![]() | 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 395 | Archive 396 | Archive 397 | Archive 398 | Archive 399 | Archive 400 | → | Archive 405 |
In the article
Killing of Brianna Ghey, we have a sentence that originally read
The Independent reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime."
, citing
this article. It's gone through a couple of revisions since then and currently reads According to the Independent, MailOnline reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime."
, cited to the same article. The relevant paragraphs in the citation are the three paragraphs beginning from Damian Harry, who said his 15-year-old daughter
, with the later two paragraphs being direct quotations from Harry that appear in a MailOnline article.
This was
objected to on the article's talk page, as the original source of the quotation from Damien Harry is the
MailOnline, and that Wikipedia should not be using any info sourced to a deprecated source, even indirectly.
Is this the case? Are we unable to indirectly cite interview comments that first appeared in a deprecated source, when the same comments are re-reported in other reliable sources?
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 01:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
obviously something from an RS can't be dismissed simply because it is reporting on something from a non-RS, or we wouldn't be able to cover anything at all.This is interesting, there's a trio of related articles (related to each other, not the article that spawned this discussion) that I may need to bring here after this, where an editor has been excluding content from reliable sources because they are reporting factually on something that first appeared in an non-RS. In that circumstance, the proximate sources state something as factual, that we're currently reporting on with far more scepticism than any of the reliable sources on the topic report it on. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If a reliable secondary source is reporting on a quote from a primary source document, then we should look to verify the quote in the primary source and we should cite both. If we have access only to the secondary source, we have to state where we actually got the quote from, and we obviously can't cite the primary source. To continue with the example above, if we have access to the writings of the defense attorney and the prosecutor, and the news organization made an obvious error in quoting one of them, then we should use common sense (for example, if the newsorg accidentally introduces a typo like "we are seeking to expedite the trial" to "we are seeking to expedite the trail", then we can just cite both the newsorg and the original document and use the correct quote).
A parent of one of Ghey's friends, speaking with the Daily Mail, alleged that the killing was a hate crime.... Police initially stated that they had no evidence supporting the claim that this was a hate crime, but since have opened an investigation as to whether or not the killing may be a hate crime.might work better based off of a general reading of the article in The Independent) but again that's more of a weight/style question on the specific words.
Link: National First Ladies' Library – First Ladies Research
These online biography pages are used in several articles for United States first ladies, and I've used them a few times myself. It seems to be a legitimate organization, but I've stopped using it lately because I'm having trouble finding information about how the biographies were written. It would be really helpful if a few other editors could weigh in on it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This sourcing issue affects five articles, Lesbian flags, Pride flag, Biphobia, History of lesbianism in the United States, but has been discussed in most detail on Talk:Lesbian flags.
Back in 2010, a blogger named Natalie McCray designed the Lipstick lesbian pride flag. This flag has had a bit of a controversial reception within the LGBT+ community, some felt the flag was not inclusive of butch lesbians, while others pointed out controversial comments made by the designer on her former blog.
At present,
Lesbian flags states that Some lesbians have argued that the lipstick flag is butch-phobic, while others oppose its use due to controversial comments allegedly made by the flag's designer on her blog.
Pride flag and
Lipstick lesbian state that However, it has not been widely adopted; some lesbians have not adopted the flag because it is not inclusive of butch lesbians, while others have accused McCray of writing allegedly biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments on her blog.
Biphobia states that some lesbians are against it because McCray’s blog had biphobic (and racist and transphobic) comments, and because it does not include butch lesbians.
And
History of lesbianism in the United States states Note that the lipstick lesbian flag has not been widely adopted; some lesbians are against it because it does not include butch lesbians, and because McCray’s blog had biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments.
All variations of the text cite the same sources: a 2015
After Ellen article, and
Refinery 29, with the After Ellen cited for the flag's lack of widescale use, and Refinery 29 for the controversial comments by the flag's creator. Of the controversy, Refinery 29 states Some lesbians oppose the use of this flag because McCray's blog includes racist, biphobic, and transphobic comments, and because the pink colours and "lipstick lesbian" terminology don't include butch lesbians.
however three of the articles state this in more uncertain terms.
The discrepancy between the cited source, and the article text was previously raised on the lesbian flag talk page, where several other reliable sources were discussed and excluded because those sources cited sources we consider unreliable (various social media, and Medium blogs). This included exclusion of a 2019 Cosmopolitan article (later updated in 2021), and a Yahoo!Sports rehosting of a June 2021 Women's Health article (which was updated in June 2022).
Two questions. Should the Cosmopolitan and Women's Health articles have been excluded because their ultimate source for information, after traversing through the levels, was a series Tumblr and Medium blog posts? Is the Refinery29 article strong enough that we should be less sceptical in our content across all five articles that include mention of the Lipstick flag? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
McCray has also been known to write some pretty controversial stuff on her blog, including what others have deemed as racist, transphobic, and biphobic comments.
Furthermore, designer McCray was said to have posted racist, biphobic, and transphobic comments in her now-deleted blog.
Some lesbians also oppose use of any flag revised from the lipstick original because its designer Natalie McCray reportedly wrote racist, biphobic and transphobic comments on a her blog. And some lesbians oppose the use of this flag because the pink colors and “lipstick lesbian” terminology don’t include butch lesbians.
This design was further forgotten when the creator of this in 2010, Natalie McCray was known to have transphobic and racist ideologies.
some lesbians are against it because it does not include butch lesbians, and because McCray’s blog had biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments.
This is a somewhat unusual (though I hope not unwarranted) RS thread on Smarthistory ( www.smarthistory.org), as the source has not been challenged to the best of my knowledge. Nonetheless, I think it merits its own discussion to offer WP:CONSENSUS precedent moving forward in case doubts appear. It has recently grown into one of the most extensive and accessible sources for art history, architectural history, and global visual cultures; I myself have used this source multiple times in various articles due to its reliability and peer-review process. However, I am also aware that the format and visual layout of the page, along with its admittedly blog-like name, can at first appear unreliable and possibly discourage potential new editors from relying on it as a resource for WP:VISUALARTS. There is already a dearth of high quality art historical content on many global subjects (despite, of course, some excellent GAs and FAs, most of which focus on Western art history). I am looking forward to hearing other editors' thoughts. Thanks so much. Ppt91 ( talk) 19:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
What is the reliability of Media Bias/Fact Check? The Cite Unseen says its unreliable. An IP editor claims it is credible Special:Diff/1139970652 — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 10:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Unlike the Media Bias Chart by Ad Fontes, they don't have any formal training, a large team, or repeated and careful measurements, analysis, and statistics. That's why it's strange that the Ad Fontes chart isn't rated better. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
In editing an article on The Washington Post, I found the website TechDirt used as a source. Upon investigating TechDirt, I found it to be nothing more than a large-scale, multi-user blog.
Quoting from the "About Us" section of the website, it is clear that the website is an opinion blog and not at all a reliable source for information:
"Started in 1997 by Floor64 founder Mike Masnick and then growing into a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog relies on a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies' ability to innovate and grow.
The dynamic and interactive community of Techdirt readers often comment on the addictive quality of the content on the site, a feeling supported by the blog’s average of ~1 million visitors per month and more than 1.7 million comments on 74,000+ posts''."
Based upon the fact that TechDirt is a blog, I propose that it be included on the list of Reliable sources/Perennial sources as deprecated. I eagerly await your participation in this discussion. All the best. MarydaleEd ( talk) 00:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Specifically [1] as used in Heliocentrism#Rishi Yajnavalkya. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Is this journal reliable? [2] a few google searches call it predatory. Thanks. Magherbin ( talk) 08:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Is Ratings Ryan a reliable source for episode viewership ratings?
I first stumbled across the site while visiting the article South Park (season 1), after realising that the list was making a contradiction about the viewership ratings of the first episode (0.89 million) comparing to the number given by the article on that episode (0.98 million). While the latter cites a book, the list cites this page from the Ratings Ryan blog. This was before I noticed that all the pages from season 1 to season 10 also cited that exact page, affecting the list of South Park episodes (check reference 20 ( permalink)). Concerned over the reliability of the blog, I started a discussion on the talk page of the list, pinging the editor that added them (diffs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10), before searching the blog name in Wikipedia (in quotation marks) and realising that other episode lists cited it too: Futurama; Breaking Bad; Big Brother ( 1 2); Jimmy Neutron; Yes, Dear; 8 Simple Rules; Monk; Friday Night Lights; Murder, She Wrote and the list goes on (I haven't checked whether this editor added references to the blog in these other lists).
I first considered posting this in MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, but the fact that this source is being cited in so many pages and the apparent extensive information present in the blog makes me think whether this is a special case (where the blog is reputable or written by a subject-matter expert for instance). However, I can't find any evidence of this. ObserveOwl ( talk) 15:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I am wondering BananaBreadPie12 ( talk) 19:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
OP is LTA sock |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I wasn't sure whether to post this here, at NPOV, fringe, or elsewhere, as it seems to be violating every policy. I noticed here an editor claiming that Arthur Jensen, one of the most accomplished individuals in psychology, is a fringe source. [4] Following the reference, we find a survey of Wikipedia editors on the question of whether the view that any component of race and intelligence differences is genetic is fringe. [5] The vast majority of editors there effectively simply write "yes" with no attempt to survey the field. The few that do survey the field engage in rather obvious cherry picking. I would also note that it seems odd to declare an individual fringe because one of their views is considered fringe, by Wikipedia editors or experts. Jensen's contributions to the field went well beyond race and intelligence. Here we have a survey of experts in the field, rather than Wikipedia editors, which produces a quite different result. [6] Which survey should take precedence according to the reliable sources policy? Dretynit ( talk) 09:41, 22 February 2023 (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.
