(Tsujiuchi, 1998; Wyatt, 2010; Welsh, 2012)" for the mention of kuronbo and kunlun.
Tsujiuchi makes no mention of kurombo / kuronbo / kurobo anywhere in the body of the text, and only mentions kurobo in the bibliography as part of a title. No mention of kunlun.
The actual source for the "Tang Court" claim can be traced back to
, the start of a paragraph where an anon gave us a link to the sources where this content originated. Apparently, somewhere along the line of authors playing "telephone", the original statement was alterered. ‑‑
Eiríkr Útlendi │
Tala við mig
22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yasuke was the first samurai of African descent, if not the first non-Japanese samurai in Japanese history(Google translation). The author is described as a "prospective Japanologist at Freie Universität Berlin" [80]) and JapanDigest is a specialised online magazine published by the Japanese media company News Digest International. The article looks like an accurate summary of published material and primary sources on Yasuke. Among the former, the article relies heavily on Lockley, plus a couple of essays published in the "Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies", 1998, which have already been analysed on the talk page (they neither call Yasuke a "samurai" nor exclude that he became a samurai).
A former slave born on the East African coast in the mid-16th century, Yasuke became the first foreign samurai in Japanese history(DeepL transaltion). The article was published before the publication of Lockley's book and has nothing to do with it. It is based on a French book about Yasuke as a samurai, Yasuke, le samurai noir by Serge Bilé (Owen, 2018), which is defined by the publisher as an "essay, fictional biography" (essai, biographie romancée) [81]. The article also includes an interview with Julien Peltier, author of "Samouraïs, dix destins incroyables" (Prisma, 2016).
Weiterführende Literatur ["Continuing Literature", i.e. "See also"]:
- Lockley, Thomas & Girard Geoffrey (2019): African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan, Herausgeber: Hanover Square Press
- Tsujiuchi, Makoto (1998): Historical Context of Black Studies in Japan, in: Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, 30, No. 2, pp. 95-100
- Wright, David (1998): The use of Race and Racial Perceptions among Asians and Blacks: The case of the Japanese and African Americans, in: Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)« Il est aujourd’hui impossible de connaître la fin de Yasuke, explique Julien Peltier, auteur de Samouraïs, dix destins incroyables (éd. Prisma, 2016). Yasuke était un homme respecté et on peut aussi envisager qu’il soit resté au Japon. Mais c’est spéculatif. »
“Today it is impossible to know the end of Yasuke,” explains Julien Peltier, author of Samurai, ten incredible destinies (ed. Prisma, 2016). “Yasuke was a respected man and we can also imagine that he remained in Japan. But that's speculative.”
Here is a quote from Lockley's book - the page where Lockley reconstructs Yasuke's status as a samurai (or better a " hatamoto", he claims). I know nothing about Japanese history, but it is clear that this is one of the most academic and least fictional parts of the book. This does not mean that Lockley is right in his reconstruction, of course, but anyone can see that it is a well-reasoned and deliberate assessment on his part.
Lockley on Yasuke as a samurai
|
---|
During the fifteenth century and The Age of the Country at War, the endless battles took their toll on the limited ranks of the traditional samurai families, and many daimyō lords decided they needed to expand their armies. Gone were the days when a few hundred highly trained, magnificently attired samurai squared off against each other with swords in battle. By Yasuke’s era, the armies were tens of thousands strong and the need for cheap soldiers had provisionally overridden the need to keep peasants exclusively growing rice. Many men now regularly dropped their tools and lofted spears when they were called upon, leaving the women, elderly and children to work the fields until they returned, if they ever did. Eventually, as the wars expanded in scope, the distances covered made returning home regularly an impossibility. Many of the peasants now found themselves receiving regular wages and better arms from their lords and they held an ambiguous dual status as farmers and lower-ranking samurai, known as ashigaru. (The key difference from traditional samurai being that ashigaru were not normally permanently retained, nor did they hold fiefs.) This development led in many areas to a more assertive lower class with a sense of their own power and military utility. These farmers had now also been to war, and held a spear or fired a gun. No longer would they be so easily bullied around by the samurai. They wanted a bigger portion of the proverbial rice bowl, perhaps even with some real rice in it. Thus, following The Age of the Country at War, there was no shortage of “samurai” in Japan. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps up to half a million, could have claimed the epithet, though few would have any real family pedigree beyond the last couple of generations in the elite warrior world. A daimyō could call upon both direct personal retainers such as Yasuke, and part-time ashigaru warriors to swell his ranks. The direct personal retainers could be classified into four groups. Family members, hereditary vassals, officers of the levies and hatamoto, who were the lord’s personal attendants. Family members and vassals who held their own fiefs were expected to bring their own samurai and ashigaru with them when called upon to fight. It is not known exactly which rank Yasuke held, but it would probably have been equivalent to hatamoto. The hatamoto saw to the lord’s needs, handling everything from finance to transport, communications to trade. They were also the bodyguards and pages to the warlord, traveling with him and spending their days in his company. |
Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 15:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Lockley on the Samurai as caste
|
---|
