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 260 | ← | Archive 262 | Archive 263 | Archive 264 | Archive 265 | Archive 266 | → | Archive 270 |
I think it is. It's not a wiki and contains a bibliography with only peer-reviewed publications. It is also made as a better substitute for Google and Wikipedia for students. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:CCBC:262A:863E:CDB8 ( talk) 07:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=, that is just a search-engine output that is likely to vary over time, and (possibly) the seacrher's location and search-history. It is even debatable whether to regard it as a published source, let alone a reliable source. As such, it is never directly citable as a source on wiipedia.
www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=should never be used as references for anything, any more than the output of a Google search should be. -- JBL ( talk) 16:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Can we use a company's financial data to justify publishing an entire section on the company as here: Jet_Airways#Financials ( permalink)?
My take: This appears unacceptable on numerous grounds: WP:PRIMARY, self-published, WP:OR, and fails WP:INDEPENDENT. However, I can see the data as reliable for stating what the official filings say, assuming the data from those filings, annual reports and self-published financial statements are themselves of sufficient notability to justify sentences. I could see how that might be the case for an company as big as this airline. Yet, I still believe some WP:SECONDARY source(s) mentioning the filings would be necessary to put in this kind of information. I would like to hear what others have to say about this and whether this kind of data has been presented for other companies, large or small. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 03:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
http://www.at149st.com/eric.html "Eric “DEAL” Felisbret, is a former graffiti artist, lecturer, and an acknowledged authority on graffiti history. He has spent several decades participating in the culture, observing and documenting it. " as used in Graffiti_in_New_York_City and other graffiti related articles. Self announced "graffiti expert" with significant coverage in reliable sources, but definitely a POV source with a pro vandalism bias. What are the things his page would be considered as appropriate reference? I can see it for cultural history.. but feel uncertain about their use to ascertain graffitists' notability. Graywalls ( talk) 12:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Is anyone familiar with Climate-data.org? It was added as a source here, but all it says about its data source is:
The person behind the website (per this) appears to be this person, who lists their profession as "Digital Marketing Expert". Am I missing something here? Guettarda ( talk) 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Wondering if the book is considered reliable source for this edit. The article is "People's Mujahedin of Iran" (aka MEK) and the section name is "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK". Thank you.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 12:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"One of the seeming purposes of this book is to convince a sceptical audience that Iranian dissident group the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) should be treated as a legitimate voice of Iranian opposition. This claim would be more credible ..."and concludes with
"To simply dismiss such assertions as propaganda of the Iranian intelligence services does not enhance the credibility of an otherwise valuable book.". So there's definitely meat on the claim this is a WP:BIASED source in regards to MEK. I would say this should be used with attribution only, and may not merit inclusion (though I'll note the lack of modern reputable sources on MEK in general - if we had lots of high-quality unbiased sources - it would be much easier to chuck this one). If I'm wrong about "Metis Analytics" (e.g. it not being the publisher (databases often have such errors) or it having a reputation I am unaware of) - then my assessment would quite possibly change. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
What are appropriate sources to add to track listings, if necessary? (Most articles don't have any sources attached to their track listings, so I'm a bit confused on the rules with this.) The Reliable sources article states: "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as...an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times". Is the record company or artist official page considered reliable alongside e-commerce sites? Or should I go straight to Amazon? Bahiagrass ( talk) 16:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I recently noticed a user adding this reference to update subscriber counts for the Top 100 most-subscribed YouTube channels (though not directly this article). The reliability of this source has been questioned by myself and several other users while it was making its way through the encyclopedia.
On first observation, I do not see an About page on the website, so it's unclear as to whether the people running the page have experience in Internet Culture.
Courtesy pinging
CoolSkittle,
Ssilvers,
Cyphoidbomb, and
Fylindfotberserk as users that have previously reverted attempted additions of this source by this other user. Also pinging
Justinmin09 as the user that has been adding this source to give them a chance to make their case.
