This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 390 | Archive 391 | Archive 392 | Archive 393 | Archive 394 | Archive 395 | → | Archive 400 |
all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the[ir] prominence, and attempts to give equal weight or entirely exclude a minority perspective by declaring its proponents reliable or unreliable in a narrow topic area are likely to be ineffectual, if not entirely pointless.
What best describes The Economist's news coverage of transgender topics?
gnu 57 13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Any RfC on this question should contain, at a minimum, a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Economist on trans topics). That would violate WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCST, and is in no way a reason to close anything procedurally. The RFC was indeed started somewhat prematurely, but it'll stay open for weeks/a month or so, giving both sides plenty of time to offer new evience. DFlhb ( talk) 19:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. ( diff)
If you came here because of the notice at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies
[1], please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Instances where the factual accuracy of covetage of transgender issues in reporting by The Economist include this discusion. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Bias is not an issue. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 18:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)additional considerations apply. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.I am not in any way disputing that The Economist is a reliable source for its own "gender critical" opinions on contemporary issues, but the concerns I am raising have nothing to do with the reliability of the magazine's coverage arise when it is elaborating its own "viewpoint" - they are all about claims made in avowedly factual news coverage. The assertion that because The Economist is generally respected for its factual coverage in other areas, that therefore this also applies to its coverage of transgender topics, seems to assume the conclusion that this filing is intended to assess.
generally reliable for its coverage of transgender topics(as the filer, who has advocate its use in one of the cases I am using as an example, had presumably hoped [11]), but rather that
additional considerations apply.
Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that trans ideology Is distorting US medical education?
|
---|
|
Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that the Biden administration has embraced gender ideology?
|
---|
|
Is The Economist reliable for its coverage of the launch of the 8th edition WPATH guidelines?
|
---|
|
Is The Economist reliable for its characterisation of a third party interview of Marci Bowers by Abigail Shrier?
|
---|
|
additional considerations apply, given the repeated statements The Economist makes in its news coverage, in its own voice, that align with a tiny minority of FRINGE sources rather than the overwhelming WP:WEIGHT of mainstream and high-quality sources. A decision that The Economist is "generally reliable on transgender topics" would only be a red flag to POV editors to introduce poorly-sourced and UNDUE content to articles in the GENSEX WP:ACDS topic area, and to encourage WP:FALSEBALANCE article text in which the talking points The Economist shares only with FRINGE publications would be presented as an alternative reality alongside the consensus reality documented in the bulk of reliable sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC) corrections by Newimpartial ( talk) 02:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
the fact that The Economist often includes highly partisan language in its coverage of trans issues, language which should not be regarded as factual or presented in wikivoice. Your paraphrase here sidesteps what I regard as a critical concern. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
the public launch ... was a mess. With a publication that is regarded as generally reliable for transgender topics, we would take this judgement at face value. Can we, for The Economist, particularly given their selection of voices used to support this characterisation? With a generally reliable source, we would assume that the content of those sentences about the Eunuch chapter (the topic the WPATH page editors were aiming to include) is factually accurate, but is it safe to assume that concerning statements of fact that are not made in other WP:RS? The assumption that The Economist must be reliable on these topics because it is reliable on non-trans related topics seems to me to be circular and unconvincing, given the well-established biases of the source. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
hosts stories about castrating boys against their will. gnu 57 02:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
stories about castrating boys against their will? Or course, if the scholarly source does confirm this, WP:V is satisfied without consulting The Economist... Newimpartial ( talk) 02:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 18:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
involuntaryto The Economist's
against their willthat I am questioning here. And given that no other sources appear to back up the interpretation offered by The Economist, we have reason to doubt that the journalist's expertise in this area is any stronger than mine. So I actually think this remains an excellent example of a case where we should not simply defer to the magazine's overall reputation in assessing it as a source. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Acting or done without or against one's will. [26] The Economist using words you do not understand does not make it an unreliable source. Chess ( talk) (please use
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
using words you do not understandwhen I am trying to have a WP:CIVIL discussion about specific meanings; I find it unhelpful. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 22:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
redefining words in my own headis pretty much the opposite of linguistic pragmatism. What we do is pay attention to how words are used in specific contexts, and there can be a significant semantic difference between "involuntarily" and "against one's will" - in spite of what some dictionaries might say. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
debunked that (Joyce) has anything to do with the Economist's trans coverageis flatly contradicted by the Daily Dot RS, which links a number of articles published under her byline. Perhaps you might read that one again, with less implicit confidence in your own prior assumptions?
fair- well, I have to question your judgement about that one. The perspective of mainstream transgender health practitioners is entirely left out in The Economist's reporting.
didn't seem like cherry-pickingto you, but it did seem that way to the interview subject, why should we take your opinion over that of the interview subject?
the Economist's pieces are well-researched and arguedwhen they largely ignore the scholarly and professional consensus around transgender healthcare while amplifying the views of FRINGE cranks like Genspect and SEGM - well, I remain unconvinced of that one. The position that Wikipedia needs to platform FRINGE views to
prevent widespread WP:NPOV violationsdoes not meet with widespread community support, to the best of my knowledge. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
a fluff piececompletely understate s her role (and undermines her agency) in making the series happen in the first place. Also, I am getting tired of your false or partial statements:
The Economist only usesthe concept of trans ideology
in the headline- no, it is used twice in the article text, as I documented above.
there is no conflict between scholarly sources & The Economist, since the former aren't addressing what the latter is talking about.What is the difference between the "gender ideology" that The Economist presents as real and the "gender ideology" the RS describe as not being real?
believe those criticisms are fringe within the broader medical community, but why? I found no non-FRINGE sources for any of them.
It seemed more like damage control- you never answered my question about why your interpretation is more credible than that of the interview subject; all you did was elaborate on your interpretation. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
subject-matter expertsstrikes me as hilarious, clueless and contemptible all at once. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
:::@
Newimpartial: And P.S. you accuse me of perceiving The Economist in general but seem to ignore totally that I have refuted the so-called evidence you and Loki provided.
VickKiang
(talk) 00:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment per comments and objection below.
have refuted the so-called evidenceI provided, I don't believe you to have done so; see below. On the other hand, your subjective belief that you have done so suggests a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and may also explain why you seem to have misconstrued both my intention in presenting the evidence and some of the evidence itself. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It suggested that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctorand
How has trans ideology made its way into medical schools?- still unattributed statements in the voice of The Economist. In spite of your claims, neither of these statements are attributed to the lecturer.
Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that trans ideology Is distorting US medical education?I do not see how this question could be answered in the affirmative.
Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that the Biden administration has embraced gender ideology?This is a factual question which demands a yes or no answer: either "gender ideology" is real or it isn't, and if real either the Biden administration has embraced it or it hasn't. VickKiang, I simply don't understand how you can in good conscience duck this key question, on which The Economist lines up with the FRINGE sources against mainstream sources, and then conclude that the claim is BIASED but with no prejudice against the reliability of the source.
additional considerations apply. Those seekinf to rubberstamp the prior assumption that The Econimist is "generally reliable on transgender topics" are precisely seeking to ensure that content sourced only to it and similar WP:BIASEDSOURCES is considered DUE and presented as fact in wikivoice- as I have documented above.
directly contradicting any claims made by The Economistthen I'm afraid I don't know how to interact with you. The Economist states that "gender identity ideology" exists (in many more articles beyond the ones I discuss here), while the high-quality sources on transgender topics are clear that it does not - that seems like a rather direct contradiction.