Hello. I'm concerned regarding the use of
This source on
Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. The source is from anarchistfederation.net
, which
self-describes as an automated news aggregator
run by the Online Anarchist Federation. I recently
removed content sourced to this website, as it appears to be a self-published press release of an organization with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Newimpartial decided to
restore the source.
I think that the source has no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but I have been
told by
Newimpartial that I am clearly not familiar with anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability
and that the source carries at least the standing of a blog entry by someone who is known and who has a track record of self-publication on related issues over time
.
Is this a reliable source for content in that BLP article? I'd like to say it's not reliable, but I figure I'd prefer the community weigh in on this specific use case given that this disagreement cannot be swiftly resolved on the article's talk page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation reported that Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground. They reported that other attendees included the Industrial Workers of the World, feminist collectives, queer student groups, action medics, legal observers, three different climate groups, anti-fascists, and other leftists.
Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground.is clearly controversial, and requires strong, secondary sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
news aggregator. They republish material from other publications, so assessing the inclusion of such articles should be based on where it's republished from, not the anarchistfederation itself.
Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source.I'm really not understanding where the confusion is on your end. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
material challenged or likely to be challenged. This is material you removed on grounds of WP:CRYBLP, although it doesn't require BLP sourcing. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
We are not, for example, forbidden from mentioning when an organization was founded, in an article about an activist or leader in that organization, just because we may have difficulty finding a source that gives SIGCOV to the leader while also mentioning the founding date. Even a SPS could be used for such information.
random guy walking by, taking notesdoes not, so your parallel fails in the respects that matter. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This weekend’s scenes are typical of such events, where physical intimidation and vandalism directed at gender-critical groups are now par for the course.To shoe-horn in a primary sps painting the article subject in a negative light, rather than summarizing the secondary source? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This weekend’s scenes are typical of such events, where physical intimidation and vandalism directed at gender-critical groups are now par for the course.or a different one? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the groundis not contentious BLP content beggars belief. Levivich ( talk) 22:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
what happened at the eventit
is describing what happened at the eventaccording to some (anarchist) participants. It is unquestionably reliable for that.
unidentified individualswho make
random asseertions. And you sound grumpy about it. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Interestingly, nobody had raised that issue until now (that I'd seen). It is WP:RSOPINION, and so not usable for facts: you were right for the wrong reason. :p Newimpartial ( talk) 23:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
submissions are accepted on a “trust first and correct the mistakes” basisand which implies that while they don't fact-check prior to publication ("trust first"), they do accept and make corrections ("correct the mistakes"). The only reason why I'm unclear is that I've not seen any editor demonstrate use by others, nor that AFUK have a reputation for accurately reporting UK anarchist related news. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. The details being reported aren't about the living person, so it can be used but would have to be attributed as it's a primary source. However it's obviously trying to pass guilt by association, and is likely undue in the article about Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. That though is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 23:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation reported that demonstrators had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground. They reported that other attendees included the Industrial Workers of the World, feminist collectives, queer student groups, action medics, legal observers, three different climate groups, anti-fascists, and other leftists.
a negative light, unless their actions are attributed to that person in some way.
Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the groundabsolutely falls under
biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. How is a description of demonstrators' behaviors at a Keen rally DUE here if it's not intended to provide context on Keen? Do you believe readers get a neutral or positive impression of Keen from that statement? If not, how can you claim it isn't
material challenged or likely to be challenged, or that it doesn't have the
possibility of harm? Policy says to
beware of claims that rely on guilt by associationand states
"See also" links...should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person; the above content is exactly the type of insinuation addressed here and unless an editor has severe competence issues it should be clear implications of contentious association are not acceptable elsewhere in the article either. The same goes for the use of shitty sources in BLPs in general: if
Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, where they obviously are not attached to info directly covering the subject, why would they be acceptable when cited inline? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
contentious material about a living person. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and ... poorly sourcedis grounds for a CIR/TENDENTIOUS block. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. In this discussion, you have made no fewer than thirty-five comments, many of which have been extremely repetitive to previous points. Please stop bludgeoning the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
claims about third parties. If someone says, "I'm suing Elon Musk" on a blog, I think we can say "so-and-so said they were suing Elon Musk" using the SPS. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
1. Source. Irvine, Reed; Goulden, Joseph C. (June 1, 1997). "New Wave of Attacks Targets Aldrich". The Oklahoman. Retrieved February 17, 2023.
2. Article. Gary Aldrich.
3. Content. " George Stephanopoulos, serving as White House communications director under the Clintons, was able to exert pressure on the media to ignore the book, and it received little attention from mainstream outlets despite the sensational contents and its popularity with the reading public."
I noticed that this content was cited without the authors to an article in The Oklahoman, however, clicking the link indicates that they may have re-published something originally published in Accuracy in Media by Reed Irvine and Joseph C. Goulden. (For another take on why Gary Aldrich's book may have not been given the publicity some think it deserved, see Margaret Carlson's take in TIME.) At the very least, I think this is a statement that needs attribution. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 22:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
@ ActivelyDisinterested and Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for the feedback. I removed the sentence and citation as it does seem to violate a few different aspects of WP:BLP. - Location ( talk) 17:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we revisit the History Channel (History.com) notability reliability, to consider it on a case-by-case basis. While I agree that Ancient Aliens and similar shows are not notable, I see no reason why we can't use the "Food that Built America", "Tools that Built America" and "Toys that Built America" and similar programs in this same "that Built America" theme as reliable sources. They've had a history of companies, toys, tools, foods and other items that are part of America's industrial and commercial heritage. Each program seems well-researched, having company representatives, university scholars and other individuals present the history of each item involved. The History Channel comes and goes as far as overall notability reliability is concerned, but I've noticed that they've attempted to get some serious content on the air lately.
Oaktree b (
talk) 02:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
At best there are better sources, at worst it is junk. No we Should not use it. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, want to know, can the following sites be considered reliable:
Thanks. Insight 3 ( talk) 09:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
How are the sources given by me in this article? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 15:03, 23 February 2023 (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.
CNet, usually regarded as an ordinary tech RS, has started experimentally running [13] [14] AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors. Currently these articles are under the byline " CNet Money". So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn't. I haven't found any yet, but any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed - David Gerard ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
if you deposit $10,000 into a savings account that earns 3% interest compounding annually, you'll earn $10,300 at the end of the first year). These are the same kind of errors that human writers tend to make, so I don't know if this is a special case, apart from the apparent failure of editorial oversight. jp× g 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I added a link to this discussion (as well as one other discussion about CNET that has been archived) in WP:RSP, but I have't changed the status or the description yet. 137a ( talk • edits) 14:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Since it appears their use of AI is disclosed and easily identifiable, a specific warning for articles that are "written by CNet Money" and have an AI disclosure would be most appropriate. – dlthewave ☎ 18:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Given this new Verge report out about "the guardrails that keep editorial content independent [have been] repeatedly breached" to benefit advertisers, I would support downgrading post-Red Venture sale CNET to "use with caution". (November 2022 and after.) This is related to but separate from the AI stuff above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Futurism's got this story by the throat. "Magazine Publishes Serious Errors in First AI-Generated Health Article: The owners of Sports Illustrated and Men’s Journal promised to be virtuous with AI. Then they bungled their very first AI story — and issued huge corrections when we caught them." [16]
The publisher in question is the Arena Group. Here's a list of their brands.
It's pretty obvious that anything by a text generator isn't an acceptable source for Wikipedia. We need to work out suitable and proportionate ways to deal with this issue in general, though - archive articles, bad publishers, etc - because it's going to keep coming up - David Gerard ( talk) 17:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Can someone close this? This was automatically archived; I just unarchived it. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Special:LinkSearch/https://www.heraldweekly.com
This site brands itself as "Breaking Entertainment News and Gossips". I find it sometimes in the "sponsored content" section of some news sites with clickbait-y titles. These are definitely red flags. However, this source has quite a new citations in article space right now. Is that something to be concerned about? 137a ( talk • edits) 16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
the following reference is given at Collaboration with the Axis Powers for the statement that the "Blue Police", a Nazi police auxiliary made up of Polish policemen, were recruited "under threat of death". I don't care if it is reliable or it isn't, personally; I will just remove it if it is determined that it is not. I don't speak Polish and the book does not seem to be available online. The link goes to a publisher's page.
Hempel, Adam (1987). Policja granatowa w okupacyjnym systemie administracyjnym Generalnego Gubernatorstwa: 1939-1945 (in Polish). Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy Związków Zawodowych. p. 83.
I am looking for another source for the statement, but would be glad to hear from any subject matter experts, anyone who owns the book, or anyone who can suggest a different good source. Thanks all Elinruby ( talk) 01:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Would German ( here) be easier to understand Elinruby?
GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually... the exact wording in the article is "who were forced, under penalty of death, to work for the German occupation authorities." Maybe the intended meaning here is that they worked under the threat of death, not that they were forced to join under the threat of death. Perhaps I should reword that to clarify (assuming this reading is correct). The sourcing question remains though. Those cite numbers sound low. Should we just go with Red-tailed hawk's sources? Or is there a better one that can be found if we aren't trying to source "recruited on pain of death", which seems to be the wrong reading? The thesis RTH mentions cites the call up to something that looked like it could be another copy of what GCB is showing us... it scrolled away when I tried to copy the footnote. Thank you for any brainpower than anyone applies to this. <g> Elinruby ( talk) 22:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC) @ GizzyCatBella: Elinruby ( talk) 22:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
All Polish police officials and also Polish police officers who were on duty on September 1, 1939, should report by November 10, 1939, regardless of their previous place of service at the nearest German police office. Officials who do not comply with this request face the severest penalties. Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger-
Guys, I think most of the above, i.e. the content issue itself about whether Polish policeman faced death penalty under the Nazi regime, is not really related to reliability (and I suggest this discusison is copied/movied to
Talk:Blue Police or like). With regards to the source named by the OP (Hempel, Adam (1987), Policja granatowa...). I can't find much about the author, whom I would qualify now as an "independent historian" (i.e. not affiliated with any institution). Google tells me he was born in 1955, got a PhD from University of Warsaw (I can't find out in what field) and published several books and articles dealing with history of Polish security organizations (police and like). Regarding publisher of this particular book, it had more than one,
USHMM states
Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, which is a major Polish publishing house. His work is cited by a number of other scholars, which is a positive sign. I can't a dedicated review of it, however; the best I have so far is this: in this Polish-language academic article
[17] published in
pl:Studia Podlaskie in 2008 by
pl:Robert Litwiński (historian at the
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University), Litwiński writes positively about the book in one paragraph (in Polish, translated by me): However, the most comprehensive and basic study on the Polish Police in the years 1939–1944 are the works of Adam Hempel (Policja granatowa w okupacyjnym systemie administracyjnym Generalnego Gubernatorstwa 1939–1945, Warszawa 1987; Pogrobowcy klęski. Rzecz o policji „granatowej” w Generalnych Gubernatorstwie 1939–1945, Warszawa 1990). The author comprehensively presented the origins and formation of the Polish police service under German occupation, discussed the organization of Polish police authorities in the General Government, their role in the implementation of German occupation policy, cooperation with the resistance movement, and relations with Polish society.
so from what I see so far it seems reliable. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 07:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
*This source
[18] says "under threat of penalty", not death. Adam Hempel, if the book even says what is claimed, is not reliable as the book was published under a communist regime in Poland in 1987. During the communist era critical research was impossible and all books were supervised by censors.
JoeZ451 (
talk) 19:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
under threat of penaltynecessarily excludes the death penalty being that penalty. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Guys. I just spent one hour digging through sources, and writing an analysis, only to loose it to a browser memory crash... sigh. TL;DR: None of the sources I found says anything about this (as in, no source I found discusses the issue of penalties for refusal to re-enlist in 1939; some sources do mention death penalty but for disobeying orders in general, presumably after re-enlisting). And while it would be good to verify what is written in Hempel, p.83 I am leaning towards this being an error (I don't want to say hoax) introduced by an anon in 2008:
[19]. I've tagged the current claim the article with
verification needed but frankly, I think we can just be bold and either restore the original wording (arrest, not death penalty) or change it to "severest punishments'" per discussion above. (Pl wiki, I'll note, does not state death penalty either, it just uses the "severest punishments" language and references the very poster we have above, which is a bit ORish, if arguably factually correct). --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
References
someone can verify it was published. That is true of WP:PUBLISHED sources, but there are various published sources that are not reliable (such as supermarket tabloid National Enquirer and satire magazine The Onion). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the point of this discussion is to determine whether the source is reliable to support the facts it is cited in support of, not to determine if the source has been published. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
someone can verify it was published, not that its contents are trueYeah, I would say it's the exact opposite of that statement. A reliable source is reliable because we can rely on its contents being true. That's why an op-ed is not a reliable source, nor a source that has no fact checking, doesn't issue corrections, have editorial oversight, or a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and so forth. Levivich ( talk) 18:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
These sources are used in Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator, and I want to make sure if I can use them or not before proceding to develop the article. Player.One doesn't have a conclusive discussion on WP:VG/RS, and I'm not sure about the GameCrate review, a defunct situational outlet, but it is used because it is more detailed than other reviews. — VORTEX 3427 ( Talk!) 08:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at WT:ASTRO about the website https://universeguide.com, which is currently used in 40 articles related to astronomical objects. The discussion started with a dubious statement found at List of most luminous stars about the star Theta Muscae, which was cited to this source. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 13:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing debate at the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism about whether the sources listed above are reliable. I have tried to argue they are through relevant details and wikipolicy, and those opposed have tended to just say the sources are "activist" without further elaboration (or reliable sources for their claim) and have in some cases resorted to personal attacks and insinuations about me as an editor. Having tried without much success to have a good faith discussion there, I'm raising the issue here for comment on their use generally and in this particular article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
( https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/, source in question)
The text that was removed sourced to the CTR is The
Colorado Times Recorder listed it as a "conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group" and stated "FAIR’s Board of Advisors consists of a host of disgraced academics and journalists, many of whom have been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, and homophobia transphobia."
in the Reception section.
This source most obviously meets all the requirements for a WP:RS. They have a named editorial board of distinguished journalists and a clear policy for factually reviewing and verifying information before publishing, in addition to a clear retraction/correction policy. They have been cited, named, and praised extensively in well-established WP:RS and have a clear separation between opinion and analysis articles. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
nonpartisan, with a progressive orientation. Per WP:BIASED, this does not mean they can't be used. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 21:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
It caused controversy when Target announced it would be pulled from its shelves Nov. 12, following outcry from the trans community, which points to the fact she alone is not calling Shrier transphobic. That they criticized the organization and members of the board is WP:DUE, especially attributed, and to keep it out is to WP:WHITEWASH their reception. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 17:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Democrats and liberal organizations that began producing partisan content years agoin Colorado, but this information is plainly available on the about page of the website, so I'm not sure that the website being left-leaning is contested anywhere. Moreover, the entire editorial board of the website is one person; any articles by him are going to have to be presumed to be self-published, as there does not appear to be any other editors who would review his work. That the extent of editorial review is a single person is also not the sort of robust sort of review process that inspires strong confidence in editorial control and editorial independence.Among local journalists, the Times Recorder's reputation appears to be mixed. A column written by local investigative reporter Jimmy Sengenberger and published in the Colorado Springs Gazette, the paper of record for the Colorado Springs area, labels the website as
a mock news site run by left-wing activist Jason Salzman. The publication's news site has previously merely labeled the website as
liberalor as
progressively bent. Not all of the articles published in the Gazette have been as critical (some have cited it), but my general sense reading through how others use the website is that it has a mixed reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; WP:MREL probably describes it well. As such, it might not exactly be the sort of thing that we want to use to cite contentious claims alone for reasons of its reputation for fact-checking, and I would question the extent to which items reported on solely by the Colorado Times Recorder warrant inclusion in the article—even with attribution. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
mixed reputation for fact-checking and accuracyout of. A much larger number of more established WP:RS have lauded it's coverage and reliability. Additionally, the article in question was not written by the editor, so while that consideration may apply for articles he himself writes, it does not apply to this one.
twice in December, the Colorado Times Recorder — a mock news site run by left-wing activist Jason Salzman — attempted to paint CPAN as a right-wing extremist group working to undermine public education and harm the LGBTQ community. The site grouped CPAN with the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, Advocates for D20 Kids, and the longstanding Independence Institute. None of these organizations are extremist.The author discloses CPAN has awarded him, so it's hardly independent. Notably, this is a strawman, as the article does not once call them
extremist, they call them a
conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group. They provide more than ample evidence for each facet of that description. As you noted, the Gazzete has found them reliable and cited them before, so one article calling them a "mock news site" and attacking a strawman without pointing out any inaccuracies by a person with a clear COI is not damning. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 17:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
( https://readpassage.com/, source in question)
The text that is most directly sourced to this in the article is a paragraph on their activities and collaborations in Canada.
This source from the start seems to meet most of the requirements for a WP:RS. They have an editorial team, with a well-respected and published managing editor and many distinguished journalists working for them as well. They have a clear verification/corrections policy and their corrections seem to be mostly date mix-ups. They distinguish between opinion and news. The only question is how it's been covered in established WP:RS. Any help with the google-fu necessary to find how they've been covered is appreciated, as "passage" unsurprisingly turns up a lot of hits. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
Please note that we only publish opinion and analysis. We do not accept news articles, pieces with original reporting, interviews or articles that have been published elsewhere.. The claim that
they distinguish between opinion and newsis true inasmuch as they publish exactly zero news pieces; this is in no way, shape, nor form a WP:NEWSORG. I see nothing particualar about the freelance writer that would indicate that they are an WP:SME, so I see no reasonable reason to see this as reliable except for the author's opinion (which is not WP:DUE absent coverage from secondary sources).— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
[t]hey distinguish between opinion and news? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
the Atlantic's analysis pieces being considered a reliable source... no, it's ideas section is opinion and is treated as WP:RSOPINION. Sometimes they are given WP:WEIGHT (such as when other organizations report about them), but they aren't RS on their own. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a consensus that Passage is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Passage as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others.Spudst3r ( talk) 06:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @ Red-tailed hawk:, @ Newimpartial:, @ Spudst3r:, @ Springee:, @ ActivelyDisinterested:, @ Jweiss11:, @ Animalparty:, @ DFlhb:, @ Sativa Inflorescence:, @ Levivich:.