Jalen D. Folf
(talk) 01:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@ JalenFolf: I've reverted a handful of these additions, but there are still about 20 left. Can I impose upon you to scrub these from the articles when you get a chance, please? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Folks!! What is the lastest on the Huff Post at [6]
I see several comment over the last couple of years. I thought this was user generated but this article seems to be by somebody called Curtis Wong who has wrote for Billboards, The National and so and is a staff writer. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 12:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the Mueller Report a reliable secondary source for its investigative findings? It certainly seems that the news media is treating it that way. There are many, many reliable sources summarizing and analyzing Mueller's findings with little to no attribution. R2 ( bleep) 18:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I would call it an extremely reliable, but primary source. We can cite it in limited circumstances, but the usual cautions apply... use it only with great care. Blueboar ( talk) 20:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that OR forbids us from independently (from RS) searching the Mueller Report, the Dossier, court documents, other primary sources, etc., for any content we think should be used here. It is not in our remit to determine the notability of content for inclusion in existing articles here. RS do that for us, and then we certainly can cite the (parts of) primary sources when RS have done so. (I am not speaking about the "notability" criteria used to judge whether a topic is worthy for creating an article here.) Please correct me if I'm wrong, and please ping me. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 20:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources ... It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
"Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources.") R2 ( bleep) 21:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The usual mandate of this board is to take a Wiki text, take a source, and discuss wither it is RS for V purposes. Both primary and secondary sources can be RS, and primary/secondary is actually an inquiry under NOR. But even so, a single source can be both primary and secondary, and the usual inquiry is to take a wiki-text and take the source and decide if it is primary or secondary in that instance. This general discussion is not examining any wiki text, and really if people want NOR to read something like, 'if a government publishes it, it's always primary', what would be really helpful to all of us is go to WP:NOR and amend it to say something like that, so that it is settled. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be a hijacked journal: while it was indexed in MEDLINE until 2009, the website currently calling itself RN Journal seems barely deserving of the name "journal", having undated articles with basic spelling and grammar issues and no peer review. This isn't commonly cited ( Journals Cited by Wikipedia lists only five articles citing it), but its scope is medicine, where verifiability is critical. For an example of its use in Wikipedia (before the apparent hijacking) see the first citation in Enema#Other_solutions, backing up the statement "Equal parts of milk and molasses heated together to slightly above normal body temperature have been used."
I'm looking to build consensus for adding it to the hijacked sources list of WP:SOURCEWATCH. Is the assessment above accurate? Vahurzpu ( talk)
The article Sacha Dean Biyan makes a lot of use of thefwa.com. But this page suggests that that website will publish anything if they like it and receive 70 quid.
WP:RSSELF would seem to rule out use of this website. Or do I misunderstand something? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.marathi.tv/write-for-us/ says, in part, "If you believe you are a good writer & contribute some great content to this website, we invite you to contact us." and "if you need to remove or suggest modifications in our content & are authorised to do so. We will be happy to accommodate your requests." and "Express your unique ideas in different forms from articles, poems, photos or even videos" and "College students, house wives etc are welcome to contribute. No prior experience necessary". These statements lead me to believe that their website cannot be considered reliable by our standards, as it is user-generated content. -- Geniac ( talk) 21:02, 28 April 2019 (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.
company-histories.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
It seem another rip-off of International Directory of Company Histories. So, is this site had copyright problem thus WP:ELNEVER? RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC). Matthew hk ( talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=
and mis-citing fundinguniverse as source. Wikipedia should not encourage to cite pirate site which some academic journal web scrapper was black listed.
Matthew hk (
talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
"Copyright discussion") and Wikipedia:Copyright problems (
"General help/discussion") as two possible venues that might be more helpful. Since there appear to be numerous sites that republish Gale content, it would be useful to make a definite decision on all of these sites at once. If these sites are considered copyright violations, then you can directly request blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm probably not presenting this properly, but I'm struggling with this one.
The issue: there is evidence that the Islamic Republic of Iran recruits former MEK members (IRI’s main political opposition) to provide false testimonies against the MEK as part of a disinformation campaign against the group (some background here and here).
Should we include such allegations by ex-MEK members in Wikipedia if published on reliable sources such as the Guardian?