Stating that a couple of cases are WP:FRINGE does not equate to marginal reliability- I have never been suggesting marginal reliability, I am proposing that additional considerations apply. To specify what those considerations might be, they might include the fact that The Economist often includes highly partisan language in its coverage of trans issues, language which should not be regarded as factual or presented in wikivoice, as numerous editors in the GENSEX area typically insist on doing. Another consideration is that when The Econonist choses to amplify FRINGE voices in its news reporting, this form of advocacy should not be considered as contributing to WP:DUE except where issues are picked up outside of the "gender critical" echo chamber. Inclusion of those two caveats would go most of the way to addressing the concerns I have been articulating all along, concerns that I believe the initial filing was intended to pre-empt and plow under. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
straw man (your) argument. I wasn't saying anything about your subsequent argument, at that point, only the logic of your initial !vote. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I don't see how linking the diff of your !vote could straw man (your) argument. I wasn't saying anything about your subsequent argument, at that point, only the logic of your initial !vote- in fact, I could also link your initial vote devoid of context before you completed your insightful analysis. But that is obviously unhelpful. VickKiang (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context."additional considerations apply" could be taken
marginally reliable and may be usable depending on context. This is not a straw-man argument, but I apologise if my imprecise wording bothers you. VickKiang (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
If your point is that, when The Economist relies on FRINGE spokespeople and is the only periodical publishing a characterisation, that it is unlikely for that characterisation to be DUE, then in fact you are supporting what I mean when I say that additional considerations apply- per WP:DUE,
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.That IMO it occasionally covers WP:FRINGE topics and organisations and could be sometimes (but not always) WP:UNDUE and WP:BIASED in occasional (not most) examples you gave does not mean I would like to downgrade it to additional considerations apply. If the viewpoint from The Economist is minor it might not be a significant viewpoint per DUE, of course. But I don't see how at all how I am indirectly supporting your position. VickKiang (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Citing WP:FRINGE but not downright WP:QS sources is a further testimony of WP:BIASED and WP:UNDUE but I don't see reliability being a concern, but the selection of sources is precisely one aspect of reliability (alongside the use of inflammatory or biased language) that I see as the relevant
additional consideration. I had meant to note previously that many of those sought out for comment by The Economist are WP:QS as well as WP:FRINGE; you referred to the categories as though they were mutually exclusive, when in fact they overlap significantly. In your reply to my evidence you repeatedly noted that The Economist was sourcing statements that would not be DUE for inclusion in our articles: that is what I regard as
indirectly supportingmy substantive position on article content (though not my recommendation for RSN caveats). Newimpartial ( talk) 03:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Various editors in this discussion have apparently !voted on the RfC question without examining any evidence beyond their own perceptions of The Economist as a reliable source in general, it is obvious that we will not come to an agreement so I will abstain from this discussion. VickKiang (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It suggested that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctor and How has trans ideology made its way into medical schools?
It suggested..., The Economist states that
when a lecuter told a class that gender dysphoria was not a mental illness...and previously also refers to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I do not see this instance being in its editorial voice. This is not an example of editorial voice.
I remain disappointed by the tone and intent of the article. My comments were taken out of context and used to cast doubt upon trans care, particularly the use of puberty blockers. Worse, Jazz Jennings was disrespectfully and erroneously portrayed as a puberty blockade failure, based solely upon her television portrayal. That said, the author conveyed to me that she is not against the use of puberty blockade but rather, interested in better informed consent, a principle upon which we both agreed. I did believe that my comments would be conveyed fairly.While the interviewee criticised the usage of the context, I also had a look at a related article from The New York Times quoting Bowers, though I don't see equitable criticism there.
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is a largely discredited acronym referring to those transgender persons who appear to ‘come out of nowhere’, skeptics attributing their choice to transition as nothing more than social contagion. It is a term used by conservatives and naysayers to deny, discredit and de-legitimize transgender persons and their search for identity as being a short term, impulsive act influenced by others.However, consider an archived version early in 2021, I don't see any parts of the FAQ criticising ROGD as so. Similarly, in a September 2021 archived version at here I couldn't find info from the FAQ that contradicts The Economist's comment on ROGD. From what I see in the archives the FAQ has substantially changed from the 2021 versions to the 2022 versions. Do you have sources that demonstrate that prior to The Economist's reporting Marci had a directly contradictory view of ROGD? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Itcan by no means refer to the DSM, which cannot possibly have suggested
that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctor. Only the content of the lecture could have done that, and this content (
when a lecturer told a class that gender dysphoria was not a mental illness) is presented in neutral narrative voice - as fact - by The Economist.
I also had a look at a related article from The New York Times quoting Bowers, though I don't see equitable criticism there- are you suggesting that the content of The Economist and the NYT on this matter are the same? Because I'm not aware of any issues using the NYT as a source on this, and I wouldn't expect the views of the interview subject to the the same concerning the two sources.
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.I regard that most reliable sources could be WP:UNDUE in an area, and acknowledge that in many examples provided above that The Economist is very occasionally WP:UNDUE and sometimes WP:BIASED. However, due weight is a consideration required for all WP:RS sources, while The Economist could be more biased/opinionated than the median WP:GREL these are not an additional considerations IMO that falls under
additional considerations applyper WP:MREL that needs to be examined on a case-to-case basis. (This is of course my personal opinion, I'll try to abstain from commenting any further otherwise.) VickKiang (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
deeply conservativecould plausibly apply as a descriptor for this publication's broad editorial and political position. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
the relationship between news and editorial in the UK being more like a Blood-brain barrier than a water-tight compartment- we are asking about
What best describes The Economist's news coverage of transgender topics?Opinion pieces seem irrelevant, and contradict the consensus at WP:RSOPINION. VickKiang (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
executive editor for The Economist’s events business(whatever that means) since March 2020, and was a finance editor before that. She's not an executive, she's currently on a sabbatical, and she had nothing to do with the article being disputed here on WPATH.
Helen Joyce is the Finance editor at The Economistit does indeed link to various other pieces by numerous other editors. I couldn't see evidence that those other linked pieces are inaccurate and severely misleading. Of course, Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality is a rightfully critiqued book but it's published by
Oneworld Publications, Simon & Schusterper the WP page, not through The Economist. VickKiang (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
According to her analysis, in 2020 the Times and the Sunday Times published “over 300 articles, almost one a day, and they were all negative.” CNN has reached out to both newspapers for comment.
According to hermeans that it is expressing another journalist's opinion instead of the CNN editors directly criticising it. The other example lists to an essay/opinion piece as I said below. The piece you linked from Insider, a marginally reliable source for news, links to this piece,
letters to the editor. Letters, commentary, and opinion pieces should be regarded per WP:RSOPINION, I don't think we should, in a RfC about
What best describes The Daily Telegraph's news coverage of transgender topics, link to pages criticising their opinion/commentary coverage. VickKiang (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 05:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 18:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Economist on trans topicsin the RfC prompt; that is what the discussion among editors is for. The RfC is appropriately worded, and you have ample opportunity to present the arguments against the status quo in this discussion here; we need not scrap the RfC simply because the arguments in opposition to general reliability are not among the very first arguments presented. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
attempt to run up the score earlyor
to drum up easy !votes on their sideseems to be a weakly evidenced claim that the RfC creator is engaging in battleground behavior by merely asking this question to the community; I don't see their actions that way and I can't get behind that sort of sentiment at all. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
without so much as linking to the related ongoing RfC that they and I have participated in and that prompted these RfCs-- what RfC are you referring to? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Any RfC on this question should contain, at a minimum, a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Economist on trans topics). That would violate WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCST, and is in no way a reason to close anything procedurally. The RFC was indeed started somewhat prematurely, but it'll stay open for weeks/a month or so, giving both sides plenty of time to offer new evience. DFlhb ( talk) 19:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
So far, the relevant discussuons are taking place at article Talk pages, where some of the HQ/academic sources have been presented in an ad hoc way. A number of editors have acknowleged that a noticeboard discussion will be required to amend the list entry; I would attribute my own procrastination on this to (1) my preference to treat The Times and The Telegraph together on this, so we don't see Times pickups replacing Telegraph coverage (as currently happens when either source runs with a Daily Mail story for example) and (2) my inclination to wait for the academic sourcing on this to strengthen further (as seems inevitable given recent developments in the UK), and a range of discussions at User talk:Newimpartial on the potential likelihood of taking The Times and The Telegraph to a noticeboard. Again, just an observation, I have no objectionns towards the Option X being included in the prompt though. VickKiang (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that a dual RfC on The Times and The Telegraph will be necessary, as there is sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the anti-trans editorial bias from these publications has lead to issues that call their reliability into question- I disagree that we should combine two distinct sources together.
and at worst I see it as an outright attempt at putting editors like myself on the back foot by forcing an RfC before we are ready- I also happen to strongly disagree that this is a WP:FORUMSHOP attempt, as per that:
It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions- these RfCs have only been asked at RSN, not at other locations. Moreover, it is a standard four-option choice with context additionally added, violates the neutral requirement, so I respectfully disagree.