The Samurai as caste: In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. At the end of The Age of the Country at War, around the end of the sixteenth century, most of those who’d fought on the samurai side in the civil wars, even some of the peasants, pirates and ninja, were classified as “samurai” in a formalized caste structure with the samurai at the top—a hereditary warrior/administrator/ruling class. The caste ranking continued with peasants, artisans and merchants, who took the lowest status (because they lived off everybody else’s hard work). Outside of the scope of the caste system were eta, impure people who dealt with death, and hinin, nonpersons such as ex-convicts and vagrants who worked as town guards, street cleaners or entertainers. Legally speaking, an eta was worth one-seventh of a human being. The Age of the Country at War had been probably the most socially fluid period since the eighth century. Able men and women, like Yasuke, were able to rise through the ranks due to the chaos. No more. From this time until their caste was abolished by law in 1873, the samurai were forbidden (in most of the country) to farm or engage in mercantile activity and had to live in castle towns rather than country villages. This was the time when the word samurai takes on its modern meaning of a warrior caste rather than actual warrior role. In the virtual absence of war or any challenge from below between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, the samurai caste had little warring to do and the martial arts we now associate with this class were codified and formed the roots of modern sports like kendo, judo and aikido. Samurai were still furnished with a stipend by their lord, determined by rank, although over time, the value of the stipend was devalued so much by inflation that many samurai families were forced to find other ways to make ends meet. A few, such as the Mitsui family, founders of the modern-day multinational conglomerate, gave up their samurai swords and lowered themselves to merchant status. For the overwhelming majority, this was a step too far, and they starved or lived in abject poverty rather than “lower” themselves. |
Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 20:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
According to this page, [82] Lockley spread different information in Japanese and English, and while his writings in Japanese are mostly based on historical facts, his writings in English seem to be full of fanciful statements.-- SLIMHANNYA ( talk) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
この時代,武士とそれ以外の身分の垣根は曖味であり、本当に弥助が「サムライ」となったのかについては議論があるものの、少なくともその身一代においては、彼は間違いなく信長の家臣に取り立てられたと考えられている。
In this period, the boundaries between samurai and other statuses were blurred, and although there is some debate as to whether Yasuke really became a 'samurai', it is believed that he was definitely taken on as a vassal/retainer of Nobunaga, at least in his own lifetime.
I've never read an author that wrote his work in the form of a novel.- some of the olds like me may remember Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Please watch this video [84] with English subtitles. This video shows in detail the contradictions between the descriptions in the primary sources that describe Yasuke and the descriptions in several books that are secondary sources presented by Lockley. He changes the descriptions in the Japanese and English books, and in the English books he often presents speculation and fantasy as historical fact. Therefore, I do not believe that Thomas Lockley's sources or sources based on his sources are reliable. All of his sources should be rejected. Rather than the issue of whether or not to describe Yasuke as a samurai, I think a more serious issue is the spread of Lockley's speculative and fanciful descriptions and statements to the world as historical fact.-- SLIMHANNYA ( talk) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Lockley & Girard's works "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" & "Yasuke: The true story of the legendary African Samurai" clearly contain a significant amount of speculative or fictional historical content which is not based on, or is contradicted by, known historical record. Examples include: Yasuke's origins in North East Africa (contradicted by Solier); Yasuke's childhood training as a Habshi warrior (unsourced); Yasuke's position as a bodyguard for Valignano (unsourced); Yasuke's travels in India and China prior to arriving in Japan (speculative); Japanese viewing Yasuke as a god, demon or Buddha (unsourced); Yasuke's Japanese language prowess (presented as greater than in the sources); Yasuke training in Japanese martial arts (unsourced); Yasuke taking Oda Nobunaga's head after the Honnoji Incident (attributed to "Oda family legend"); Yasuke's involvement in battles (only his being attacked while with Nobunaga's brother after the Honnoji attack is in the sources); Yasuke's travels after Oda's death (unsourced); A black man, possibly Yasuke, being represented on a lacquerware inkstone box (speculative, erroneous).
A
staff review from the Peabody Institute Library includes the following:
Yasuke’s story is extremely compelling and Lockley tells it in a fast pace intimate fashion. Sometimes a little to intimate. He often refers to Yasuke’s facial expressions in different situations and it always made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end “how could he know that?” Historical documents are rarely that specific. And it turns out that much of the specifics story of the book were based on educated guesses. Most of what is known of about Yasuke comes from letters written by the Jesuits which are admittedly detailed for the time. He is also occasionally referenced by Japanese diarists. But facial expressions and discussions of what he was thinking are the authors creation not that of the historical record. ... So if you are prepared to take some of Yasuke’s story with a grain of salt it will be a very enjoyable and educational read.
I have no idea how reliable the Peabody Institute Library is, but that seems a fair enough summary.
Lockley & Girard's works are not always clear as to what is known, sourced, fact, and what is "educated guesses" or speculative fiction.
Given the amount of speculative or unsupported content, it is difficult to conceive of the book being generally reliable on the subject of Yasuke.
Same or similar speculations are also present in Lockley's interviews & presentations in support of his work, which would suggest that these too are not generally reliable on the subject.