This threads not been active for a while, but since then I have demonstrated Passage's
WP:USEBYOTHERS above. Additionally, I'd like to note that the following
WP:RS cites them directly about FAIR's activities: While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside
longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates
[25]
I'm pinging everyone involved to ask, in light of the more recent information, your opinion on (1) their general reliability and (2) their reliability specifically as a source in the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
( https://idavox.com/, source in question)
The text removed is In August 2021,
Idavox reported that IRS Form 990's were not available since the organization is less than one year old, and speculated that due to the high number of Koch-connected people on the board, the
Koch brothers are the source of some funding
. Text removed, disputed, and modified on the talk page but not re-introduced is Idavox described FAIR as "Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing" and said "it's not a civil-rights organization". They stated that their analysis of FAIR's board of advisors revealed a large number of Koch employees, Quillete contributors, and transphobes
in Reception.
Idavox, the One People's Project, and Daryle Lamont Jenkins are well known and respected for their research on the organized right and far-right. A detailed analysis of how established WP:RS reference and use Idavox (the search would be even more supportive if extended to OPP and Jenkins) is here. A summary is that reliable sources have directly used with and without explicit attribution Idavox's articles, used their footage and videos as reliable sources, praised their coverage on researching the far-right, and refer to them as "Independent news". Idavox delineates between news and opinion and not a single reliable source has ever questioned or called into doubt their reporting. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
Without commenting on the potential reliability of any of these sources, I really don't think it's wise to use sources for potentially contentious statements when these sources aren't listed at WP:RSP. DFlhb ( talk) 12:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm currently writing an article on a music album and I encountered
this piece on Broadway World. The piece is bylined to someone labeled as "Senior Editor and daily contributor" to Broadway World (though she appears to have stopped contributing in 2020). There isn't anything that looks terrible at first glance, but all of the text in the piece is taken verbatim from
this press release, down to the all-caps GRAMMY
in both pieces.
We cite Broadway World in about 10K articles. I'm wondering if this is a one-off, or if anyone else has noticed this sort of thing from them when writing other articles. My initial impression of BroadwarWorld was that it was a fairly standard trade publication, but I'm now concerned that the source may be laundering press releases without exercising adequate editorial oversight. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
How useful and reliable is this source for Draft:Alan Singh Chanda? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 16:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Levivich: Watch now. -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 00:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone know the reliability of retroreversing.com and pc.net? I was notified of these sources at this RFD and I wanted to check the reliability of these sources here since I’m not good at identifying at which sources are reliable or not. Here are some specific pages that the user brought up here and here. Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 00:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I would like to ask this question regarding the following sources cited in Leo Liu.
There is previous discussion about Vents Magazine at WP:RSN/Archive_203#Vents_Magazine and it does have a few other uses ( Special:LinkSearch/https://ventsmagazine.com), but I think the other two are just in that Wikipedia article and there seems to be no previous RSN discussion.
My concern is that, it seems unusual for reliable sources to have a broken contact page https://theamericanmail.com/contact/ (with "contact@yourwebsite.com" as email, and lorum ipsum floating around). And I don't think I have seen any reliable source that would have
My name is Farhan. I am an author on Ventsmagazine. For any business query contact me & also I sell paid guest posts on my high quality websites you can contact me at: admin@technewsbusiness.com http://technewsbusiness.com
as the author profile right after the end of an article (from this Vents Magazine article) . Some other observations were listed in the closed discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Leo Liu. I am therefore doubtful of these sources and would like to ask for your opinions. —— HTinC23 ( talk) 23:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Over at list of cryptids, we currently have a grab-bag of sources that make up this list of what proponents of the pseudoscience/subculture of cryptozoology considers to be a "cryptid" (what the rest of us call a monster or an extinct animal, depending on the case). One source that is propping up a good chunk of list of cryptids is a 2013 article from Salon called "the world's greatest imaginary animals".
This article, which is more precisely from GlobalPost via Salon, nowhere mentions the well-established reality that cryptozoology is and was widely considered a pseudoscience on par with Young Earth creationism by the academic community ( Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience). Instead, it says:
This sort of uncritical parroting from a media listicle is exactly the sort of thing that scholars—actual experts—who have studied cryptozoologists have long noted. We discuss this a little on our our cryptozoology article ( Cryptozoology#Lack_of_critical_media_coverage). Should we be using this article for anything? It seems quite WP:PROFRINGE to me. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
best known for his hairiness, blurriness, and all-around swag.It's not the genre of writing that calls things "pseudoscience", but rather the kind of piece that snarkily asks for blurry pictures in the comments. Neither the best nor the worst as far as sources go; probably replaceable with something better, but hardly the most severe crime against science we'll find lurking on Wikipedia this week. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Is this source reliable for this statement? Note that I do not question whether it is generally reliable, for example for the Polish prime minister's statement, only whther it substantiates this sweeping statement. Though Germany was trying to kill all Jews in
the Holocaust, a minority of Jews chose to collaborate with the Germans
[1]
Elinruby (
talk) 22:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
What Morawiecki said is technically accurate, but historically unfair in light of the specific nature of the Nazi persecution of Jews, according to scholars who have studied the dozens of indictments brought forward in Israel against Nazi collaborators.
Until 1972, dozens of indictments led to trials in Israel of alleged Jewish collaborators with the Nazis, said Rivka Brot, a fellow at Bar-Ilan University’s Center for Jewish and Democratic Law. Brot wrote her doctoral thesis on the prosecution of Jewish collaborators by Jewish tribunals in transit camps in Europe after World War II, and later in the State of Israel.
References
Can the Grand Comics Database be considered a reliable source for just the bibliographies of comics creators (for example, Bernie Wrightson#Bibliography)? The database has been praised by Comic Book Resources as the "greatest site on the internet for [...] creator credits of comic books". [33] It also has a complex verification process, so it's not really something that anyone can edit. For citing paragraphs, I think it's better to use other, non-database sources instead if just to give a greater variety of citations (though I don't think a few GCDB citations are too bad if nothing else can be found and it's solely for credits). But for lists of comic issues and bibliographies, which can often number in the hundreds and even thousands, using GCDB should be one of the best options. It does not seem realistic to find an individual citation dedicated to every single issue a comics creator ever worked on, some being very obscure.
There was a past discussion for GCDB being an overall reliable source that had no real consensus. This post is primarily for GCDB being a reliable source for bibliography credits, which Thebiguglyalien advised me to create. FlairTale ( talk) 22:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) "
A blog on Psychology Today is newly cited on Dissociative identity disorder#Controversy (added here), but I'm wary as per RSN history for Psychology Today and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1#40 of use of Psychology Today blogs authored by a single author that make sweeping generalisations, especially when the subject matter may be subject to WP:MEDRS. To its credit, the article does say that it has been reviewed by the editor in chief of Psychology Today, Kaja Perina, whose background is journalism, but not psychology or medicine. Unless there's evidence that it's appeared in a print edition of Psychology Today, this raises some questions for me as to whether it should be used for a "controversies" contentious section. Lizthegrey ( talk) 21:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I may be in the minority, but I find EXPERTSPS to be deeply flawed, and the result of well-meaning users not entirely familiar with academic publishing. Why would we even need it? Generally speaking, I dare bet less than 1% of actual research articles in good journals are cited on WP, so it's not like there's an absence of good references. With that in mind, I am very wary of blogs, regardless of topic, even when the author is an expert. On WP, we see far far too much of that. Speaking as an academic, I know first-hand that it is a lot easier to make bold claims in blogs or even books chapters than in articles. Yes, there is notional peer-review, but nothing even close to the peer-reviews of good academic journals. Now, it's much easier making bold claims if we don't need to provide in-depth proof, obviously. So the reason we see so many claims deferred to EXPERTSPS is that, to be honest, the most eye-catching are often the least supported. Any academic would prefer to publish in a good journal, but that requires actually being able to back up the claims. So to be a bit provocative: EXPERTSPS is mainly needed when "we" want to insert a claim "we" like but cannot find a sufficiently good reference for it, and the very reason the source makes that bold claim in a blog or book chapter is that it would not stand up to academic scrutiny. (Of course exceptions can be found - but as a rule of thumb, the above should hold quite well). Jeppiz ( talk) 00:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:SPS specifically says work in the relevant field. In this case, I don't believe that means any old psychiatrist, rather one whose field is DID. See for example how the Tik Tok Tics are handled at Tourette syndrome; all of those folks are people who are acknowledge published experts on TS-- not just psychiatrists. And having a blog for psychology today isn't particularly impressive. I'd leave it out until real sources pick it up, at least a DID psychiatrist. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Is this source Fuchsia Magazine reliable to cite on Wikipedia? Insight 3 ( talk) 06:33, 1 March 2023 (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 395 | Archive 396 | Archive 397 | Archive 398 | Archive 399 | Archive 400 | → | Archive 405 |
In the article
Killing of Brianna Ghey, we have a sentence that originally read
The Independent reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime."