However I know I am still in the preparation stages for those discussions, so at best I see this RfC as a premature filing, and at worst I see it as an outright attempt at putting editors like myself on the back foot by forcing an RfC before we are ready- here I'm unsure if it's that you require more time gathering more evidence or that currently there is insufficient evidence yet, if the latter is true I disagree this filing is premature. Moreover, I should point out that Newimpartial stated they would provide evidence this Sunday. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The Times, Telegraph, and Economist are not reliable sources on the topic of trans issues, which itself is a question of reliability; the source discussion is not simply about whether or not the sources are WP:DUE. On top of that, the extent to which a source is reliable in a topic area affects the extent to which it is WP:DUE, so community discussion on The Economist will help to resolve that part of the question given that its reliability in this topic area is explicitly contested by an editor in that discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.The result of this filing is already not unanimous. WP:SNOW also specifies that cases where
there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreementare not good candidates for a SNOW close. So I am struggling to see how the criteria for a SNOW close are met in this instance.
bordering on an insult. After all, my suggestion that you might not have read my 14,000 characters of analysis could reasonably be interpreted as implying that you have better things to do with your time... Newimpartial ( talk) 21:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
1. Source: A. Yunusov. Myths and enemy images in historiography and history textbooks in independent Azerbaijan
2. Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan#Indoctrination_in_schools
Hello community! I hope you're doing well! From this page of Leibniz Institute for International Textbook Research institute it is clear that "Myths and enemy images in historiography and history textbooks in independent Azerbaijan" is a report presented by the Arif Yunusov at the International Conference "Memory Wars?" 2009. Questions are: Is presentation at scholarly conference sufficient to consider Arif Yunusov's report as reliably published? Is it acceptable to use it as a source for Wikipedia, and if so, what type of source is it? Primary? Secondary? Other?
There is no distinction between Arif's report and any other report presented by an individual contributor at any other conference. Arif Yunusov's report, in my opinion, should be regarded as his own opinions, because it was not published by reliably scholarship, and so did not go through the process of fact-checking and accuracy checking, nor was it peer reviewed, however, I'd want to know what the community thinks.
Thanks, 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC) A b r v a g l ( PingMe) 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Can Gregory Wilpert's books be used as a source in Wikipedia without attribution? He is the owner of Venezuelanalysis (generally unreliable per WP:RSP), was the director of Telesur English (unreliable per WP:RSP) from 2014 to 2015 and is currently an editor at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. They're used in many articles about Venezuela and Venezuelans, and I want to know if an author's involvement with unreliable sources (and what made them be considered unreliable) can affect the reliability of the author's other publications. Hegsareta ( talk) 22:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Are publications associated with the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine reliable sources when commenting on transgender medicine and other transgender topics? Newimpartial ( talk) 22:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, I meant to point out that your description of James Cantor and other Genspect devotees as subject-matter experts strikes me as hilarious, clueless and contemptible all at once.Congratulations, you have successfully WP:POINTed that out with something that could've been a single RSN post and not a full-blown RfC. Chess ( talk) (please use
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Question - what prompted this RfC and the one above it on Genspect? Is anyone anywhere, or any article, using this in anything other than an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion? Crossroads -talk- 01:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
advocacy groupsand professional organizations, and classifying Genspect and SEBGM as advocacy groups? I also feel compelled to point out that, in terms of social epistemology, the difference between WPATH and SEBGM is not accurately characterized as WPATH being a
source (I) likeand SEBGM not being one. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
answering (your) question, you were raising the question whether the groups platformed by The Economist, which I characterized in the discussion above as "FRINGE", were in fact to be considered reliable. That isn't a question to be answered by my personal opinion but rather community consensus, which can be ascertained on this venue. Nothing POINTey about it - I'm not sure whether you've actually read WP:POINT recently, given your statement here. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
you feel that a particular source does not meet Wikipedia standardsis
express your concerns on the talk pages of articles which cite it, or at the reliable sources noticeboard.
Are publications and declarations by Genspect reliable sources when commenting on transgender medicine and other transgender topics? Newimpartial ( talk) 22:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Consequently, articles by gender extremists such as Lee Leveille, are favoured over the more conventional Sunday Timesthat she wished to have articles by The Sunday Times included on Wikipedia (the subject of an RfC we're currently having). Regardless, she said this on the Genspect website, not onwiki. We do not need to have an RfC every time someone complains about Wikipedia on their website. This is a waste of time and so my !vote is No with a WP:SNOWCLOSE per WP:SPS.
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
plan. But when an otherwise WP:RS decides that it is going to reserve essentially all of its news reaction/"expert" commentary on a topic for sources known to be unreliable and to be associated with a certain extreme viewpoint on that topic, that form of bias is worth noting, innit? If we were talking about 2020 election denialists or holocaust skeptics, I find it hard to believe we would be seeing so much "but BOTHSIDES!" sentiment. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 21:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Do editors consider Interesting Engineering to be reliable source?
It started out as a now-defunct blog on Blogger, and my understanding is that blogs generally aren't considered reliable. However, the online magazine (in its current form) has been used as a source for major media outlets like The New York Times and BBC. Ixfd64 ( talk) 20:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Is Proceedings of Hungarian association a reliable source for history topics, including history of the USSR, or it is an SPS? Paul Siebert ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
A question has arisen whether Malta Today and The Malta Independent are reliable sources. I don't know enough about either to know for sure. The resolution of the edit request at Talk:Henley & Partners#Restore section that was deleted improperly rather depends on the answer. At first blush these look like reasonable sources to me, and both are notable, but experience with notable but unreliable publishers in the US tells me to seek more input from people more familiar with Malta and its media outlets. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Is (was) this a reliable source? Saw it mentioned on Kyōhei Ishiguro's page and while it doesn't seem particularly untrustworthy to me, from what I gathered on their twitter they're officially an advertisement agency for the Nerima ward in Japan. The site has since been majorly redesigned or passed hands or something and most of the old articles have gone defunct (the source on Ishiguro's page needed to be swapped out with the web archive) which also does not fill me with confidence with regards to their reliability. 216.164.249.213 ( talk) 17:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Because the first few that I checked on the first Pakistan listing didn't, nor did a few others I checked. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
War crimeis a technical (legal) term for certain type of actions. To constitute a war crime, the action must fulfil certain criteria and, importantly, be determined as such by a competent court. It's wrong to call something a war crime in wikivoice where there have only been allegations or accusations. It's akin to calling someone a murderer: we can use this term only after the person has been found guilty in a court of law. Same for war crimes IMO. — kashmīrī TALK 22:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
An online thesaurus of unknown authorship, not much used on Wikipedia, but seen on a talk page to support a claim that the plural of "narrative" is "narrative" in "commonly used contexts". (It is a collective noun, which may agree with plural verbs in some varieties of English, generally British, but that is something different, not explained on the site.) It is also used in WP main space to support a WP:BLUESKY set of synonyms for the article's topic. Just plain Bill ( talk) 18:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Do you honestly think wordhippo is in the same league as Oxford or Merriam-Webster? Not even close. Kindly stick to the topic at hand, which is the reliability of wordhippo.com, not those well-established dictionaries. Do you have any basis for claiming wordhippo's publication process is reliable?