As the writer of the only book on Yasuke, Lockley's views have had heavy influence on a broad range of downstream sources; including the tertiary news & current affairs sources mentioned above, which might normally be considered reliable. Yasuke as (super?)heroic warrior samurai is a nice story which suits the present Zeitgeist, and has captured the imagination. Given the context, however, we should consider that these news sources are not situationally or contextually reliable for historical fact. Per
WP:BESTSOURCES (and
Hemiauchenia's comments elsewhere), we should be preferring academic scholarship over current affairs sources.
Suggest that Lockley's views, where & if included, should be attributed, unless corroborated by other independent scholarship; and that, where corroborated, we might prefer that other scholarship.
Rotary Engine
talk
13:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Lockley's viewpoints in the Yasuke article, provided that they are clearly attributed to Lockley. We have a few experts (Lockley, Lopez-Vera and Atkins) who speak of Yasuke as a samurai, and in the case of Lockley they also explain their reasons for doing so. Then we have an abundance of news sources (BBC, CNN, TIME, etc.) and tertiary sources (Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine) that do the same; some of these sources predate Lockley's book (see Le Monde and Serge Bilé's book). On the other hand, we don't have any reliable scholar or news organisation that explicitly disagrees with them. I feel that if we were to attribute "Yasuke as a samurai" to Lockley, we would be suggesting that this view is controversial, as if there were an academic debate about Yasuke's status, which isn't the case: there is a huge debate on the WP talk pages, as we can see, and in various online communities, blogs, social media, but no controversy among historians.
In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. Obviously Yasuke did not belong to a caste and was not a hereditary warrior known for his martial skills and code of honor. And yet it is possible that for professional historians there is nothing wrong with calling him samurai.
On the other hand, we don't have any reliable scholar or news organisation that explicitly disagrees with them. I feel that if we were to attribute "Yasuke as a samurai" to Lockley, we would be suggesting that this view is controversial, as if there were an academic debate about Yasuke's status, which isn't the case: there is a huge debate on the WP talk pages, as we can see, and in various online communities, blogs, social media, but no controversy among historians.
Why is there no controversy between historians? There may be several plausible explanations for this, and one is the following: it may well be that in English (and in languages other than Japanese) there is nothing wrong with calling a warrior of high rank and prestige, who belongs to the retinue of a warlord and has direct personal relations with his lord, 'samurai'. It is possible that this is particularly true before the Edo period if, as Lockley claims, In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. Obviously Yasuke did not belong to a caste and was not a hereditary warrior known for his martial skills and code of honor. And yet it is possible that for professional historians there is nothing wrong with calling him samurai.
Let's make an analogy to clarify the point. We call, as many reliable sources do, Julius Caesar a "general". Yet the Romans called him something else: dux and imperator (as well as by the names of other offices he held: dictator, consul, tribune of the plebs, pontifex maximus, etc.). Caesar was not a general in the technical sense that the word takes on in modern armies (say, someone below the minister of war or defence and above lieutenants and captains). But he was a general in the sense of supreme commander of the army, just as Yasuke was a high-ranking swordsman in feudal Japan who lent his services to a warlord. Is there any scholarly controversy about Caesar's status as a general? No, therefore we don't write "According to John Doe, Caesar was a general", because that would be misleading and wrong, and would only serve to appease those online communities that have built an ideological trench around the word "general". We stick to the sources, that's it.
In general, I think WP articles are the better the closer they are to the sources. People should learn to read our articles not as 'The Definitive Truth' about something, but as a tentative, source-based description that can be used to get a flavour of the topic and start researching by going to the sources.
celui du roman, c'est-à-dire que l'on insiste sur la narration parfois en introduisant des épisodes non avérésemphasis added. Bilé suffers from the same issues as Lockley & Girard; his work is explicitly speculative. This is not a bad thing; works of speculative or functional history should be produced, but we should not regard them as reliable for unattributed factual statements. Bilé, Girard & Lockley might well be correct, but the speculative nature of their works means those works (and derivatives thereof) are not reliable.
Why is there no controversy between historians?
various online communities, blogs, social mediaand any
ideological trenchesthey might have dug. I care about us, ourselves; and how we accurately reflect the quality of sources and sourced content.
In general, I think WP articles are the better the closer they are to the reliable sources, with that one, important addition.
Yasuke was a high-ranking swordsman in feudal Japan who lent his services to a warlordThere are no historical sources which support the italicised text. Descriptions of Yasuke as a warrior or swordsman appear only in speculative histories. Lockley assumes warrior and backfills his rationale. This is particularly apparent with his heterodox claim in African Samurai's end notes that Yasuke is originally from the Sudan or Ethiopia, in part because the Makua people of Mozambique are too peaceful. Rotary Engine talk 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Although there are no known portraits of the "African samurai," there are some pictorial depictions [...]
Also in the article body the claim is presented as commonly accepted by "historians":Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people
I don't think these two quotations support the view that there's a controversy among historians about Yasuke's status as a samurai. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 06:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank. This is where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates.