Requesting feedback from uninvolved editors please. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Trying to assess this source as reliable for information about a Spanish photojournalist, Delmi Alvarez, which needs a major overhaul as it's been heavily edited for years by the subject who doesn't understand Wikipedia, and I'm currently going through it source by source but don't have familiarity with Spanish-language sources. Outonofotographico.com seems to be an online photography magazine? I'd like to use it to provide detail about this photographer's work in Cuba. -- valereee ( talk) 10:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Questions as to whether or not these individual pages (not the journalists or the hosting website, but the individual pages themselves) are sufficient as a Reliable Source to be used as a statement of fact and not just the opinion of the journalists that wrote them:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2019/mar/16/far-right-australian-senator-fraser-anning-attacks-boy-after-being-egged-video https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/peter-dutton-claims-greens-just-as-bad-as-fraser-anning-on-christchurch-attack/ar-BBUTrlf https://www.smh.com.au/national/fraser-anning-spent-most-taxpayers-money-on-family-travel-last-year-20190320-p515sm.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/australian-senator-fraser-anning-egg-incident/index.html https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/the-rise-and-rise-of-australias-right/
Relevant Wikipedia article: Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party . Relevant citations are 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Quality of evidence presented seems weak at best, and could easily point to other conclusions, as the current stated conclusions on the relevant Wikipedia article (The proposed statement of Fact that The Conservative National Party is Far-right ideologically) are mostly subjective and contradict relevant pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as Far right politics. The highly subjective nature of these claims and easily contradicted position of the claim that the Party is factually Far-right is a questionable issue. Example: citation 7, Asia Times article is being used as a citation to support the statement and seems to show that because Anning himself was at a public event that was also participated in by some elements of the Far-right, that may be used as flimsy evidence that he too is Far-right, despite the fact that it was a public event. If this is sufficient burden of proof, then the same burden of proof could be used to state that everyone at e.g OccupyWallStreet was an anarchist, because there were anarchists present. Given that all of the evidence required is weak, in my opinion I have no issue with these pages being linked as citations for claims of far-right ideology, and as such be stated as opinion, but not fact. The burden of proof is on the news articles themselves to provide the evidence to support their conclusion, which they provide, but given the highly charged and subjective nature of politics, the conclusions that the articles come to with the evidence they have presented (and some of them present no evidence at all) could easily lead one to assume that the Party is merely a less mainstream variation of plain "Right wing" and not Far-anything. There are very few similarities between actual Far-right ideologies, such as Fascism or Nazism, and the ideology of the Conservative National Party, while I freely admit there are a couple of similarities (in the same way that the not-far left wing ideology of Democratic Socialism, which is clearly Left-wing, has some similarities with Marxism-Leninism, but could not be considered to be Far-left wing because of those similarities, or at the very least it is an entirely subjective opinion based notion and should not be stated as fact).
Requesting analysis of the aforementioned news articles and determinations as to why they specifically could/couldn't be used to support the claim of Far-right wing ideology, as a whole or majority, as a statement of fact instead of being displayed as an opinion. Thanks. Sundeki ( talk) 04:27 25 April 2019 (UTC)
AlterNet's unreliability has been discussed before [11], but is it worthy of a depreciation? X-Editor ( talk) 04:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
It is cited in around 900 articles, often for medical claims (it is an abject failure on WP:MEDRS and many of the claims are bogus alt-med nonsense). One particular favourite is punting homeopathy as a remedy for anthrax. Kids: don't try this at home.Following the content on this website can cause actual bodily harm. If this isn't enough of a reason to deprecate it, I don't know what is. Regarding Tsumikiria's concern, there are many other sources that cover progressive politics without this concern, such as HuffPost, Vice, ThinkProgress, etc. We deprecated the Daily Caller and WorldNetDaily anyway even though they may be valuable for providing conservative viewpoints and reporting or interviews of conservative organizations. Plus, an opinion only held by AlterNet will likely be considered WP:UNDUE to include anyway. feminist ( talk) 05:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