If you want to conflate citations for watercraft synonyms with that article's plural/singular kerfuffle and pontificate about that at length, do it somewhere else. Just plain Bill ( talk) 19:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Ensuring the accuracy re methodology is up to the readersseems to put the burden of accuracy on the person reading the source – I presume by "reader", you mean the Wikpedia editor. If that is the way you suggest Wikipedia works, then what is the point of the source in the first place? It doesn't work that way. If you mean that the editor who wants to use a source should demonstrate that they are an RS, then that is correct, the burden on them is to come up with the evidence of methods to check accuracy. We do not seem to have that here.
The accuracy of the synonymous terms, as listed at Wordhippo and as judged by anyone who's even minimally educated, speaks for itself" seems to say "if a source agrees with me, then it is a Reliable Source". That is not the way that Wikipedia works, because otherwise it would simply be full of editors' opinions, rather than the verifiable facts that are the basis of this encyclopaedia.
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I think that it would perverse to argue that Oxford or Merriam-Webster do not have such a reputation; conversely, I see no evidence that Wordhippo has such a reputation. On the question of whether it is a reliable source for questions about the use of words, I would say no, unless evidence is presented that it has garnered that reputation. Otherwise it's just another random website, put together for commercial gain by people of unknown levels of expertise. Girth Summit (blether) 10:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd welcome more contributions to the discussions going on at
Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. One deals with NPOV and DUE, but the other one is about sources, and the issue is: do we have enough independent and reliable sources to state with wikivoice in the lead that Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been committed by Armed Forces of Russia, including the use of mass rape as a weapon of war
? Sources on mass rape are detailed in the
Overall scale section, and sources on rape as a weapon of war are in the
Claims of intent section.
Gitz (
talk) (
contribs) 16:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
In addition to the multiple sources already present in the article, there’s about a whole dozen additional sources given in this discussion [37]. Gitz6666 is just wasting people’s time. Volunteer Marek 17:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
If an online news publication (which may be considered a "blog") holds congressional press credentials, publishes investigative news material, and is cited by sitting members of the U.S. House and Senate in official correspondence, is that site a reliable source? I am asking because FloridianPress.com investigated financial ties between AHA International School and a Chinese education company in the wake of the U.S. government leasing the property to house migrant children. The article seems to be relevant to the AHA International School's history, particularly its closure and subsequent use of the property, yet when I attempted to include it as a citation, it was removed as an unreliable source. Any assistance would be appreciated. Jejasi ( talk) 21:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Side note, a source that doesn't fulfill the RS criteria is not categorically excluded from Wikipedia, it just doesn't count as fulfilling requirements (such as wp:ver) for a source that does meet the criteria. North8000 ( talk) 21:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
This is about [39]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Is Center for UFO Studies considered a reliable source for List of reported UFO sightings? CUFOS is an " international group of scientists, academics, investigators, and volunteers", and has a huge database of UFO cases. Thanks, Yann ( talk) 20:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to get some thoughts on whether a source some of us want to use at [[Southern Television broadcast interruption] and Bob Tomalski should be considered reliable. The source is an investigative podcast [40]. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
We don't allow, rightly, a single YouTube video as WP:RSthis isn't true. A YouTube video by a reliable source is just as reliable as any other publication by them – a video on e.g. CNN's YouTube channel would be considered reliable. WP:RSPYT explicitly says
Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.Nor is a podcast a primary source. I haven't looked into this particular source but it's neither true nor helpful to dismiss podcasts in general as inherently unreliable, self published, or primary – some are all of these things; some are none. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 11:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
It appears to be a website with 16th-17th century French royalty tidbits? I found no name to attribute the authorship of said website. I found nothing referencing the information under each topic. Is this a blog?? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Is Hill Rag considered a reliable source for Wikipedia and would it be considered a high-quality source for a featured article? I am currently using the following article from Hill Rag in the Alice Tangerini article. I have been debating for a while now to do further work on the article, but before I make any decisions regarding that, I wanted to get a clearer understanding about the use and appropriateness of this citation. I could not find Hill Rag in WP:RSN archives, but apologies if I had somehow missed it. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
raised in Kensington, which looks to me like overinterpretation of what the article actually says...) Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 23:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Could somebody familiar with the topic area give me a read on [ [41]] as a source for ethnology of the people of the Gilgit area? To me it looks...self published, but possibly by experts (?) I can go either way though; just trying to improve the sourcing of an article. If somebody thinks not, I just won't use it. Thanks for any brainpower applied to this question. Elinruby ( talk) 09:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Any thoughts about this website, particularly in the use of the biography [42] on Heinrich IV, Prince Reuss of Köstritz? Some considerations: (1) it's used on hundreds of WP articles, so obviously some people seem to have judged it reasonable. (2) The organization STIWOT publishing it looks basically legitimate to me. (3) The disclaimer [43] is not exactly a strong claim of seriousness, but also not just "we post whatever anyone sends us, don't blame us for it". (4) The specific article [44] lists the deprecated website thepeerage.com as one of its sources. In light of (4) I was inclined to remove the source in this one article, but I would welcome other views. (Also if anyone wanted to look at the other sources there -- royaltyguide.nl seems clearly hopeless, for example, and I'm not sure what's going on with the "worldroots.com" source.) -- JBL ( talk) 21:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I was previously translating the Industrial Party (China) to the English Wikipedia, but one experienced Chinese Wikipedia editor ( User:Fire-and-Ice) took issue with my citing LRB and Mercator as reliable sources in the article, especially regarding the misuse of translation in the image. I want to know whether these are reliable under this topic, or I should make a significant change? Thanks for your opinion. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 16:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
“ | English Wikipedia said London Review of Books is a "literary magazine", rather than an academic journal. It is also not possible to say China after Covid is an academic source. | ” |
Hi. Is
Racket acceptable for transcribing a menu in
Owamni? This local paper seems to be the only source for "the three sisters: black bean pureé, pickled squash, and corn." The full context is Also served are sandwiches—arepas heaped with ground elk, sweet potatoes and pepitas, or turkey, or the three sisters: black bean pureé, pickled squash, and corn.
I think it's used for just straight reading
the menu. Thank you either way, and happy holidays. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 00:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, with regards to the Sahara Press Service, would it be fair to use in-text attribution? Especially with regards to Western Saharan clashes (2020–present), as this media is owned by the Polisario Front, who is a belligerent in the clashes, and is very obviously biased towards them with many articles not having clear authorship information. The same argument can be made with Maghreb Arabe Press, but this isn't currently the focus of this discussion. Thank you! :) NAADAAN ( talk) 03:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
This source seems to have been used quite a bit recently, especially to report endorsements in US Elections. Looking at the site, I see no statements about editing policy and it looks like it may just be a glorified blog. Seeking opinions on whether this is a reliable source.
2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Florida is a page that the source is used extensively. Slywriter ( talk) 18:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
On the main page about Burkina Faso, it should be the photo of the last elected president Rock Christian Marc Kabore or the photo of the current president captain Ibrahim Traore. But you used the photo of the former president Blaise Compaore who was ousted from the power by the people in 2014. Therefore, we are just asking an update for historical truth and your own credibility. Respectfully, 2600:4040:219D:2C00:30D7:E4CA:4C28:D367 ( talk) 16:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 390 | Archive 391 | Archive 392 | Archive 393 | Archive 394 | Archive 395 | → | Archive 400 |
all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the[ir] prominence, and attempts to give equal weight or entirely exclude a minority perspective by declaring its proponents reliable or unreliable in a narrow topic area are likely to be ineffectual, if not entirely pointless.