There is no consensus among Japanese historians that Yasuke was a Samuraiis not proved. Neither they nor others have yet provided a quotation from a single Japanese or non-Japanese historian stating that Yasuke was not a samurai. On the other hand, Lockley writes "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians" and "historians think that". Is he wrong, is he lying? We don't know - since he's signing the article in Britannica, he's taking full scientific responsibility for what he claims (contrary to us anonymous WP editors); if he's wrong, someone would or could contradict him. But until this happens, we have a reliable source saying that the view commonly accepted by contemporary historians is that Yasuke was a samurai. Frankly, that's all we need. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 09:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Without getting into the merits of Lockley himself I do not think his work should be dismissed because it is “popular history” which is a somewhat nebulous term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, for God's sake. Purdy doesn't specifically "contend with" (and you better look up contend in a dictionary) that point, he "contends with" the entire book:
The idea that we'd use something like this as a fact source is just laughable. E Eng 13:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I've been unwillingly following this discussion because I have RSN, ANI and (after commenting there some years ago) Eirikr's Wiktionary talkpage on my watchlist. On one hand, I've seen Eirikr's great work on Japanese entries, and how he and Hexenakte have dug through primary sources, and as a person, living my life, I'm inclined to trust that when he says the historical sources he's looked through don't call Yasuke by the Japanese term that reflects the narrower interpretation of 'samurai', that's true... but as a Wikipedia editor, writing Wikipedia, I know we can only say what's verifiable in reliable sources (including modern, non-contemporary ones, as mentioned above w.r.t to Caesar), not editorial original research. Many sources (even independent of Lockley) are cited above by Silverseren and others, saying Yasuke was a samurai.
I have not seen a reliable source (only tweets) presented that says "Yasuke wasn't a samurai". Even Purdy's review of Lockley doesn't dispute that: some editors say even Purdy seems to accept Yasuke as a samurai, others argue Purdy's mention of Yasuke's samurai-ness shouldn't be taken as agreeing he was a samurai, but no-one can show that Purdy or any Reliable Source states Yasuke wasn't a samurai. (As the claim of Yasuke being a samurai is the very title of Lockley's work, it seems implausible Purdy or anyone else would've forgotten to dispute it, had they meant to, but more importantly, even if the reason no RS say something is that they all forgot to say it... we can't say it.)
Our policies specifically say not to "attribute" facts like this, which many RS report and none dispute, as if they were personal opinions (as some have suggested here); we have to present them as facts. (Attributing the statement to Lockley would be particularly incorrect given the other sources saying the same thing.)
We can indeed hope the attention on him will prompt scholars to write new reliable sources which either support or contradict the idea that he was a samurai, but... This has been putting me in mind of the
Timothy Messer-Kruse spat, where he wanted to change Wikipedia to say "the truth" but couldn't do that until his (Reliable) book came out, and then Wikipedia got bad press for being so resistant to "correct" changes... and yet, when we and reliable sources looked into it, it was determined based on the totality of available reliable sources that what we'd been saying was broadly more correct than what Kruse was saying, and so our article is still much closer to the scholarly consensus than to some of Kruse's outlier claims.
Since several RS have discussed Yasuke and called him a samurai and none have disputed it yet, our article should continue to reflect the fact that RS call him a samurai, until and unless the 'expected' new RS come out... and as with Kruse, it's notably possible those new RS will conclude the same thing that reliable sources so far have concluded, that he was a samurai.
As to the specific point which started this RSN discussion, I find Gitz's point above persuasive, that the number of other reliable sources which have treated Lockley as a subject-matter expert (including now Encyclopedia Britannica, which had him write their article) is suggestive that he is indeed an expert (until such time as the contradictory sources some people think will materialize do materialize), but as Silverseren and others said, even if we dismiss Lockley's African Samurai, or even other works by Lockley, we still have other sources making the same claim and (again) no RS claiming otherwise. If people think that Lockley's Britannica article, Lockley's Japanese article, Lopez-Vera, and/or Atkins are better sources than Lockley's African Samurai, I have no problem with just citing the sentences about Yasuke being a samurai to those works instead.
As for the question of other content which is currently sourced only to Lockley's African Samurai: if no other sources for it can be found, I humbly suggest it would be best to start a separate discussion very specifically and narrowly about those other non-samurai claim(s), because the odds of anyone reaching or divining a consensus about that kind of secondary issue in this long discussion (not to mention its other half over on AN), focussed as it is mostly on the samurai claim, seem low.
-sche (
talk)
20:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
From Geographical v91n6 (June 2019) p. 55:
Needless to say, a source with a scholarly approach (i.e. not Lockley) is an absolute requirement for this samurai claim. I'll also point out that only one major academic library anywhere owns a copy. Add in Purdy and honestly, there's nothing to discuss here. E Eng 17:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Purdy's review notably also refers to Yasuke as having been a Samurai in the opening paragraph of his review: "In this turbulent era, the authors introduce Yasuke, a black African brought to Japan by the Jesuits and presented as a gift to arguably the most powerful feudal lord at the time, Oda Nobunaga, who raised him to the rank of samurai." As well as his summary of the content: "Part 2, “Samurai,” ... During this fifteen-month period, Nobunaga elevated Yasuke to samurai rank, and the two formed a close bond. The section ends with Yasuke defending Nobunaga against the warriors of the traitorous Akechi Mitsuhide at the warlord’s Kyoto stronghold, Honno-ji Temple." One could interpret the latter as just restating Lockley's unsourced conjecture, but contrast it to how he writes of Lockley's other conjecture immediately after where that is made explicitly clear: "The final section, “Legend,” includes a speculative chapter on Yasuke’s activities after the death of Nobunaga — Lockley and Girard suggest he joined the forces that Nobunaga’s successor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, dispatched to conquer Korea—and a chapter on Yasuke’s post-Nobunaga legacy and reinvention in the mass media." Purdy's review ... does show that he seems to agree with the attribution of Samurai - and that he is familiar with the requisite primary sources of Yasuke enough to have cast doubt on this claim if he did not also agree. Purdy's primary issue with Lockley is that the sources are all shoved into a 'recommended' and 'associated' reading section at the back of the book, with any research lockley did not being able to be built upon by others.