, citing
this article. It's gone through a couple of revisions since then and currently reads According to the Independent, MailOnline reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime."
, cited to the same article. The relevant paragraphs in the citation are the three paragraphs beginning from Damian Harry, who said his 15-year-old daughter
, with the later two paragraphs being direct quotations from Harry that appear in a MailOnline article.
This was
objected to on the article's talk page, as the original source of the quotation from Damien Harry is the
MailOnline, and that Wikipedia should not be using any info sourced to a deprecated source, even indirectly.
Is this the case? Are we unable to indirectly cite interview comments that first appeared in a deprecated source, when the same comments are re-reported in other reliable sources?
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 01:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
obviously something from an RS can't be dismissed simply because it is reporting on something from a non-RS, or we wouldn't be able to cover anything at all.This is interesting, there's a trio of related articles (related to each other, not the article that spawned this discussion) that I may need to bring here after this, where an editor has been excluding content from reliable sources because they are reporting factually on something that first appeared in an non-RS. In that circumstance, the proximate sources state something as factual, that we're currently reporting on with far more scepticism than any of the reliable sources on the topic report it on. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If a reliable secondary source is reporting on a quote from a primary source document, then we should look to verify the quote in the primary source and we should cite both. If we have access only to the secondary source, we have to state where we actually got the quote from, and we obviously can't cite the primary source. To continue with the example above, if we have access to the writings of the defense attorney and the prosecutor, and the news organization made an obvious error in quoting one of them, then we should use common sense (for example, if the newsorg accidentally introduces a typo like "we are seeking to expedite the trial" to "we are seeking to expedite the trail", then we can just cite both the newsorg and the original document and use the correct quote).
A parent of one of Ghey's friends, speaking with the Daily Mail, alleged that the killing was a hate crime.... Police initially stated that they had no evidence supporting the claim that this was a hate crime, but since have opened an investigation as to whether or not the killing may be a hate crime.might work better based off of a general reading of the article in The Independent) but again that's more of a weight/style question on the specific words.
Link: National First Ladies' Library – First Ladies Research
These online biography pages are used in several articles for United States first ladies, and I've used them a few times myself. It seems to be a legitimate organization, but I've stopped using it lately because I'm having trouble finding information about how the biographies were written. It would be really helpful if a few other editors could weigh in on it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This sourcing issue affects five articles, Lesbian flags, Pride flag, Biphobia, History of lesbianism in the United States, but has been discussed in most detail on Talk:Lesbian flags.
Back in 2010, a blogger named Natalie McCray designed the Lipstick lesbian pride flag. This flag has had a bit of a controversial reception within the LGBT+ community, some felt the flag was not inclusive of butch lesbians, while others pointed out controversial comments made by the designer on her former blog.
At present,
Lesbian flags states that Some lesbians have argued that the lipstick flag is butch-phobic, while others oppose its use due to controversial comments allegedly made by the flag's designer on her blog.
Pride flag and
Lipstick lesbian state that However, it has not been widely adopted; some lesbians have not adopted the flag because it is not inclusive of butch lesbians, while others have accused McCray of writing allegedly biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments on her blog.
Biphobia states that some lesbians are against it because McCray’s blog had biphobic (and racist and transphobic) comments, and because it does not include butch lesbians.
And
History of lesbianism in the United States states Note that the lipstick lesbian flag has not been widely adopted; some lesbians are against it because it does not include butch lesbians, and because McCray’s blog had biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments.
All variations of the text cite the same sources: a 2015
After Ellen article, and
Refinery 29, with the After Ellen cited for the flag's lack of widescale use, and Refinery 29 for the controversial comments by the flag's creator. Of the controversy, Refinery 29 states Some lesbians oppose the use of this flag because McCray's blog includes racist, biphobic, and transphobic comments, and because the pink colours and "lipstick lesbian" terminology don't include butch lesbians.
however three of the articles state this in more uncertain terms.
The discrepancy between the cited source, and the article text was previously raised on the lesbian flag talk page, where several other reliable sources were discussed and excluded because those sources cited sources we consider unreliable (various social media, and Medium blogs). This included exclusion of a 2019 Cosmopolitan article (later updated in 2021), and a Yahoo!Sports rehosting of a June 2021 Women's Health article (which was updated in June 2022).
Two questions. Should the Cosmopolitan and Women's Health articles have been excluded because their ultimate source for information, after traversing through the levels, was a series Tumblr and Medium blog posts? Is the Refinery29 article strong enough that we should be less sceptical in our content across all five articles that include mention of the Lipstick flag? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
McCray has also been known to write some pretty controversial stuff on her blog, including what others have deemed as racist, transphobic, and biphobic comments.
Furthermore, designer McCray was said to have posted racist, biphobic, and transphobic comments in her now-deleted blog.
Some lesbians also oppose use of any flag revised from the lipstick original because its designer Natalie McCray reportedly wrote racist, biphobic and transphobic comments on a her blog. And some lesbians oppose the use of this flag because the pink colors and “lipstick lesbian” terminology don’t include butch lesbians.
This design was further forgotten when the creator of this in 2010, Natalie McCray was known to have transphobic and racist ideologies.
some lesbians are against it because it does not include butch lesbians, and because McCray’s blog had biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments.
This is a somewhat unusual (though I hope not unwarranted) RS thread on Smarthistory ( www.smarthistory.org), as the source has not been challenged to the best of my knowledge. Nonetheless, I think it merits its own discussion to offer WP:CONSENSUS precedent moving forward in case doubts appear. It has recently grown into one of the most extensive and accessible sources for art history, architectural history, and global visual cultures; I myself have used this source multiple times in various articles due to its reliability and peer-review process. However, I am also aware that the format and visual layout of the page, along with its admittedly blog-like name, can at first appear unreliable and possibly discourage potential new editors from relying on it as a resource for WP:VISUALARTS. There is already a dearth of high quality art historical content on many global subjects (despite, of course, some excellent GAs and FAs, most of which focus on Western art history). I am looking forward to hearing other editors' thoughts. Thanks so much. Ppt91 ( talk) 19:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
What is the reliability of Media Bias/Fact Check? The Cite Unseen says its unreliable. An IP editor claims it is credible Special:Diff/1139970652 — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 10:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Unlike the Media Bias Chart by Ad Fontes, they don't have any formal training, a large team, or repeated and careful measurements, analysis, and statistics. That's why it's strange that the Ad Fontes chart isn't rated better. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
In editing an article on The Washington Post, I found the website TechDirt used as a source. Upon investigating TechDirt, I found it to be nothing more than a large-scale, multi-user blog.
Quoting from the "About Us" section of the website, it is clear that the website is an opinion blog and not at all a reliable source for information:
"Started in 1997 by Floor64 founder Mike Masnick and then growing into a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog relies on a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies' ability to innovate and grow.
The dynamic and interactive community of Techdirt readers often comment on the addictive quality of the content on the site, a feeling supported by the blog’s average of ~1 million visitors per month and more than 1.7 million comments on 74,000+ posts''."
Based upon the fact that TechDirt is a blog, I propose that it be included on the list of Reliable sources/Perennial sources as deprecated. I eagerly await your participation in this discussion. All the best. MarydaleEd ( talk) 00:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Specifically [1] as used in Heliocentrism#Rishi Yajnavalkya. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Is this journal reliable? [2] a few google searches call it predatory. Thanks. Magherbin ( talk) 08:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Is Ratings Ryan a reliable source for episode viewership ratings?
I first stumbled across the site while visiting the article South Park (season 1), after realising that the list was making a contradiction about the viewership ratings of the first episode (0.89 million) comparing to the number given by the article on that episode (0.98 million). While the latter cites a book, the list cites this page from the Ratings Ryan blog. This was before I noticed that all the pages from season 1 to season 10 also cited that exact page, affecting the list of South Park episodes (check reference 20 ( permalink)). Concerned over the reliability of the blog, I started a discussion on the talk page of the list, pinging the editor that added them (diffs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10), before searching the blog name in Wikipedia (in quotation marks) and realising that other episode lists cited it too: Futurama; Breaking Bad; Big Brother ( 1 2); Jimmy Neutron; Yes, Dear; 8 Simple Rules; Monk; Friday Night Lights; Murder, She Wrote and the list goes on (I haven't checked whether this editor added references to the blog in these other lists).
I first considered posting this in MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, but the fact that this source is being cited in so many pages and the apparent extensive information present in the blog makes me think whether this is a special case (where the blog is reputable or written by a subject-matter expert for instance). However, I can't find any evidence of this. ObserveOwl ( talk) 15:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I am wondering BananaBreadPie12 ( talk) 19:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
OP is LTA sock |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I wasn't sure whether to post this here, at NPOV, fringe, or elsewhere, as it seems to be violating every policy. I noticed here an editor claiming that Arthur Jensen, one of the most accomplished individuals in psychology, is a fringe source. [4] Following the reference, we find a survey of Wikipedia editors on the question of whether the view that any component of race and intelligence differences is genetic is fringe. [5] The vast majority of editors there effectively simply write "yes" with no attempt to survey the field. The few that do survey the field engage in rather obvious cherry picking. I would also note that it seems odd to declare an individual fringe because one of their views is considered fringe, by Wikipedia editors or experts. Jensen's contributions to the field went well beyond race and intelligence. Here we have a survey of experts in the field, rather than Wikipedia editors, which produces a quite different result. [6] Which survey should take precedence according to the reliable sources policy? Dretynit ( talk) 09:41, 22 February 2023 (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.