What best describes The Economist's news coverage of transgender topics?
gnu 57 13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Any RfC on this question should contain, at a minimum, a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Economist on trans topics). That would violate WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCST, and is in no way a reason to close anything procedurally. The RFC was indeed started somewhat prematurely, but it'll stay open for weeks/a month or so, giving both sides plenty of time to offer new evience. DFlhb ( talk) 19:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. ( diff)
If you came here because of the notice at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies
[1], please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Instances where the factual accuracy of covetage of transgender issues in reporting by The Economist include this discusion. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Bias is not an issue. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 18:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)additional considerations apply. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.I am not in any way disputing that The Economist is a reliable source for its own "gender critical" opinions on contemporary issues, but the concerns I am raising have nothing to do with the reliability of the magazine's coverage arise when it is elaborating its own "viewpoint" - they are all about claims made in avowedly factual news coverage. The assertion that because The Economist is generally respected for its factual coverage in other areas, that therefore this also applies to its coverage of transgender topics, seems to assume the conclusion that this filing is intended to assess.
generally reliable for its coverage of transgender topics(as the filer, who has advocate its use in one of the cases I am using as an example, had presumably hoped [11]), but rather that
additional considerations apply.
Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that trans ideology Is distorting US medical education?
|
---|
|
Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that the Biden administration has embraced gender ideology?
|
---|
|
Is The Economist reliable for its coverage of the launch of the 8th edition WPATH guidelines?
|
---|
|
Is The Economist reliable for its characterisation of a third party interview of Marci Bowers by Abigail Shrier?
|
---|
|
additional considerations apply, given the repeated statements The Economist makes in its news coverage, in its own voice, that align with a tiny minority of FRINGE sources rather than the overwhelming WP:WEIGHT of mainstream and high-quality sources. A decision that The Economist is "generally reliable on transgender topics" would only be a red flag to POV editors to introduce poorly-sourced and UNDUE content to articles in the GENSEX WP:ACDS topic area, and to encourage WP:FALSEBALANCE article text in which the talking points The Economist shares only with FRINGE publications would be presented as an alternative reality alongside the consensus reality documented in the bulk of reliable sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC) corrections by Newimpartial ( talk) 02:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
the fact that The Economist often includes highly partisan language in its coverage of trans issues, language which should not be regarded as factual or presented in wikivoice. Your paraphrase here sidesteps what I regard as a critical concern. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
the public launch ... was a mess. With a publication that is regarded as generally reliable for transgender topics, we would take this judgement at face value. Can we, for The Economist, particularly given their selection of voices used to support this characterisation? With a generally reliable source, we would assume that the content of those sentences about the Eunuch chapter (the topic the WPATH page editors were aiming to include) is factually accurate, but is it safe to assume that concerning statements of fact that are not made in other WP:RS? The assumption that The Economist must be reliable on these topics because it is reliable on non-trans related topics seems to me to be circular and unconvincing, given the well-established biases of the source. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
hosts stories about castrating boys against their will. gnu 57 02:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
stories about castrating boys against their will? Or course, if the scholarly source does confirm this, WP:V is satisfied without consulting The Economist... Newimpartial ( talk) 02:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 18:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
involuntaryto The Economist's
against their willthat I am questioning here. And given that no other sources appear to back up the interpretation offered by The Economist, we have reason to doubt that the journalist's expertise in this area is any stronger than mine. So I actually think this remains an excellent example of a case where we should not simply defer to the magazine's overall reputation in assessing it as a source. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Acting or done without or against one's will. [26] The Economist using words you do not understand does not make it an unreliable source. Chess ( talk) (please use
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
using words you do not understandwhen I am trying to have a WP:CIVIL discussion about specific meanings; I find it unhelpful. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 22:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
redefining words in my own headis pretty much the opposite of linguistic pragmatism. What we do is pay attention to how words are used in specific contexts, and there can be a significant semantic difference between "involuntarily" and "against one's will" - in spite of what some dictionaries might say. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
debunked that (Joyce) has anything to do with the Economist's trans coverageis flatly contradicted by the Daily Dot RS, which links a number of articles published under her byline. Perhaps you might read that one again, with less implicit confidence in your own prior assumptions?
fair- well, I have to question your judgement about that one. The perspective of mainstream transgender health practitioners is entirely left out in The Economist's reporting.
didn't seem like cherry-pickingto you, but it did seem that way to the interview subject, why should we take your opinion over that of the interview subject?
the Economist's pieces are well-researched and arguedwhen they largely ignore the scholarly and professional consensus around transgender healthcare while amplifying the views of FRINGE cranks like Genspect and SEGM - well, I remain unconvinced of that one. The position that Wikipedia needs to platform FRINGE views to
prevent widespread WP:NPOV violationsdoes not meet with widespread community support, to the best of my knowledge. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
a fluff piececompletely understate s her role (and undermines her agency) in making the series happen in the first place. Also, I am getting tired of your false or partial statements:
The Economist only usesthe concept of trans ideology
in the headline- no, it is used twice in the article text, as I documented above.
there is no conflict between scholarly sources & The Economist, since the former aren't addressing what the latter is talking about.What is the difference between the "gender ideology" that The Economist presents as real and the "gender ideology" the RS describe as not being real?
believe those criticisms are fringe within the broader medical community, but why? I found no non-FRINGE sources for any of them.
It seemed more like damage control- you never answered my question about why your interpretation is more credible than that of the interview subject; all you did was elaborate on your interpretation. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
subject-matter expertsstrikes me as hilarious, clueless and contemptible all at once. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
:::@
Newimpartial: And P.S. you accuse me of perceiving The Economist in general but seem to ignore totally that I have refuted the so-called evidence you and Loki provided.
VickKiang
(talk) 00:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment per comments and objection below.
have refuted the so-called evidenceI provided, I don't believe you to have done so; see below. On the other hand, your subjective belief that you have done so suggests a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and may also explain why you seem to have misconstrued both my intention in presenting the evidence and some of the evidence itself. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It suggested that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctorand
How has trans ideology made its way into medical schools?- still unattributed statements in the voice of The Economist. In spite of your claims, neither of these statements are attributed to the lecturer.
Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that trans ideology Is distorting US medical education?I do not see how this question could be answered in the affirmative.
Is The Economist a reliable source for the statement that the Biden administration has embraced gender ideology?This is a factual question which demands a yes or no answer: either "gender ideology" is real or it isn't, and if real either the Biden administration has embraced it or it hasn't. VickKiang, I simply don't understand how you can in good conscience duck this key question, on which The Economist lines up with the FRINGE sources against mainstream sources, and then conclude that the claim is BIASED but with no prejudice against the reliability of the source.
additional considerations apply. Those seekinf to rubberstamp the prior assumption that The Econimist is "generally reliable on transgender topics" are precisely seeking to ensure that content sourced only to it and similar WP:BIASEDSOURCES is considered DUE and presented as fact in wikivoice- as I have documented above.
directly contradicting any claims made by The Economistthen I'm afraid I don't know how to interact with you. The Economist states that "gender identity ideology" exists (in many more articles beyond the ones I discuss here), while the high-quality sources on transgender topics are clear that it does not - that seems like a rather direct contradiction.