There's an ongoing AfD that has raised an interesting question (omitting link since it's ongoing and I've !voted there). Many web-based services have affiliate programs that give kickbacks to publications whose readers buy the service through links on the publication's website. VPNs are a common example, but also web hosts, domain registrars, antivirus software, etc. There are several otherwise reputable publications that use affiliate links, and which seem to take pains to ensure their coverage is neutral. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the whole reason these companies are getting reviews in the first place is because of the opportunity for kickbacks. That makes it hard to factor them into a determination of notability. It doesn't seem too far removed from an "everybody who reviews this, even negative reviews, gets [a few bucks or the product for free or whatever]." What are best practices for evaluating such publications? If they otherwise have a decent reputation (PC World and Mashable were two examples that gave reviews), how should affiliate kickbacks factor in? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Is this web page [13] by John Kiesz [14] a reliable source for the statement " It was in the fall of 1937 when Elder Armstrong's credentials were revoked by the Salem Church of God organization. The reason given by the Board of Twelve Oregon Conference of the Church of God, 7th Day (COG7) for this adverse action against Herbert W. Armstrong, was because he taught and kept the annual Feast days. But the real reason seems to have been because of his bad attitude" in Armstrongism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Doug Weller talk 15:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
This is used at Kingdom of Judah and LMLK seal and several other articles [21]as is the site owner, G.M. Grena. Grena is a creationist with a Bachelor of science degree [22] working in engineering as a " Engineer/Programmer/Researcher/Writer" [23] He is also used without the website in some articles. [24] Doug Weller talk 14:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
"The division between “before Sennacherib” and “after-Sennacherib” lmlk stamp impressions had already been suggested by Grena (2004: 337), based on 13 lmlk jar handles from 7th century “Babylonian Attack” strata in Jerusalem, Arad, Lachish, Timna and Horvat Shilha. See Ussishkin 2011 contra this division, but see Lipschits 2012 in response, and cf. Finkelstein 2012.bringing up what appears to be the pre-cursor of "Lipschits, Sergi and Koch" whom they are citiing. I'd say very borderline for use at all (the possible saving grace here is citations/referrals by reputable sources) - definitely not for anything controversial. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Can this source:
I spoke with Julie Ezold, a program manager who worked with Phelps on the tennessine project; Kit Chapman, the journalist who first brought Phelps to Jess Wade’s attention; and Phelps herself to tease out the details behind the scientist’s achievement.
It goes like this: In the fall of 2011, Phelps was part of a small team at ORNL charged with purifying samples of berkelium-249, a radioactive element so hard to obtain that it can only be made in two places in the world. After months of preliminary purifications, ORNL scientists handed Phelps and her coworkers Rose Boll and Shelley Van Cleve a bottle containing 27 milligrams of berkelium-249. Through expert manipulations inside radiation-proof glove boxes, Phelps, Boll, and Van Cleve removed from the sample any specks of impurity that could interfere with the reaction to make tennessine. They lost less than a milligram of material in the process.
The ultrapure berkelium-249 was shipped to the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Russia, where it was bombarded with calcium ions to create the new chemical element. That experiment — a repeat of one conducted two years earlier — gave scientists the data they needed to confirm tennessine’s existence.
— Original article (marked opinion) in Undark Magazine ( author's LinkedIn), republished by Slate [28] (not marked opinion, in a technology section), Fast Company [29] (not marked opinion or apparently categorized), and The Wire (India) [30] (not marked opinion, in science section).
...be cited for this passage in Draft:Clarice Phelps:
Phelps and fellow Oak Ridge scientists Rose Boll and Shelley van Cleve removed impurities from the berkelium sample using radiation-proof gloveboxes, losing less than a milligram in the process.