As for the amount of books Lockley has published, the complete list is:
- A Gentleman from Japan: The Untold Story of an Incredible Journey from Asia to Queen Elizabeth’s Court Hardcover – May 21, 2024
- The Women Who Built Japanese History 東京書籍, Mar 30, 2022
- Japanese Culture and History Tokyo Shoseki, Aug 1, 2019
- 英語で読む外国人がほんとうに知りたい日本文化と歴史 東京書籍, Jul 24, 2019 (ISBN: 4487812887)
- African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan Hanover Square Press (Harper Collins), May 2, 2019 (ISBN: 9781335141026)
- 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍 ロックリー トーマス (Original Author(s): ロックリー トーマス) 太田出版, Jan 25, 2017 (ISBN: 9784778315566)
... Lockley's book has been at multiple academic talks and is in Academic Libraries and in professional development reading groups, some of which are at highly reputable and respectable institutions such as Berkley.
Lockley's book was reviewed by John Rodzvilla of Emerson College in "Library Journal. Mar 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 2, p128-128", with Rodzvilla writing: "Lockley (Nihon Univ., Sch. of Law, Tokyo) and Girard (Cain’s Blood) use primary sources to piece together Yasuke’s immersion into Japanese culture with a novelistic history that takes place at the height of one of Japan’s most important cultural and political moments ... Highly recommended"
And again, in "Library Journal. Winter 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 12, p80-80" as an "Essential Title in Social Studies".
Symphony Regalia ( talk) 15:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
To the other sources mentioned, (Britannica, Lopez-Vera) ALL of them lead back source-wise to Lockley's books
I don't quite understand why the book's inclusion and use in academic talks and libraries would also give it more credit as a primary source, as it still ... not a peer reviewed scholarly article.
This source ( Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential) is cited in Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war, Casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, List of genocides, Israel–Hamas war, Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war, Gaza genocide, Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war, and Palestinian genocide accusation, generally for its estimate of a death toll in the war of 186,000. I've decided to open this discussion here as this is a more central location than any of those articles.
My impression is that this source isn't sufficiently reliable for this estimate.
The lethal burden of armed conflict in 2004–07 was many times greater than the number of direct conflict deaths. A reasonable average estimate would be a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts, which would represent at least 200,000 indirect conflict deaths per year, and possibly many more.This is particularly focused on the 2004–07 time period and says a four-to-one ratio is a "reasonable average estimate", not a "conservative estimate".
For these reasons I'm inclined to remove the source, but I'm taking this here first as I expect this may be controversial. Will also be notifying the talk pages of all relevant articles. Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)This ‘reasonable estimate’ is based on the assumed under-counting of combat deaths, and conservative assumptions about indirect deaths. The figure is explained in more detail below.
A reasonable average estimate would be a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts". It is also quoted elsewhere: "
One path forward in the case of the post-9/11 wars is to generate a rough estimate by applying the Geneva Declaration Secretariat’s average ratio of four indirect for every one direct death...Across all the war zones, therefore, using an average four to one ratio can generate a reasonable and conservative estimate" (further evidence is inside that report). I trust that Berchanhimez will now stop accusing the number 4 of being a "feel good number". VR (Please ping on reply) 07:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Out of the authors, only Martin McKee seems to have any expertise on excess deaths; both Rasha Khatib and Salim Yusuf study cardiologyis not correct. I'm not sure why expertise in excess deaths would be the measure, but in any event Khatib and Yusuf do more than just study cardiology. Khatib has a PhD in clinical epidemiology, according to one bio has "70+ peer-reviewed journal publications" and is a principal investigator of the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological study, a study of 225,000 participants in 1,000+ communities in 27 countries. According to another bio, she leads a team of epidemiologists and biostatisticians. Salim Yusuf, according to the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame [92]: "The leading North American clinical trialist, Dr. Salim Yusuf’s epidemiologic work in more than 60 countries shows the majority of risks of both cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease are attributable to the same few risk factors. His large-scale studies involving several hundreds of thousands of individuals in dozens of countries have changed the way some of the world’s most deadly health conditions are prevented, treated and managed." All three authors seem very well-qualified to estimate indirect deaths.