Hello. I'm concerned regarding the use of
This source on
Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. The source is from anarchistfederation.net
, which
self-describes as an automated news aggregator
run by the Online Anarchist Federation. I recently
removed content sourced to this website, as it appears to be a self-published press release of an organization with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Newimpartial decided to
restore the source.
I think that the source has no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but I have been
told by
Newimpartial that I am clearly not familiar with anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability
and that the source carries at least the standing of a blog entry by someone who is known and who has a track record of self-publication on related issues over time
.
Is this a reliable source for content in that BLP article? I'd like to say it's not reliable, but I figure I'd prefer the community weigh in on this specific use case given that this disagreement cannot be swiftly resolved on the article's talk page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation reported that Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground. They reported that other attendees included the Industrial Workers of the World, feminist collectives, queer student groups, action medics, legal observers, three different climate groups, anti-fascists, and other leftists.
Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground.is clearly controversial, and requires strong, secondary sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
news aggregator. They republish material from other publications, so assessing the inclusion of such articles should be based on where it's republished from, not the anarchistfederation itself.
Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source.I'm really not understanding where the confusion is on your end. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
material challenged or likely to be challenged. This is material you removed on grounds of WP:CRYBLP, although it doesn't require BLP sourcing. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
We are not, for example, forbidden from mentioning when an organization was founded, in an article about an activist or leader in that organization, just because we may have difficulty finding a source that gives SIGCOV to the leader while also mentioning the founding date. Even a SPS could be used for such information.
random guy walking by, taking notesdoes not, so your parallel fails in the respects that matter. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This weekend’s scenes are typical of such events, where physical intimidation and vandalism directed at gender-critical groups are now par for the course.To shoe-horn in a primary sps painting the article subject in a negative light, rather than summarizing the secondary source? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This weekend’s scenes are typical of such events, where physical intimidation and vandalism directed at gender-critical groups are now par for the course.or a different one? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the groundis not contentious BLP content beggars belief. Levivich ( talk) 22:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
what happened at the eventit
is describing what happened at the eventaccording to some (anarchist) participants. It is unquestionably reliable for that.
unidentified individualswho make
random asseertions. And you sound grumpy about it. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Interestingly, nobody had raised that issue until now (that I'd seen). It is WP:RSOPINION, and so not usable for facts: you were right for the wrong reason. :p Newimpartial ( talk) 23:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
submissions are accepted on a “trust first and correct the mistakes” basisand which implies that while they don't fact-check prior to publication ("trust first"), they do accept and make corrections ("correct the mistakes"). The only reason why I'm unclear is that I've not seen any editor demonstrate use by others, nor that AFUK have a reputation for accurately reporting UK anarchist related news. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. The details being reported aren't about the living person, so it can be used but would have to be attributed as it's a primary source. However it's obviously trying to pass guilt by association, and is likely undue in the article about Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. That though is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 23:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation reported that demonstrators had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground. They reported that other attendees included the Industrial Workers of the World, feminist collectives, queer student groups, action medics, legal observers, three different climate groups, anti-fascists, and other leftists.
a negative light, unless their actions are attributed to that person in some way.
Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the groundabsolutely falls under
biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. How is a description of demonstrators' behaviors at a Keen rally DUE here if it's not intended to provide context on Keen? Do you believe readers get a neutral or positive impression of Keen from that statement? If not, how can you claim it isn't
material challenged or likely to be challenged, or that it doesn't have the
possibility of harm? Policy says to
beware of claims that rely on guilt by associationand states
"See also" links...should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person; the above content is exactly the type of insinuation addressed here and unless an editor has severe competence issues it should be clear implications of contentious association are not acceptable elsewhere in the article either. The same goes for the use of shitty sources in BLPs in general: if
Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, where they obviously are not attached to info directly covering the subject, why would they be acceptable when cited inline? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
contentious material about a living person. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and ... poorly sourcedis grounds for a CIR/TENDENTIOUS block. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. In this discussion, you have made no fewer than thirty-five comments, many of which have been extremely repetitive to previous points. Please stop bludgeoning the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
claims about third parties. If someone says, "I'm suing Elon Musk" on a blog, I think we can say "so-and-so said they were suing Elon Musk" using the SPS. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
1. Source. Irvine, Reed; Goulden, Joseph C. (June 1, 1997). "New Wave of Attacks Targets Aldrich". The Oklahoman. Retrieved February 17, 2023.
2. Article. Gary Aldrich.
3. Content. " George Stephanopoulos, serving as White House communications director under the Clintons, was able to exert pressure on the media to ignore the book, and it received little attention from mainstream outlets despite the sensational contents and its popularity with the reading public."
I noticed that this content was cited without the authors to an article in The Oklahoman, however, clicking the link indicates that they may have re-published something originally published in Accuracy in Media by Reed Irvine and Joseph C. Goulden. (For another take on why Gary Aldrich's book may have not been given the publicity some think it deserved, see Margaret Carlson's take in TIME.) At the very least, I think this is a statement that needs attribution. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 22:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
@ ActivelyDisinterested and Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for the feedback. I removed the sentence and citation as it does seem to violate a few different aspects of WP:BLP. - Location ( talk) 17:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we revisit the History Channel (History.com) notability reliability, to consider it on a case-by-case basis. While I agree that Ancient Aliens and similar shows are not notable, I see no reason why we can't use the "Food that Built America", "Tools that Built America" and "Toys that Built America" and similar programs in this same "that Built America" theme as reliable sources. They've had a history of companies, toys, tools, foods and other items that are part of America's industrial and commercial heritage. Each program seems well-researched, having company representatives, university scholars and other individuals present the history of each item involved. The History Channel comes and goes as far as overall notability reliability is concerned, but I've noticed that they've attempted to get some serious content on the air lately.
Oaktree b (
talk) 02:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
At best there are better sources, at worst it is junk. No we Should not use it. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, want to know, can the following sites be considered reliable:
Thanks. Insight 3 ( talk) 09:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
How are the sources given by me in this article? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 15:03, 23 February 2023 (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.
CNet, usually regarded as an ordinary tech RS, has started experimentally running [13] [14] AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors. Currently these articles are under the byline " CNet Money". So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn't. I haven't found any yet, but any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed - David Gerard ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
if you deposit $10,000 into a savings account that earns 3% interest compounding annually, you'll earn $10,300 at the end of the first year). These are the same kind of errors that human writers tend to make, so I don't know if this is a special case, apart from the apparent failure of editorial oversight. jp× g 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I added a link to this discussion (as well as one other discussion about CNET that has been archived) in WP:RSP, but I have't changed the status or the description yet. 137a ( talk • edits) 14:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Since it appears their use of AI is disclosed and easily identifiable, a specific warning for articles that are "written by CNet Money" and have an AI disclosure would be most appropriate. – dlthewave ☎ 18:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Given this new Verge report out about "the guardrails that keep editorial content independent [have been] repeatedly breached" to benefit advertisers, I would support downgrading post-Red Venture sale CNET to "use with caution". (November 2022 and after.) This is related to but separate from the AI stuff above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Futurism's got this story by the throat. "Magazine Publishes Serious Errors in First AI-Generated Health Article: The owners of Sports Illustrated and Men’s Journal promised to be virtuous with AI. Then they bungled their very first AI story — and issued huge corrections when we caught them." [16]
The publisher in question is the Arena Group. Here's a list of their brands.
It's pretty obvious that anything by a text generator isn't an acceptable source for Wikipedia. We need to work out suitable and proportionate ways to deal with this issue in general, though - archive articles, bad publishers, etc - because it's going to keep coming up - David Gerard ( talk) 17:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Can someone close this? This was automatically archived; I just unarchived it. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Special:LinkSearch/https://www.heraldweekly.com
This site brands itself as "Breaking Entertainment News and Gossips". I find it sometimes in the "sponsored content" section of some news sites with clickbait-y titles. These are definitely red flags. However, this source has quite a new citations in article space right now. Is that something to be concerned about? 137a ( talk • edits) 16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
the following reference is given at Collaboration with the Axis Powers for the statement that the "Blue Police", a Nazi police auxiliary made up of Polish policemen, were recruited "under threat of death". I don't care if it is reliable or it isn't, personally; I will just remove it if it is determined that it is not. I don't speak Polish and the book does not seem to be available online. The link goes to a publisher's page.
Hempel, Adam (1987). Policja granatowa w okupacyjnym systemie administracyjnym Generalnego Gubernatorstwa: 1939-1945 (in Polish). Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy Związków Zawodowych. p. 83.
I am looking for another source for the statement, but would be glad to hear from any subject matter experts, anyone who owns the book, or anyone who can suggest a different good source. Thanks all Elinruby ( talk) 01:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Would German ( here) be easier to understand Elinruby?
GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually... the exact wording in the article is "who were forced, under penalty of death, to work for the German occupation authorities." Maybe the intended meaning here is that they worked under the threat of death, not that they were forced to join under the threat of death. Perhaps I should reword that to clarify (assuming this reading is correct). The sourcing question remains though. Those cite numbers sound low. Should we just go with Red-tailed hawk's sources? Or is there a better one that can be found if we aren't trying to source "recruited on pain of death", which seems to be the wrong reading? The thesis RTH mentions cites the call up to something that looked like it could be another copy of what GCB is showing us... it scrolled away when I tried to copy the footnote. Thank you for any brainpower than anyone applies to this. <g> Elinruby ( talk) 22:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC) @ GizzyCatBella: Elinruby ( talk) 22:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
All Polish police officials and also Polish police officers who were on duty on September 1, 1939, should report by November 10, 1939, regardless of their previous place of service at the nearest German police office. Officials who do not comply with this request face the severest penalties. Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger-
Guys, I think most of the above, i.e. the content issue itself about whether Polish policeman faced death penalty under the Nazi regime, is not really related to reliability (and I suggest this discusison is copied/movied to
Talk:Blue Police or like). With regards to the source named by the OP (Hempel, Adam (1987), Policja granatowa...). I can't find much about the author, whom I would qualify now as an "independent historian" (i.e. not affiliated with any institution). Google tells me he was born in 1955, got a PhD from University of Warsaw (I can't find out in what field) and published several books and articles dealing with history of Polish security organizations (police and like). Regarding publisher of this particular book, it had more than one,
USHMM states
Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, which is a major Polish publishing house. His work is cited by a number of other scholars, which is a positive sign. I can't a dedicated review of it, however; the best I have so far is this: in this Polish-language academic article
[17] published in
pl:Studia Podlaskie in 2008 by
pl:Robert Litwiński (historian at the
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University), Litwiński writes positively about the book in one paragraph (in Polish, translated by me): However, the most comprehensive and basic study on the Polish Police in the years 1939–1944 are the works of Adam Hempel (Policja granatowa w okupacyjnym systemie administracyjnym Generalnego Gubernatorstwa 1939–1945, Warszawa 1987; Pogrobowcy klęski. Rzecz o policji „granatowej” w Generalnych Gubernatorstwie 1939–1945, Warszawa 1990). The author comprehensively presented the origins and formation of the Polish police service under German occupation, discussed the organization of Polish police authorities in the General Government, their role in the implementation of German occupation policy, cooperation with the resistance movement, and relations with Polish society.
so from what I see so far it seems reliable. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 07:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
*This source
[18] says "under threat of penalty", not death. Adam Hempel, if the book even says what is claimed, is not reliable as the book was published under a communist regime in Poland in 1987. During the communist era critical research was impossible and all books were supervised by censors.
JoeZ451 (
talk) 19:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
under threat of penaltynecessarily excludes the death penalty being that penalty. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Guys. I just spent one hour digging through sources, and writing an analysis, only to loose it to a browser memory crash... sigh. TL;DR: None of the sources I found says anything about this (as in, no source I found discusses the issue of penalties for refusal to re-enlist in 1939; some sources do mention death penalty but for disobeying orders in general, presumably after re-enlisting). And while it would be good to verify what is written in Hempel, p.83 I am leaning towards this being an error (I don't want to say hoax) introduced by an anon in 2008:
[19]. I've tagged the current claim the article with
verification needed but frankly, I think we can just be bold and either restore the original wording (arrest, not death penalty) or change it to "severest punishments'" per discussion above. (Pl wiki, I'll note, does not state death penalty either, it just uses the "severest punishments" language and references the very poster we have above, which is a bit ORish, if arguably factually correct). --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
References
someone can verify it was published. That is true of WP:PUBLISHED sources, but there are various published sources that are not reliable (such as supermarket tabloid National Enquirer and satire magazine The Onion). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the point of this discussion is to determine whether the source is reliable to support the facts it is cited in support of, not to determine if the source has been published. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
someone can verify it was published, not that its contents are trueYeah, I would say it's the exact opposite of that statement. A reliable source is reliable because we can rely on its contents being true. That's why an op-ed is not a reliable source, nor a source that has no fact checking, doesn't issue corrections, have editorial oversight, or a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and so forth. Levivich ( talk) 18:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
These sources are used in Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator, and I want to make sure if I can use them or not before proceding to develop the article. Player.One doesn't have a conclusive discussion on WP:VG/RS, and I'm not sure about the GameCrate review, a defunct situational outlet, but it is used because it is more detailed than other reviews. — VORTEX 3427 ( Talk!) 08:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at WT:ASTRO about the website https://universeguide.com, which is currently used in 40 articles related to astronomical objects. The discussion started with a dubious statement found at List of most luminous stars about the star Theta Muscae, which was cited to this source. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 13:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing debate at the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism about whether the sources listed above are reliable. I have tried to argue they are through relevant details and wikipolicy, and those opposed have tended to just say the sources are "activist" without further elaboration (or reliable sources for their claim) and have in some cases resorted to personal attacks and insinuations about me as an editor. Having tried without much success to have a good faith discussion there, I'm raising the issue here for comment on their use generally and in this particular article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
( https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/, source in question)
The text that was removed sourced to the CTR is The
Colorado Times Recorder listed it as a "conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group" and stated "FAIR’s Board of Advisors consists of a host of disgraced academics and journalists, many of whom have been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, and homophobia transphobia."
in the Reception section.
This source most obviously meets all the requirements for a WP:RS. They have a named editorial board of distinguished journalists and a clear policy for factually reviewing and verifying information before publishing, in addition to a clear retraction/correction policy. They have been cited, named, and praised extensively in well-established WP:RS and have a clear separation between opinion and analysis articles. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
nonpartisan, with a progressive orientation. Per WP:BIASED, this does not mean they can't be used. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 21:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
It caused controversy when Target announced it would be pulled from its shelves Nov. 12, following outcry from the trans community, which points to the fact she alone is not calling Shrier transphobic. That they criticized the organization and members of the board is WP:DUE, especially attributed, and to keep it out is to WP:WHITEWASH their reception. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 17:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Democrats and liberal organizations that began producing partisan content years agoin Colorado, but this information is plainly available on the about page of the website, so I'm not sure that the website being left-leaning is contested anywhere. Moreover, the entire editorial board of the website is one person; any articles by him are going to have to be presumed to be self-published, as there does not appear to be any other editors who would review his work. That the extent of editorial review is a single person is also not the sort of robust sort of review process that inspires strong confidence in editorial control and editorial independence.Among local journalists, the Times Recorder's reputation appears to be mixed. A column written by local investigative reporter Jimmy Sengenberger and published in the Colorado Springs Gazette, the paper of record for the Colorado Springs area, labels the website as
a mock news site run by left-wing activist Jason Salzman. The publication's news site has previously merely labeled the website as
liberalor as
progressively bent. Not all of the articles published in the Gazette have been as critical (some have cited it), but my general sense reading through how others use the website is that it has a mixed reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; WP:MREL probably describes it well. As such, it might not exactly be the sort of thing that we want to use to cite contentious claims alone for reasons of its reputation for fact-checking, and I would question the extent to which items reported on solely by the Colorado Times Recorder warrant inclusion in the article—even with attribution. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
mixed reputation for fact-checking and accuracyout of. A much larger number of more established WP:RS have lauded it's coverage and reliability. Additionally, the article in question was not written by the editor, so while that consideration may apply for articles he himself writes, it does not apply to this one.
twice in December, the Colorado Times Recorder — a mock news site run by left-wing activist Jason Salzman — attempted to paint CPAN as a right-wing extremist group working to undermine public education and harm the LGBTQ community. The site grouped CPAN with the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, Advocates for D20 Kids, and the longstanding Independence Institute. None of these organizations are extremist.The author discloses CPAN has awarded him, so it's hardly independent. Notably, this is a strawman, as the article does not once call them
extremist, they call them a
conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group. They provide more than ample evidence for each facet of that description. As you noted, the Gazzete has found them reliable and cited them before, so one article calling them a "mock news site" and attacking a strawman without pointing out any inaccuracies by a person with a clear COI is not damning. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 17:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
( https://readpassage.com/, source in question)
The text that is most directly sourced to this in the article is a paragraph on their activities and collaborations in Canada.
This source from the start seems to meet most of the requirements for a WP:RS. They have an editorial team, with a well-respected and published managing editor and many distinguished journalists working for them as well. They have a clear verification/corrections policy and their corrections seem to be mostly date mix-ups. They distinguish between opinion and news. The only question is how it's been covered in established WP:RS. Any help with the google-fu necessary to find how they've been covered is appreciated, as "passage" unsurprisingly turns up a lot of hits. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
Please note that we only publish opinion and analysis. We do not accept news articles, pieces with original reporting, interviews or articles that have been published elsewhere.. The claim that
they distinguish between opinion and newsis true inasmuch as they publish exactly zero news pieces; this is in no way, shape, nor form a WP:NEWSORG. I see nothing particualar about the freelance writer that would indicate that they are an WP:SME, so I see no reasonable reason to see this as reliable except for the author's opinion (which is not WP:DUE absent coverage from secondary sources).— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
[t]hey distinguish between opinion and news? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
the Atlantic's analysis pieces being considered a reliable source... no, it's ideas section is opinion and is treated as WP:RSOPINION. Sometimes they are given WP:WEIGHT (such as when other organizations report about them), but they aren't RS on their own. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a consensus that Passage is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Passage as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others.Spudst3r ( talk) 06:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @ Red-tailed hawk:, @ Newimpartial:, @ Spudst3r:, @ Springee:, @ ActivelyDisinterested:, @ Jweiss11:, @ Animalparty:, @ DFlhb:, @ Sativa Inflorescence:, @ Levivich:.