Stating that a couple of cases are WP:FRINGE does not equate to marginal reliability- I have never been suggesting marginal reliability, I am proposing that additional considerations apply. To specify what those considerations might be, they might include the fact that The Economist often includes highly partisan language in its coverage of trans issues, language which should not be regarded as factual or presented in wikivoice, as numerous editors in the GENSEX area typically insist on doing. Another consideration is that when The Econonist choses to amplify FRINGE voices in its news reporting, this form of advocacy should not be considered as contributing to WP:DUE except where issues are picked up outside of the "gender critical" echo chamber. Inclusion of those two caveats would go most of the way to addressing the concerns I have been articulating all along, concerns that I believe the initial filing was intended to pre-empt and plow under. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
straw man (your) argument. I wasn't saying anything about your subsequent argument, at that point, only the logic of your initial !vote. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I don't see how linking the diff of your !vote could straw man (your) argument. I wasn't saying anything about your subsequent argument, at that point, only the logic of your initial !vote- in fact, I could also link your initial vote devoid of context before you completed your insightful analysis. But that is obviously unhelpful. VickKiang (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context."additional considerations apply" could be taken
marginally reliable and may be usable depending on context. This is not a straw-man argument, but I apologise if my imprecise wording bothers you. VickKiang (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
If your point is that, when The Economist relies on FRINGE spokespeople and is the only periodical publishing a characterisation, that it is unlikely for that characterisation to be DUE, then in fact you are supporting what I mean when I say that additional considerations apply- per WP:DUE,
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.That IMO it occasionally covers WP:FRINGE topics and organisations and could be sometimes (but not always) WP:UNDUE and WP:BIASED in occasional (not most) examples you gave does not mean I would like to downgrade it to additional considerations apply. If the viewpoint from The Economist is minor it might not be a significant viewpoint per DUE, of course. But I don't see how at all how I am indirectly supporting your position. VickKiang (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Citing WP:FRINGE but not downright WP:QS sources is a further testimony of WP:BIASED and WP:UNDUE but I don't see reliability being a concern, but the selection of sources is precisely one aspect of reliability (alongside the use of inflammatory or biased language) that I see as the relevant
additional consideration. I had meant to note previously that many of those sought out for comment by The Economist are WP:QS as well as WP:FRINGE; you referred to the categories as though they were mutually exclusive, when in fact they overlap significantly. In your reply to my evidence you repeatedly noted that The Economist was sourcing statements that would not be DUE for inclusion in our articles: that is what I regard as
indirectly supportingmy substantive position on article content (though not my recommendation for RSN caveats). Newimpartial ( talk) 03:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Various editors in this discussion have apparently !voted on the RfC question without examining any evidence beyond their own perceptions of The Economist as a reliable source in general, it is obvious that we will not come to an agreement so I will abstain from this discussion. VickKiang (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It suggested that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctor and How has trans ideology made its way into medical schools?
It suggested..., The Economist states that
when a lecuter told a class that gender dysphoria was not a mental illness...and previously also refers to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I do not see this instance being in its editorial voice. This is not an example of editorial voice.
I remain disappointed by the tone and intent of the article. My comments were taken out of context and used to cast doubt upon trans care, particularly the use of puberty blockers. Worse, Jazz Jennings was disrespectfully and erroneously portrayed as a puberty blockade failure, based solely upon her television portrayal. That said, the author conveyed to me that she is not against the use of puberty blockade but rather, interested in better informed consent, a principle upon which we both agreed. I did believe that my comments would be conveyed fairly.While the interviewee criticised the usage of the context, I also had a look at a related article from The New York Times quoting Bowers, though I don't see equitable criticism there.
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is a largely discredited acronym referring to those transgender persons who appear to ‘come out of nowhere’, skeptics attributing their choice to transition as nothing more than social contagion. It is a term used by conservatives and naysayers to deny, discredit and de-legitimize transgender persons and their search for identity as being a short term, impulsive act influenced by others.However, consider an archived version early in 2021, I don't see any parts of the FAQ criticising ROGD as so. Similarly, in a September 2021 archived version at here I couldn't find info from the FAQ that contradicts The Economist's comment on ROGD. From what I see in the archives the FAQ has substantially changed from the 2021 versions to the 2022 versions. Do you have sources that demonstrate that prior to The Economist's reporting Marci had a directly contradictory view of ROGD? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Itcan by no means refer to the DSM, which cannot possibly have suggested
that gender-identity ideology, which holds that transgender women are women and trans men are men, had influenced some of those who were training her to be a doctor. Only the content of the lecture could have done that, and this content (
when a lecturer told a class that gender dysphoria was not a mental illness) is presented in neutral narrative voice - as fact - by The Economist.
I also had a look at a related article from The New York Times quoting Bowers, though I don't see equitable criticism there- are you suggesting that the content of The Economist and the NYT on this matter are the same? Because I'm not aware of any issues using the NYT as a source on this, and I wouldn't expect the views of the interview subject to the the same concerning the two sources.
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.I regard that most reliable sources could be WP:UNDUE in an area, and acknowledge that in many examples provided above that The Economist is very occasionally WP:UNDUE and sometimes WP:BIASED. However, due weight is a consideration required for all WP:RS sources, while The Economist could be more biased/opinionated than the median WP:GREL these are not an additional considerations IMO that falls under
additional considerations applyper WP:MREL that needs to be examined on a case-to-case basis. (This is of course my personal opinion, I'll try to abstain from commenting any further otherwise.) VickKiang (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
deeply conservativecould plausibly apply as a descriptor for this publication's broad editorial and political position. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
the relationship between news and editorial in the UK being more like a Blood-brain barrier than a water-tight compartment- we are asking about
What best describes The Economist's news coverage of transgender topics?Opinion pieces seem irrelevant, and contradict the consensus at WP:RSOPINION. VickKiang (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
executive editor for The Economist’s events business(whatever that means) since March 2020, and was a finance editor before that. She's not an executive, she's currently on a sabbatical, and she had nothing to do with the article being disputed here on WPATH.
Helen Joyce is the Finance editor at The Economistit does indeed link to various other pieces by numerous other editors. I couldn't see evidence that those other linked pieces are inaccurate and severely misleading. Of course, Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality is a rightfully critiqued book but it's published by
Oneworld Publications, Simon & Schusterper the WP page, not through The Economist. VickKiang (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
According to her analysis, in 2020 the Times and the Sunday Times published “over 300 articles, almost one a day, and they were all negative.” CNN has reached out to both newspapers for comment.
According to hermeans that it is expressing another journalist's opinion instead of the CNN editors directly criticising it. The other example lists to an essay/opinion piece as I said below. The piece you linked from Insider, a marginally reliable source for news, links to this piece,
letters to the editor. Letters, commentary, and opinion pieces should be regarded per WP:RSOPINION, I don't think we should, in a RfC about
What best describes The Daily Telegraph's news coverage of transgender topics, link to pages criticising their opinion/commentary coverage. VickKiang (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 05:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 18:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Economist on trans topicsin the RfC prompt; that is what the discussion among editors is for. The RfC is appropriately worded, and you have ample opportunity to present the arguments against the status quo in this discussion here; we need not scrap the RfC simply because the arguments in opposition to general reliability are not among the very first arguments presented. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
attempt to run up the score earlyor
to drum up easy !votes on their sideseems to be a weakly evidenced claim that the RfC creator is engaging in battleground behavior by merely asking this question to the community; I don't see their actions that way and I can't get behind that sort of sentiment at all. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
without so much as linking to the related ongoing RfC that they and I have participated in and that prompted these RfCs-- what RfC are you referring to? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Any RfC on this question should contain, at a minimum, a summary of reasons people have objected to the use of The Economist on trans topics). That would violate WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCST, and is in no way a reason to close anything procedurally. The RFC was indeed started somewhat prematurely, but it'll stay open for weeks/a month or so, giving both sides plenty of time to offer new evience. DFlhb ( talk) 19:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
So far, the relevant discussuons are taking place at article Talk pages, where some of the HQ/academic sources have been presented in an ad hoc way. A number of editors have acknowleged that a noticeboard discussion will be required to amend the list entry; I would attribute my own procrastination on this to (1) my preference to treat The Times and The Telegraph together on this, so we don't see Times pickups replacing Telegraph coverage (as currently happens when either source runs with a Daily Mail story for example) and (2) my inclination to wait for the academic sourcing on this to strengthen further (as seems inevitable given recent developments in the UK), and a range of discussions at User talk:Newimpartial on the potential likelihood of taking The Times and The Telegraph to a noticeboard. Again, just an observation, I have no objectionns towards the Option X being included in the prompt though. VickKiang (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that a dual RfC on The Times and The Telegraph will be necessary, as there is sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the anti-trans editorial bias from these publications has lead to issues that call their reliability into question- I disagree that we should combine two distinct sources together.
and at worst I see it as an outright attempt at putting editors like myself on the back foot by forcing an RfC before we are ready- I also happen to strongly disagree that this is a WP:FORUMSHOP attempt, as per that:
It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions- these RfCs have only been asked at RSN, not at other locations. Moreover, it is a standard four-option choice with context additionally added, violates the neutral requirement, so I respectfully disagree.