...and if so, does it need to be attributed, and if so, to whom? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Leviv ich 05:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with Icewhiz, opinions are just that. But I am not sure this is likely to be fake. All in two minds over it. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The Fastcompany ref is probably sufficient. I don't agree with the assertion above that they wouldn't bother to fact-check it merely because it was covered elsewhere - Fastcompany is a reputable publication, so if they're publishing an article where the writer says they spoke to a primary source, I feel we can trust that and report it as fact (and, in the absence of any reason to doubt either, I don't think it would require in-line attributions.) As an aside, this is also mentioned in this podcast with Chemical & Engineering News, which also seems usable as a source. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me whether this site: Open Doors is a reliable source for our articles? It is being used in our Religious persecution#Persecution of Christians article with the following text:
"community of Christians who come together to support persecuted believers". That being said - harsh persecution in North Korea, Iraq (mainly when ISIS controlled parts of Iraq), and Pakistan are relatively easy. China has very complex relationship with some churches and this may be correct. In regards to Iran - see [31] [32] - AFAIK the issue in Iran is mostly related to proselytizing (spreading the faith) and converts to Christianity. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.Open Doors has no independence from the topic at all. It is a charity that is run as a Christian ministry. They are an activist organization with an agenda, (but all human rights organizations are) so that's against using it.
Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.Fact checking with other sources indicates Open Doors facts are reliable, so that's in favor of using it. The UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM [34] which describes itself as "an independent, bipartisan U.S. government advisory body, separate from the State Department, that monitors religious freedom abroad and makes policy recommendations to the president, secretary of state, and Congress" lists "Countries of particular concern"' as well as "SPECIAL WATCH LIST COUNTRIES" that are the same countries as those on Open Doors World Watch list. Open Doors' claims are the same claims made by PEW research: [35]. They too list the same countries at the high end of persecution on their list. And it's the same in the State department reports: [36].
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The author dedicates the book to Maryam Rajavi and other "brothers & sisters" in MEK:
This book is dedicated to Maryam Rajavi and countless other sisters and brothers of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran with whom I have had the privilege to work and campaign. Their self-sacrifice and the self-sacrifice of the PMOI over decades has been an inspiration.
The book is a series of interviews with MEK members. Am I right thinking the book is just a primary source (and not even a reliable one)? Can it serve as a source for the following assertion in this Wiki article:
"Other analysts state that MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions" -- Kazemita1 ( talk) 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"The PMOI has never sought to achieve its goals using terror. It has never targeted civilians, nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of PMOI campaigns against the Iranian regime."
"According to Struan Stevenson, the MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions"
As some of you are aware, I've been preparing an RfC on Fox News for some time now. I don't intend on pursuing it at the moment, but I do want to make the material available for others to use as they see fit. Here's what I gathered so far (and I keep updating it with new sources); you may also review the attached discussion, and in particular this note on why the material is organized the way it is, and why I'm putting it aside for the time being. If anyone wants to try and draft a new proposal or essay based on this material, feel free - I'm available for questions, clarifications etc.
As always, comments are welcome. However, as the goal of this project was to allow a more informed discussion to take place, let's avoid turning this into another two-source discussion that won't lead anywhere. François Robere ( talk) 18:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
pushing the line between "reporting" and "commentary", and between "commentary" and "advocacy". Likewise, it seems that your work is simply a bad case of " I don't like it, and you shouldn't either". Especially since, all of your points apply to every single RS in the list. In other words, you have successfully written a hit piece that doesn't actually cite legitimate concerns other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Moreover, I'm not even making the argument that Fox News is a reliable source. I'm just pointing out that your "seven deadly sins of..." clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't give an unbiased assessment of Fox News. Personally, I don't care if Fox is depreciated at the end of the voting, I've never cited them anyway. However, I do care that people vote reliable vs unreliable based upon the reliability of their actual reporting, regardless of "public perception". After all, this webiste is called "Wikipedia" not "Whatever-is-perceived-as-popular-pedia". Lastly, a major counterpoint to everything you wrote is that Fox News is the most watched news network on cable, again" [1] according to Neilson data, and "one study" could say drinking diet coke is great for you, that doesn't mean it actually is. ElectroChip123 ( talk) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
if the Muller report verifies Trump's claim of "no collusion" then Mother Jones, Vox, Buzzfeed, SPLC, ect need to be blacklisted for peddling conspiracy theoriesThree problems here: First, you're making a highly unlikely hypothetical assumption to reject a concrete problem. Second, you're assuming the correct and factual reporting amassed by these outlets (which are generally careful not to make accusations of criminal activity against anyone) can be dismissed if its conclusions are wrong. Put differently, you're assuming a factual report about Trump's Russian ties is false, because those ties don't amount to eg. spying. Third, there's a massive difference between the occasional good faith reporting of falsities, which is usually prevented by a proper editorial process and treated by retraction, correction and possible dismissal; and the repeated peddling of over the top lies with no consequences to those doing the reporting. I cite several cases where Fox has done the latter, as well as multiple RS that explicitly use the term "propaganda" to describe it.