For instance, the Geneva Declaration Secretariat’s review of prior conflicts found that indirect deaths have, for most conflicts since the 1990s, been three to fifteen-fold higher than direct deaths, and suggest a ratio of four to one as a “conservative” estimate. There are reasons to think this ratio could be on the low end in Gaza given, among other things, the protracted and brutal siege." VR (Please ping on reply) 07:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
It has been frozen since NOVEMBER 2023.Where are you getting your facts from? You know there is this website called Wikipedia that has an article called Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war that has this graph... Levivich ( talk) 15:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The Japan Times is briefly mentioned in a discussion at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_247#Reliable_sources_for_Japanese-related_articles , but I don't see it in the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
There is also a The Japan Times#Controversy section in the article about the newspaper, but outside of this mention and several comments online (Reddit, personal blogs, etc.) I can't find a reliable assessment.
The context of the ask is this article: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2024/05/25/digital/yasuke-assasins-creed-samurai/
The article previously contained information that Sakujin Kirino fact-checked the book "African Samurai" by Thomas Lockley, which was proven not to be true and later amended. In addition, the language and viewpoint of the article appears very one-sided and contains some factual errors (for instance, "he [Yasuke] was addressed as “tono” (literally, “lord” or “master”)" - primary sources show this was contemporary speculation, not statement of fact).
For the purpose of this thread I am interested purely in The Japan Times as a reliable source:
- If it's "situationally" reliable, which sections are more reliable?
- Can individual claims be considered reliable?
- Can we add the newspaper to the list of Perennial sources? SmallMender ( talk) 18:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not about never getting anything wrong ever. And in this case they issued a correction, which is what RSes are supposed to do when they make a mistake. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I posted this story from the Signpost last month. Things have evolved a bit and now Retraction bot handles {{ Erratum}}, {{ Expression of concern}}, and {{ Retracted}}. These populate the following categories:
The first level ones need human review. The second level ones (intentional) have been reviewed.
If the citation is no longer reliable, then the article needs to be updated, which could be as minor as the removal/replacement of the citation with a reliable one, to rewriting an entire section that was based on flawed premises. If the citation to a retracted paper was intentional, like in the context of a controversy noting that a paper was later retracted, you can replace {{
retraction|...}}
with {{
retraction|...|intentional=yes}}
/{{
expression of concern|...}}
with {{
expression of concern|...|intentional=yes}}
/{{
Erratum|...}}
with {{
Erratum|...|checked=yes}}
.
Any help you can give with those are greatly appreciated. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
By "quality" newspapers I mean newspapers that are considered to be quality press in the UK or equivalent newspapers from other countries (such as the New York Times, and presumably the newspapers listed at Newspaper of record#Examples of existing newspapers, though I have a limited knowledge of some of those newspapers). These newspapers are typically broadsheets or former broadsheets.
In relation to whether news reporting is reliable for statements of fact:
I propose that, for the purpose of RfCs at RSN, quality newspapers should be (1) presumed to be generally reliable for topics within competence of newspaper journalists (which would not, for exanple, include topics within the scope of WP:MEDPOP). If an RfC at RSN seeks to classify a quality newspaper as generally unreliable, or as unreliable for a particular topic within competence of newspaper journalists, the newspaper should be (2) presumed reliable until the contrary is proved; (3) the burden of proof and (4) the burden of consensus should be on those claiming the newspaper is not reliable; and (5) the standard of proof should be the Sagan standard.
I am not satisfied that the wording of WP:NEWSORG is sufficiently explicit, precise and unambiguous to prevent editors disputing whether it produces this result. So I suggest we discuss this directly.
I think it is common knowledge that the coverage of topics, within the competence of newspaper journalists, by quality newspapers is usually factually accurate. I think that a claim that a quality newspaper is generally unreliable, or is unreliable for a particular topic within competence of newspaper journalists, is an extraordinary claim.
I also think it would be dangerous to make it too easy to classify quality newspapers as unreliable. We do not want RSN to become a battleground for editors who want to deprecate newspapers whose political opinions they do not like. We do not want political activists to be able to get quality newspapers deprecated merely by shouting loudest and longest. We especially do not want RSN to become a battleground for agents or sympathisers of certain governments and paramilitary organisations who want to deprecate newspapers that are in the habit of saying uncomplimentary (but not factually inaccurate) things about them. And we especially do not want them bombarding us with militarily motivated RfCs during the middle of a war in which they are belligerents. The application of a "braking mechanism" to RfCs here would reduce the risk of these things happening.
WP:NEWSORG says "whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis". Since this proposal applies only to general reliability, and reliability for topics, and does not apply to reliability for particular facts or statements, I do not think it will make it difficult for us to exclude the actual errors that "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains". James500 ( talk) 09:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
These sources are widely used on Indian film pages for boxoffice numbers, reviews, music, budgets, marketing and distribution. I find the reliability of these sources questionable and need help with a Verdict so that I can update the reliability list on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Reliability_of_sources_listed_at_WP:ICTFSOURCES. Please give your verdict on these sources:
RangersRus ( talk) 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The issue I see is that none have a listing of editorial oversight so where do they get their information? Thesouthfirst is only two years old as far as domain age so clearly a blog and not reliable. Behindwoods has a section where you can pay to promote your content. Taking into consideration the information on 123Telugu above, I would in the LEAST not consider any of these reliable for notability purposes. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 04:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
|
An investigative piece titled "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul" was published by The New York Times in August of 2023. The inquiry examined the reported network of groups and persons that American tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham sponsors in order promote Chinese government agendas and interests across the globe. One of organizations apparently getting financing from Singham's network was named in the report specifically as NewsClick. It said NewsClick's coverage presented a positive image of China and at times resembled talking points of the Chinese government.