However I know I am still in the preparation stages for those discussions, so at best I see this RfC as a premature filing, and at worst I see it as an outright attempt at putting editors like myself on the back foot by forcing an RfC before we are ready- here I'm unsure if it's that you require more time gathering more evidence or that currently there is insufficient evidence yet, if the latter is true I disagree this filing is premature. Moreover, I should point out that Newimpartial stated they would provide evidence this Sunday. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The Times, Telegraph, and Economist are not reliable sources on the topic of trans issues, which itself is a question of reliability; the source discussion is not simply about whether or not the sources are WP:DUE. On top of that, the extent to which a source is reliable in a topic area affects the extent to which it is WP:DUE, so community discussion on The Economist will help to resolve that part of the question given that its reliability in this topic area is explicitly contested by an editor in that discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 19:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.The result of this filing is already not unanimous. WP:SNOW also specifies that cases where
there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreementare not good candidates for a SNOW close. So I am struggling to see how the criteria for a SNOW close are met in this instance.
bordering on an insult. After all, my suggestion that you might not have read my 14,000 characters of analysis could reasonably be interpreted as implying that you have better things to do with your time... Newimpartial ( talk) 21:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
1. Source: A. Yunusov. Myths and enemy images in historiography and history textbooks in independent Azerbaijan
2. Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan#Indoctrination_in_schools
Hello community! I hope you're doing well! From this page of Leibniz Institute for International Textbook Research institute it is clear that "Myths and enemy images in historiography and history textbooks in independent Azerbaijan" is a report presented by the Arif Yunusov at the International Conference "Memory Wars?" 2009. Questions are: Is presentation at scholarly conference sufficient to consider Arif Yunusov's report as reliably published? Is it acceptable to use it as a source for Wikipedia, and if so, what type of source is it? Primary? Secondary? Other?
There is no distinction between Arif's report and any other report presented by an individual contributor at any other conference. Arif Yunusov's report, in my opinion, should be regarded as his own opinions, because it was not published by reliably scholarship, and so did not go through the process of fact-checking and accuracy checking, nor was it peer reviewed, however, I'd want to know what the community thinks.
Thanks, 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC) A b r v a g l ( PingMe) 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Can Gregory Wilpert's books be used as a source in Wikipedia without attribution? He is the owner of Venezuelanalysis (generally unreliable per WP:RSP), was the director of Telesur English (unreliable per WP:RSP) from 2014 to 2015 and is currently an editor at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. They're used in many articles about Venezuela and Venezuelans, and I want to know if an author's involvement with unreliable sources (and what made them be considered unreliable) can affect the reliability of the author's other publications. Hegsareta ( talk) 22:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Are publications associated with the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine reliable sources when commenting on transgender medicine and other transgender topics? Newimpartial ( talk) 22:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, I meant to point out that your description of James Cantor and other Genspect devotees as subject-matter experts strikes me as hilarious, clueless and contemptible all at once.Congratulations, you have successfully WP:POINTed that out with something that could've been a single RSN post and not a full-blown RfC. Chess ( talk) (please use
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Question - what prompted this RfC and the one above it on Genspect? Is anyone anywhere, or any article, using this in anything other than an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion? Crossroads -talk- 01:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
advocacy groupsand professional organizations, and classifying Genspect and SEBGM as advocacy groups? I also feel compelled to point out that, in terms of social epistemology, the difference between WPATH and SEBGM is not accurately characterized as WPATH being a
source (I) likeand SEBGM not being one. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
answering (your) question, you were raising the question whether the groups platformed by The Economist, which I characterized in the discussion above as "FRINGE", were in fact to be considered reliable. That isn't a question to be answered by my personal opinion but rather community consensus, which can be ascertained on this venue. Nothing POINTey about it - I'm not sure whether you've actually read WP:POINT recently, given your statement here. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
you feel that a particular source does not meet Wikipedia standardsis
express your concerns on the talk pages of articles which cite it, or at the reliable sources noticeboard.
Are publications and declarations by Genspect reliable sources when commenting on transgender medicine and other transgender topics? Newimpartial ( talk) 22:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Consequently, articles by gender extremists such as Lee Leveille, are favoured over the more conventional Sunday Timesthat she wished to have articles by The Sunday Times included on Wikipedia (the subject of an RfC we're currently having). Regardless, she said this on the Genspect website, not onwiki. We do not need to have an RfC every time someone complains about Wikipedia on their website. This is a waste of time and so my !vote is No with a WP:SNOWCLOSE per WP:SPS.
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
plan. But when an otherwise WP:RS decides that it is going to reserve essentially all of its news reaction/"expert" commentary on a topic for sources known to be unreliable and to be associated with a certain extreme viewpoint on that topic, that form of bias is worth noting, innit? If we were talking about 2020 election denialists or holocaust skeptics, I find it hard to believe we would be seeing so much "but BOTHSIDES!" sentiment. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 21:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Do editors consider Interesting Engineering to be reliable source?
It started out as a now-defunct blog on Blogger, and my understanding is that blogs generally aren't considered reliable. However, the online magazine (in its current form) has been used as a source for major media outlets like The New York Times and BBC. Ixfd64 ( talk) 20:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Is Proceedings of Hungarian association a reliable source for history topics, including history of the USSR, or it is an SPS? Paul Siebert ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
A question has arisen whether Malta Today and The Malta Independent are reliable sources. I don't know enough about either to know for sure. The resolution of the edit request at Talk:Henley & Partners#Restore section that was deleted improperly rather depends on the answer. At first blush these look like reasonable sources to me, and both are notable, but experience with notable but unreliable publishers in the US tells me to seek more input from people more familiar with Malta and its media outlets. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Is (was) this a reliable source? Saw it mentioned on Kyōhei Ishiguro's page and while it doesn't seem particularly untrustworthy to me, from what I gathered on their twitter they're officially an advertisement agency for the Nerima ward in Japan. The site has since been majorly redesigned or passed hands or something and most of the old articles have gone defunct (the source on Ishiguro's page needed to be swapped out with the web archive) which also does not fill me with confidence with regards to their reliability. 216.164.249.213 ( talk) 17:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Because the first few that I checked on the first Pakistan listing didn't, nor did a few others I checked. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
War crimeis a technical (legal) term for certain type of actions. To constitute a war crime, the action must fulfil certain criteria and, importantly, be determined as such by a competent court. It's wrong to call something a war crime in wikivoice where there have only been allegations or accusations. It's akin to calling someone a murderer: we can use this term only after the person has been found guilty in a court of law. Same for war crimes IMO. — kashmīrī TALK 22:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
An online thesaurus of unknown authorship, not much used on Wikipedia, but seen on a talk page to support a claim that the plural of "narrative" is "narrative" in "commonly used contexts". (It is a collective noun, which may agree with plural verbs in some varieties of English, generally British, but that is something different, not explained on the site.) It is also used in WP main space to support a WP:BLUESKY set of synonyms for the article's topic. Just plain Bill ( talk) 18:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Do you honestly think wordhippo is in the same league as Oxford or Merriam-Webster? Not even close. Kindly stick to the topic at hand, which is the reliability of wordhippo.com, not those well-established dictionaries. Do you have any basis for claiming wordhippo's publication process is reliable?