(which are generally careful not to make accusations of criminal activity against anyone)is blatantly laughable. Do you even live in the United States? Have you not seen the mounting pile of falsehoods perpetuated by the media (both sides are guilty of it). Every "cops shot innocent man" story, of which the cop is later acquitted is one such example. If the media was accurately reporting criminal cases, the court verdicts wouldn't be so surprising. For example, did you know that Trayvone Martin was involved in gang activity and had recently robbed a 7/11 before he got shot? Did the media show anything other than "innocent little kid" photos of Trayvone? Fox News did, MSNBC and CNN did not. The entire #BelieveAllWomen failure during the Kavanagh hearings is another blatant example contradicting your view. At some point, not believing the information provided by the FBI and Police becomes WP:FRINGE. Also, there is a reason I said "If" in my statement on the Muller report. Clearly, if the report shows "no collusion" in spite of your firm belief that Trump colluded, then you will refuse to concede that CNN peddled a conspiracy theory. Also, even college students (not the most conservative demographic out there) believe that MSNBC has a liberal (left-wing) bias. ElectroChip123 ( talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I've seen multiple RS use the term "propaganda" to describe anyone they don't likeI assume you have a concrete idea on why Christopher Browning, Jay Rosen, Erik Wemple, Thomas Ricks, Bill Kristol, Ralph Peters or Andrew Sullivan would use that term in bad faith? If not, then you risk violating WP:BLPTALK. I suggest clarifying what you meant or striking it out.
Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RSCan you cite sources stating that Maddow's reporting is so often incorrect and politically motivated (not just biased, but targeted to support specific parties or politicians), that it amounts to propaganda? Can you cite sources stating that other MSNBC hosts do the same, and that its "news" side is subsequently affected? For example, several Fox hosts routinely appear in Republican candidates' election events; is this something that, to the best of your knowledge, repeats in MSNBC?
You claimed Maddow is comparable to Fox's hosts" no, I claimed
the talk shows are mentioned separately for every thing that is listed as a RS and has a talk show. Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RS (if it had that title)? Clearly, no. Hannity, Tucker, Laura, Judge Piero, etc, are right-wing, and do occasionally dabble in conspiracies. That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks do.The talk show hosts on Fox are equally as biased as the talk show hosts on other networks, neither of which have anything to do with the realiabilty of the repective news network. ElectroChip123 ( talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks doCan you cite sources supporting this statement?
citing the recent example of the Covington debacleLet's do that. I've ran a search in the four media outlets you mentioned earlier (along with the SPLC, but they made no statement on that on their website): in their initial reporting three of the outlets used the terms "taunt" and "mock" sporadically, but were otherwise neutral and thorough, including context and the usual caveats [43] [44] [45] [46]; all but Vox (which does analysis rather than reporting) reported on the teens' responses in a neutral, uneditorializing fashion [47] [48] [49] [50]; all reported on subsequent, contradictory videos [51] [52] [53] [54]; all but Vox reported on the Diocese report [55] [56] [57]; and all published opinions criticizing previous reporting and trying to draw conclusions to prevent it from happening in the future [58] [59] [60] [61]. Does this sound like Fox News to you?
he fact that all except Fox had to later issue retractions of their original reporting shows that all of them, except for Fox, were biased/incorrect in their original reportingYeah, but the two cases aren't even remotely close. There's nothing wrong in making an honest mistake - and that video was convincing. It says nothing of Fox's accuracy either, though the fact the fact that Fox diverges so much and so often from virtually everyone else does raise questions about Fox - questions to which we already have answers.