The reliability of NewsClick is:
14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
the right-wing tendency to elect or appoint politicians and government officials based on aristocratic and religious ties is common to almost all the states of India) and Cryptocurrency (
Review of "The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism"). If there are credible accusations of this outlet spreading Chinese propaganda, we should at least note its bias and make sure it's not given undue weight. Mostly it's used for India-related topics and I'm not really qualified to judge the quality of the articles used there. Alaexis ¿question? 20:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
https://pakmag.net/film/timeline.php
I would like to know if this website is reliable. I’m pretty sure it is because it seems very official and knowledgeable. And all that is stated is facts online. Sanam786 ( talk) 19:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
PAK Magazine is an individual effort to compile and preserve the Pakistan history onlineso this is a self-published source which are generally not acceptable. S0091 ( talk) 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too. Adachi1939 ( talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing dispute for about 2 years now regarding the participating sources during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse and more recently a dispute regarding the subsection covering the same event's subsection on the Battle of Shanghai Article. As the battle seems to have been of little significance in Japanese history, most of the known Japanese sources are un-detailed reports from the Japanese military itself or contemporary news reports. Japanese sources state the participating forces were a reinforced battalion and some artillery companies of the Japanese NAVAL landing forces. [1] Contemporary Japanese newspapers also state the Warehouse was captured by naval landing force units. [2] Likewise, contemporary English news reports support this, noting the participation of the Japanese Naval Landing Forces or "marines." [3] [4] When the warehouse was occupied by the Japanese, it was repeated in a major China-based English newspaper that the "Special Naval Landing Party" were the ones who had taken it. [5]
However several newer English-language sources assert it was the Japanese ARMY's 3rd Division. These assertions not only contradict primary Japanese-language sources and contemporary news reports, but also an academic English-language essay authored by reputable historians which documents the IJA 3rd Division as being outside of the city attempting to cross Suzhou River (while the Defense of Sihang Warehouse took place). [6] A look into the references shows this essay was based largely on primary sources authored by the Japanese military.
Other editors have understandably taken issue with the use of Japanese primary sources for the Japanese Order of Battle and have disputed them with several English language sources.
The main English sources being used to assert the IJA 3rd Division's involvement are as follows:
Adachi1939 ( talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the general reliability of the site Bloody Elbow as a source prior to March 2024, when it changed owners, [97] is questionable. While it currently seems to be a reliable source under the new owners, based on the masthead and the editorial mission statement pledging high journalistic ethics. [98], circumstances were very different prior to change in ownership, when Bloody Elbow was a blog. Please note that I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki.com, which was paid by an organization, ONE Championship, that Bloody Elbow wrote about prior to the change in ownership.
The reliability of Bloody Elbow was discussed back in 2013 and the three editors who weighed in considered it to be a fan blog that was generally unreliable. When GRV bought Bloody Elbow in March 2024, [99] it laid off the existing staff and deleted much of its archival content, which doesn’t say much for GRV’s confidence in the editorial integrity of Bloody Elbow’s past work. Deleting 16-years of archives with all that web traffic must be a significant financial loss for the new owner, but it appears to be taking journalistic standards very seriously, so it’s understandable.
Despite the deletion of the archives, some pre-2024 content (like this post has been reprinted on other blogs and other stories can be found in the Internet Archive. I searched the Internet Archives’ Bloody Elbow page and I could not find a masthead or any information on editorial standards pre-March 2024. I identified perhaps 3 staff. With a staff that small, everyone tends to be focused on posting content rather than assuring it is accurate. Without a masthead or editorial standards, it's not possible to definitively determine whether there was adequate fact checking, a key criteria of WP:RS. It’s also very difficult to determine anything by checking the bylines. For example, I found one author profile on the Internet Archive that makes it seem like the user joined the site as a member and then began posting to the site a “guest author”, as well as leaving thousands of comments. Journalistic ethics discourages engaging with the comments section of other writers' stories because it compromises their neutrality on a topic they may be called upon to cover in the future. The inordinate volume of comments indicates more of a fan-like zeal than professional journalism.
The distinguishing characteristic of blogging sites is the publication of posts without fact checking or with minimal fact checking. Writers might sometimes get things right but they might also get things very wrong at a much higher frequency that reliable news publications.
Additionally, the media rarely cited to Bloody Elbow over its 16 year history, and when it did, it almost always referred to it as a blog. This lends strong support to the argument that it does not have a reputation for editorial accuracy. WP:USEBYOTHERS says: “How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.” I thoroughly researched how other news sources treat Bloody Elbow. The only mentions of Bloody Elbow in news sources I could find was a story on a site called “Fannation” [100] which was written by a contributor to that publication; and story in a small Florida publication which refers to Bloody Elbow as “SB Nation’s comprehensive MMA blog.”