This threads not been active for a while, but since then I have demonstrated Passage's
WP:USEBYOTHERS above. Additionally, I'd like to note that the following
WP:RS cites them directly about FAIR's activities: While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside
longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates
[25]
I'm pinging everyone involved to ask, in light of the more recent information, your opinion on (1) their general reliability and (2) their reliability specifically as a source in the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
( https://idavox.com/, source in question)
The text removed is In August 2021,
Idavox reported that IRS Form 990's were not available since the organization is less than one year old, and speculated that due to the high number of Koch-connected people on the board, the
Koch brothers are the source of some funding
. Text removed, disputed, and modified on the talk page but not re-introduced is Idavox described FAIR as "Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing" and said "it's not a civil-rights organization". They stated that their analysis of FAIR's board of advisors revealed a large number of Koch employees, Quillete contributors, and transphobes
in Reception.
Idavox, the One People's Project, and Daryle Lamont Jenkins are well known and respected for their research on the organized right and far-right. A detailed analysis of how established WP:RS reference and use Idavox (the search would be even more supportive if extended to OPP and Jenkins) is here. A summary is that reliable sources have directly used with and without explicit attribution Idavox's articles, used their footage and videos as reliable sources, praised their coverage on researching the far-right, and refer to them as "Independent news". Idavox delineates between news and opinion and not a single reliable source has ever questioned or called into doubt their reporting. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
Without commenting on the potential reliability of any of these sources, I really don't think it's wise to use sources for potentially contentious statements when these sources aren't listed at WP:RSP. DFlhb ( talk) 12:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm currently writing an article on a music album and I encountered
this piece on Broadway World. The piece is bylined to someone labeled as "Senior Editor and daily contributor" to Broadway World (though she appears to have stopped contributing in 2020). There isn't anything that looks terrible at first glance, but all of the text in the piece is taken verbatim from
this press release, down to the all-caps GRAMMY
in both pieces.
We cite Broadway World in about 10K articles. I'm wondering if this is a one-off, or if anyone else has noticed this sort of thing from them when writing other articles. My initial impression of BroadwarWorld was that it was a fairly standard trade publication, but I'm now concerned that the source may be laundering press releases without exercising adequate editorial oversight. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
How useful and reliable is this source for Draft:Alan Singh Chanda? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 16:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Levivich: Watch now. -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 00:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone know the reliability of retroreversing.com and pc.net? I was notified of these sources at this RFD and I wanted to check the reliability of these sources here since I’m not good at identifying at which sources are reliable or not. Here are some specific pages that the user brought up here and here. Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 00:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I would like to ask this question regarding the following sources cited in Leo Liu.
There is previous discussion about Vents Magazine at WP:RSN/Archive_203#Vents_Magazine and it does have a few other uses ( Special:LinkSearch/https://ventsmagazine.com), but I think the other two are just in that Wikipedia article and there seems to be no previous RSN discussion.
My concern is that, it seems unusual for reliable sources to have a broken contact page https://theamericanmail.com/contact/ (with "contact@yourwebsite.com" as email, and lorum ipsum floating around). And I don't think I have seen any reliable source that would have
My name is Farhan. I am an author on Ventsmagazine. For any business query contact me & also I sell paid guest posts on my high quality websites you can contact me at: admin@technewsbusiness.com http://technewsbusiness.com
as the author profile right after the end of an article (from this Vents Magazine article) . Some other observations were listed in the closed discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Leo Liu. I am therefore doubtful of these sources and would like to ask for your opinions. —— HTinC23 ( talk) 23:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Over at list of cryptids, we currently have a grab-bag of sources that make up this list of what proponents of the pseudoscience/subculture of cryptozoology considers to be a "cryptid" (what the rest of us call a monster or an extinct animal, depending on the case). One source that is propping up a good chunk of list of cryptids is a 2013 article from Salon called "the world's greatest imaginary animals".
This article, which is more precisely from GlobalPost via Salon, nowhere mentions the well-established reality that cryptozoology is and was widely considered a pseudoscience on par with Young Earth creationism by the academic community ( Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience). Instead, it says:
This sort of uncritical parroting from a media listicle is exactly the sort of thing that scholars—actual experts—who have studied cryptozoologists have long noted. We discuss this a little on our our cryptozoology article ( Cryptozoology#Lack_of_critical_media_coverage). Should we be using this article for anything? It seems quite WP:PROFRINGE to me. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
best known for his hairiness, blurriness, and all-around swag.It's not the genre of writing that calls things "pseudoscience", but rather the kind of piece that snarkily asks for blurry pictures in the comments. Neither the best nor the worst as far as sources go; probably replaceable with something better, but hardly the most severe crime against science we'll find lurking on Wikipedia this week. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Is this source reliable for this statement? Note that I do not question whether it is generally reliable, for example for the Polish prime minister's statement, only whther it substantiates this sweeping statement. Though Germany was trying to kill all Jews in
the Holocaust, a minority of Jews chose to collaborate with the Germans
[1]
Elinruby (
talk) 22:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
What Morawiecki said is technically accurate, but historically unfair in light of the specific nature of the Nazi persecution of Jews, according to scholars who have studied the dozens of indictments brought forward in Israel against Nazi collaborators.
Until 1972, dozens of indictments led to trials in Israel of alleged Jewish collaborators with the Nazis, said Rivka Brot, a fellow at Bar-Ilan University’s Center for Jewish and Democratic Law. Brot wrote her doctoral thesis on the prosecution of Jewish collaborators by Jewish tribunals in transit camps in Europe after World War II, and later in the State of Israel.
References
Can the Grand Comics Database be considered a reliable source for just the bibliographies of comics creators (for example, Bernie Wrightson#Bibliography)? The database has been praised by Comic Book Resources as the "greatest site on the internet for [...] creator credits of comic books". [33] It also has a complex verification process, so it's not really something that anyone can edit. For citing paragraphs, I think it's better to use other, non-database sources instead if just to give a greater variety of citations (though I don't think a few GCDB citations are too bad if nothing else can be found and it's solely for credits). But for lists of comic issues and bibliographies, which can often number in the hundreds and even thousands, using GCDB should be one of the best options. It does not seem realistic to find an individual citation dedicated to every single issue a comics creator ever worked on, some being very obscure.
There was a past discussion for GCDB being an overall reliable source that had no real consensus. This post is primarily for GCDB being a reliable source for bibliography credits, which Thebiguglyalien advised me to create. FlairTale ( talk) 22:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) "
A blog on Psychology Today is newly cited on Dissociative identity disorder#Controversy (added here), but I'm wary as per RSN history for Psychology Today and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1#40 of use of Psychology Today blogs authored by a single author that make sweeping generalisations, especially when the subject matter may be subject to WP:MEDRS. To its credit, the article does say that it has been reviewed by the editor in chief of Psychology Today, Kaja Perina, whose background is journalism, but not psychology or medicine. Unless there's evidence that it's appeared in a print edition of Psychology Today, this raises some questions for me as to whether it should be used for a "controversies" contentious section. Lizthegrey ( talk) 21:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I may be in the minority, but I find EXPERTSPS to be deeply flawed, and the result of well-meaning users not entirely familiar with academic publishing. Why would we even need it? Generally speaking, I dare bet less than 1% of actual research articles in good journals are cited on WP, so it's not like there's an absence of good references. With that in mind, I am very wary of blogs, regardless of topic, even when the author is an expert. On WP, we see far far too much of that. Speaking as an academic, I know first-hand that it is a lot easier to make bold claims in blogs or even books chapters than in articles. Yes, there is notional peer-review, but nothing even close to the peer-reviews of good academic journals. Now, it's much easier making bold claims if we don't need to provide in-depth proof, obviously. So the reason we see so many claims deferred to EXPERTSPS is that, to be honest, the most eye-catching are often the least supported. Any academic would prefer to publish in a good journal, but that requires actually being able to back up the claims. So to be a bit provocative: EXPERTSPS is mainly needed when "we" want to insert a claim "we" like but cannot find a sufficiently good reference for it, and the very reason the source makes that bold claim in a blog or book chapter is that it would not stand up to academic scrutiny. (Of course exceptions can be found - but as a rule of thumb, the above should hold quite well). Jeppiz ( talk) 00:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:SPS specifically says work in the relevant field. In this case, I don't believe that means any old psychiatrist, rather one whose field is DID. See for example how the Tik Tok Tics are handled at Tourette syndrome; all of those folks are people who are acknowledge published experts on TS-- not just psychiatrists. And having a blog for psychology today isn't particularly impressive. I'd leave it out until real sources pick it up, at least a DID psychiatrist. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Is this source Fuchsia Magazine reliable to cite on Wikipedia? Insight 3 ( talk) 06:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)