If you want to conflate citations for watercraft synonyms with that article's plural/singular kerfuffle and pontificate about that at length, do it somewhere else. Just plain Bill ( talk) 19:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Ensuring the accuracy re methodology is up to the readersseems to put the burden of accuracy on the person reading the source – I presume by "reader", you mean the Wikpedia editor. If that is the way you suggest Wikipedia works, then what is the point of the source in the first place? It doesn't work that way. If you mean that the editor who wants to use a source should demonstrate that they are an RS, then that is correct, the burden on them is to come up with the evidence of methods to check accuracy. We do not seem to have that here.
The accuracy of the synonymous terms, as listed at Wordhippo and as judged by anyone who's even minimally educated, speaks for itself" seems to say "if a source agrees with me, then it is a Reliable Source". That is not the way that Wikipedia works, because otherwise it would simply be full of editors' opinions, rather than the verifiable facts that are the basis of this encyclopaedia.
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I think that it would perverse to argue that Oxford or Merriam-Webster do not have such a reputation; conversely, I see no evidence that Wordhippo has such a reputation. On the question of whether it is a reliable source for questions about the use of words, I would say no, unless evidence is presented that it has garnered that reputation. Otherwise it's just another random website, put together for commercial gain by people of unknown levels of expertise. Girth Summit (blether) 10:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd welcome more contributions to the discussions going on at
Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. One deals with NPOV and DUE, but the other one is about sources, and the issue is: do we have enough independent and reliable sources to state with wikivoice in the lead that Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been committed by Armed Forces of Russia, including the use of mass rape as a weapon of war
? Sources on mass rape are detailed in the
Overall scale section, and sources on rape as a weapon of war are in the
Claims of intent section.
Gitz (
talk) (
contribs) 16:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
In addition to the multiple sources already present in the article, there’s about a whole dozen additional sources given in this discussion [37]. Gitz6666 is just wasting people’s time. Volunteer Marek 17:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
If an online news publication (which may be considered a "blog") holds congressional press credentials, publishes investigative news material, and is cited by sitting members of the U.S. House and Senate in official correspondence, is that site a reliable source? I am asking because FloridianPress.com investigated financial ties between AHA International School and a Chinese education company in the wake of the U.S. government leasing the property to house migrant children. The article seems to be relevant to the AHA International School's history, particularly its closure and subsequent use of the property, yet when I attempted to include it as a citation, it was removed as an unreliable source. Any assistance would be appreciated. Jejasi ( talk) 21:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Side note, a source that doesn't fulfill the RS criteria is not categorically excluded from Wikipedia, it just doesn't count as fulfilling requirements (such as wp:ver) for a source that does meet the criteria. North8000 ( talk) 21:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
This is about [39]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Is Center for UFO Studies considered a reliable source for List of reported UFO sightings? CUFOS is an " international group of scientists, academics, investigators, and volunteers", and has a huge database of UFO cases. Thanks, Yann ( talk) 20:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to get some thoughts on whether a source some of us want to use at [[Southern Television broadcast interruption] and Bob Tomalski should be considered reliable. The source is an investigative podcast [40]. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
We don't allow, rightly, a single YouTube video as WP:RSthis isn't true. A YouTube video by a reliable source is just as reliable as any other publication by them – a video on e.g. CNN's YouTube channel would be considered reliable. WP:RSPYT explicitly says
Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.Nor is a podcast a primary source. I haven't looked into this particular source but it's neither true nor helpful to dismiss podcasts in general as inherently unreliable, self published, or primary – some are all of these things; some are none. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 11:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
It appears to be a website with 16th-17th century French royalty tidbits? I found no name to attribute the authorship of said website. I found nothing referencing the information under each topic. Is this a blog?? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Is Hill Rag considered a reliable source for Wikipedia and would it be considered a high-quality source for a featured article? I am currently using the following article from Hill Rag in the Alice Tangerini article. I have been debating for a while now to do further work on the article, but before I make any decisions regarding that, I wanted to get a clearer understanding about the use and appropriateness of this citation. I could not find Hill Rag in WP:RSN archives, but apologies if I had somehow missed it. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
raised in Kensington, which looks to me like overinterpretation of what the article actually says...) Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 23:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Could somebody familiar with the topic area give me a read on [ [41]] as a source for ethnology of the people of the Gilgit area? To me it looks...self published, but possibly by experts (?) I can go either way though; just trying to improve the sourcing of an article. If somebody thinks not, I just won't use it. Thanks for any brainpower applied to this question. Elinruby ( talk) 09:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Any thoughts about this website, particularly in the use of the biography [42] on Heinrich IV, Prince Reuss of Köstritz? Some considerations: (1) it's used on hundreds of WP articles, so obviously some people seem to have judged it reasonable. (2) The organization STIWOT publishing it looks basically legitimate to me. (3) The disclaimer [43] is not exactly a strong claim of seriousness, but also not just "we post whatever anyone sends us, don't blame us for it". (4) The specific article [44] lists the deprecated website thepeerage.com as one of its sources. In light of (4) I was inclined to remove the source in this one article, but I would welcome other views. (Also if anyone wanted to look at the other sources there -- royaltyguide.nl seems clearly hopeless, for example, and I'm not sure what's going on with the "worldroots.com" source.) -- JBL ( talk) 21:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I was previously translating the Industrial Party (China) to the English Wikipedia, but one experienced Chinese Wikipedia editor ( User:Fire-and-Ice) took issue with my citing LRB and Mercator as reliable sources in the article, especially regarding the misuse of translation in the image. I want to know whether these are reliable under this topic, or I should make a significant change? Thanks for your opinion. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 16:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
“ | English Wikipedia said London Review of Books is a "literary magazine", rather than an academic journal. It is also not possible to say China after Covid is an academic source. | ” |
Hi. Is
Racket acceptable for transcribing a menu in
Owamni? This local paper seems to be the only source for "the three sisters: black bean pureé, pickled squash, and corn." The full context is Also served are sandwiches—arepas heaped with ground elk, sweet potatoes and pepitas, or turkey, or the three sisters: black bean pureé, pickled squash, and corn.
I think it's used for just straight reading
the menu. Thank you either way, and happy holidays. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 00:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, with regards to the Sahara Press Service, would it be fair to use in-text attribution? Especially with regards to Western Saharan clashes (2020–present), as this media is owned by the Polisario Front, who is a belligerent in the clashes, and is very obviously biased towards them with many articles not having clear authorship information. The same argument can be made with Maghreb Arabe Press, but this isn't currently the focus of this discussion. Thank you! :) NAADAAN ( talk) 03:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
This source seems to have been used quite a bit recently, especially to report endorsements in US Elections. Looking at the site, I see no statements about editing policy and it looks like it may just be a glorified blog. Seeking opinions on whether this is a reliable source.
2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Florida is a page that the source is used extensively. Slywriter ( talk) 18:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
On the main page about Burkina Faso, it should be the photo of the last elected president Rock Christian Marc Kabore or the photo of the current president captain Ibrahim Traore. But you used the photo of the former president Blaise Compaore who was ousted from the power by the people in 2014. Therefore, we are just asking an update for historical truth and your own credibility. Respectfully, 2600:4040:219D:2C00:30D7:E4CA:4C28:D367 ( talk) 16:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)