Nothing in the original video comes close to warranting the response it was given by "everyone except Fox"What exactly was that response? I just showed you that, overall, all four outlets provided balanced, and usually nuanced coverage of the affair; with the only so called "bias" being a sporadic use of 2-3 biasing terms in the initial report. This is hardly comparable to how Fox conspiracies: repeatedly, in multiple shows throughout the day, for anywhere from days to months, and without any critical outlook or balance.
Fox News does issue retractions, when they get the facts wrongAs noted in my little essay, there's been cases when they failed to retract for months, and others where when they eventually retracted, they did so partially or replaced one biased phrase with another; and unlike virtually all other networks, they never fire anyone for falsifying information or intentionally introducing bias to reports. François Robere ( talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
all of your points apply to every single RS in the listYou're welcome to argue that if you have the sources to support it. At the moment you're dismissing legitimate and well-founded concerns (by which I mean they're supported by a plethora of sources arguing or leading to the same) based on opinion alone.
I'm just pointing out that your "seven deadly sins of..." clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't give an unbiased assessment of Fox NewsFirst off, WP:NPOV only applies to article space. Second, I'm not to blame if the RS on the subject are as decisive as they are. We're not supposed to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE, and I'm not trying to.
We're not supposed to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE. Yes, and Fox News is the most watched cable network in the country. Excluding the most watched cable network in the United States would be violating WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even if you think they are hopelessly biased and that no one should be listening to them, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Furthermore, how can we ensure our artiles are written from a neutral point of view if we only look at one sides POV? ElectroChip123 ( talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongsWe're not righting wrongs, we're choosing reasonable sources. This is well within our mandate.
Furthermore, how can we ensure our articles are written from a neutral point of view if we only look at one sides POV?Are we? We regularly cite a whole slew of conservative sources, from the Wall Street Journal to the National Review; I doubt Fox has anything to add on top of these in terms of breadth or depth. Also, this argument of yours could be used just as well in favor of de-deprecating AlterNet and Occupy Democrats, which I doubt you'll support. François Robere ( talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Lastly, a major counterpoint to everything you wrote is that Fox News is the most watched news network on cable, again" according to Neilson dataThis isn't a counterpoint, just an ad populum.
"one study" could say drinking diet coke is great for you, that doesn't mean it actually is.Unfortunately Wikipedia is driven by WP:RS, so we're forced to consider that one study whatever the truth may be. In the case of Fox News we have not one study or critique but many, and we ought to consider all of them with respect to using Fox as a source. François Robere ( talk) 07:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It's easy for other networks/media sources to spew hatred and spread disinformation about a top competitorJust as it's easy for the top competitor to spread all sorts of disinformation to solidify its market share. Indeed, for Fox News it is part of the business model these days, having been born as a venture for more accessible - some would say lighter, or popular - right-leaning news, quickly turning to sensationalism and partisanship to grow its share. BTW, Fox's main revenue stream comes from subscribers, [64] and its the NBC group that carries the advertising market. [65]
I am also not aware of any media outlets with a pundit line-up that...I'm not aware of any network where those problems go beyond the occasional pundit to form the basis of the network's business model, as sources suggest is the case with Fox. François Robere ( talk) 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
References
To ease others into the discussion, here are some extracts from the sources cited in the essay.
François Robere (
talk) 13:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Extracts
|
---|
Stuff only Fox doesThings you see across Fox (including its news division and website) that you don't see anywhere else. Claiming "others do it too" is perfectly legitimate, but please support it with evidence if you do:
Stuff experts say
Stuff that you can play with yourselfReferences
|
soaringThat's already been pointed out as an ad populum. All the rest of the arguments have similarly been repeated ad nauseam. They are false equivalencies. This is the type of thinking that Fox promotes, and why it's such a problem. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
And the false equivalency argumentAs long as such arguments are being made, expect them to be called out as such.
it's all part of the debate processIt's not a debate any more than Fox is news. That's the problem.
What exactly...Propaganda.
It obviously doesn't align with your...Ad hominem.