The Washington Post sports blogs also had several instances where Bloody Elbow was used to take quotes from fighters but it always identified it as a blog. [101], [102], [103].
Since Bloody Elbow is rarely mentioned by the news media and, when it is, it is identified as a blog, this suggests it fails WP:USEBYOTHERS.
My suggestion is that Bloody Elbow pre-March 2024 be treated as unreliable for statements of fact, but can be used for statements of opinion if attributed. Can anyone find more pre-March 2024 content that suggests it's more than a blog? Brucemyboy1212 ( talk) 16:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The source is
2020 U.S. Religion Census published by the
ASARB. It was being used as a citation in the
LDS Church article for the statement As of 2020, the church was the fourth-largest Christian denomination in the U.S.
. It has been argued that the source doesn't support this statement. I would argue it does based on text on page 76 of the report. It starts going through the largest organized religions for a commentary of demographics:
These groups, ranked by size, include the 1) Catholic Church, 2) non-denominational Christian Churches, 3) Southern Baptist Convention, 4) United Methodist Church, 5) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 6) Muslim, 7) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 8) Assemblies of God, and 9) Jehovah’s Witnesses... The Catholic Church has been the single-largest religious body in the United States... The third largest religious group is the United Methodist Church (5%)... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (fourth largest, at 4.2% of total adherents)
I think there might be some confusion due to the later paragraphs dropping the "non-denominational Christian Churches" from the ordering when discussing organized religious bodies. It is also possible to look at the data in the table starting on page 88 and see that the reported percentages also support the statement. In my view the claim "4th largest Christian denomination in the US" is supported by the source. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 11:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
https://www.airdisaster.ru/ is a Russian-language website that is currently cited on 575 articles here, mostly aviation accidents in the Soviet Union, Russia, and other former Soviet countries. I admit that I must rely on machine translation to read the site, but it seems to me to be a SPS without any evidence of editorial oversight. Indeed, the home page of the site states that its purpose is to collect and present information that is not available in published sources, and it encourages readers to write in with extra information they might have about the accidents listed on the site. Beyond that, in the few dozen pages that I spot-checked, I did not find a single one that cited any sources for its information. Without that, or any visible editorial policy, or credentials of the site publishers (Дмитрий Ерцов, Александр Фетисов -- Dmitriy Ertsov, Alexander Fetisov), I think that any information published there must be treated as highly suspect and unsuitable as a source for Wikipedia. The absence of citations over there (and its aim of presenting "new" information about these accidents) also makes it of very limited use for chasing down reliable sources. How do others here see it? -- Rlandmann ( talk) 13:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Can I get some eyes on National Union of Students (Australia). There's a couple of very new accounts who seem to be student politicians who are making a number of edits on the basis of very poor sourcing. TarnishedPath talk 03:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
There is an AfD, and Shshshsh is not ready to accept this article as a press release provided by SRV Media, a prominent sponsored PR news provider that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. The article clearly mentions that it is a press release from SRV Media. When I tell him these he starts to say “ Please use WP:RSN to gain consensus pertaining to the label you're using.” He is not ready to accept what WP:PRSOURCE says: “A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is usually written either by the business or organization it is written about.” I want to ask the community to tell him that what he is saying is wrong. GrabUp - Talk 11:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
If the question for RSN is 'is this a press release?' then yes, it very obviously is. The clear nod to SRV media indicates this is the case, along with a quick web search showing several other articles [108] [109] published in other newspapers around the same time with similar/same language. I will just note that while the reference to WP:NEWSORGINDIA is valid, I would be much more concerned if ThePrint article in question was being used as a reference for an article about the the founder of TalenTrack, Vineet Bajpai - the section at the end of the article on him and his company is clearly paid promotion. This is why WP:NEWSORGINDIA was created, and this type of paid promotion is what it cautions against. However, using a press release based article to state a fact about someone winning an award is probably ok and I don't think you can get around it - this is the case for many articles about Hollywood celebrities and walk of fame updates. (I wont speak to the notability of the award itself or whether the AFD in question meets GNG overall here since thats not OP's question). Schwinnspeed ( talk) 14:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
This story is provided by SRV Media. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/SRV Media)and
This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. It might be reliable per WP:PRIMARY/ WP:ABOUTSELF but is certainly not independent of the subject and so doesn't add anything to notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Is it reliable? Shahid • Talk2me 11:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
In this case it's the Reform UK party/limited company. It was using The Telegraph newspaper, now it's a tweet from Farage. The numbers are being stated in the Infobox as fac. I see for the Tories and Conservatives we used newspapers, for the Lib Dems their website. If this is the wrong board, sorry, what should I use? Doug Weller talk 12:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
unduly self-serving. Farages full tweet
Reform UK now has 70,000 members. Join the revolt.🚀shows he has a reason to want that figure to be as large as possible. I don't know what the previous figures from the Telegraph were, but if they are starkly different from the figure given by Farage then I would treat the figure from Farage with a grain of salt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Is this website reliable? TheChronikler7 ( talk) 13:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)