Our job isNo, it's to create a respectable encyclopedia. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Adding to what Ronz wrote:
Their coverage of the Russian collusion delusion (as some refer to it) proved to be accurate in that there was no collusion per the Mueller reportFirst off, Mueller wasn't out to prove "collusion" - that term originated with the media; [70] the "no collusion" claim was then heartily adopted by Trump and Co., in one of their ever-changing stories. [71] Insofar as Mueller was out to find connections between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, he found them. [72] As for Fox's "accurate coverage", sources #6 #9, #14 and #18 in the excerpts above give you an idea of just how biased and inaccurate their coverage was compared with other outlets. Finally, I haven't seen a single source presented by any of the proponents of Fox News in this entire discussion, that supports any of their claims regarding Fox's accuracy or other networks lack thereof, and by extension their obligation to correct or retract any of those stories.
References
Hello- I wish someone with a background in Russian politics would give us a look at the claim made on the Russian apartment bombings page which reads, "According to historians, the bombings were coordinated by the Russian state security services to bring Putin into the presidency." I have tagged it as needing a better source. It's a sensitive topic, but I think that we need to get a clearer idea of where the academic community stands on the issue, so I'm making this request. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 03:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Sources:
Satter, David (17 August 2016). "The Unsolved Mystery Behind the Act of Terror That Brought Putin to Power". National Review.
"David Satter – House committee on Foreign Affairs" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 29 January 2012.
Felshtinsky & Pribylovsky 2008, pp. 105–111 Felshtinsky, Yuri; Pribylovsky, Vladimir (20 April 2008), The Age of Assassins. The Rise and Rise of Vladimir Putin, London: Gibson Square Books, ISBN 978-1-906142-07-0, retrieved 23 May 2010
Video on YouTubeIn Memoriam Aleksander Litvinenko, Jos de Putter, Tegenlicht documentary VPRO 2007, Moscow, 2004 Interview with Anna Politkovskaya
Evangelista 2002, p. 81 Evangelista, Matthew (2004), The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet Union?, Brookings Institution Press, ISBN 978-0-8157-2497-1
’’The consolidation of Dictatorship in Russia’’ by Joel M. Ostrow, Georgil Satarov, Irina Khakamada p.96
Geographyinitiative ( talk) 04:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Can these sources:
Take Clarice Phelps, the first African American woman to be part of a team that discovered a superheavy element.
— Contributed op-ed in The Washington Post by Maryam Zaringhalam ( LinkedIn) and Jess Wade (aka Jesswade88, original creator of the Wikipedia article)
The nuclear scientist is thought to be the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element; she was part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory team that purified the radioactive sample of berkelium-249 from which the new element, tennessine, was created. ... As far as we know, Phelps was the first African American woman to play such a pivotal role in introducing a new chemical element to the world.
— Original article (marked opinion) in Undark Magazine ( author's LinkedIn), republished by Slate [77] (not marked opinion, in a technology section), Fast Company [78] (not marked opinion or apparently categorized), and The Wire (India) [79] (not marked opinion, in science section).
Clarice Phelps likely was the first Black woman to have contributed to the discovery of a new element.
— This article in The Daily Dot ( WP:RSP green for "internet culture", piece is not marked opinion or otherwise, categorized in " IRL" section)
...be cited for any of these passages in Draft:Clarice Phelps:
...is the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of any element.
...is the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of a superheavy element.
...is considered the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of any element/ superheavy element.
...is considered by [attribution] to be the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of any element/ superheavy element.
If attributed, to whom: author(s), publication(s), weasels ("...is considered by some to be...")? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Leviv ich 05:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
"is the first African-American woman to identify an element"and was propagated via twitter and other social media in 2018-9. This version contained other false claims - e.g.
"She graduated from the University of Tennessee with a PhD in chemistry in 2014."cited to this which does not contain the PHD claim (and Phelps hereself doesn't represent herself as a Dr.). The "dr." claims have CITOGENED as well - a search for "dr. Clarice Phelps" on twitter - comes up with all sorts of tweets by advocates of women in science referring to Phelps as a Dr. The citation for "firstness" - is ORNL PR which reads
"Phelps was part of the team that discovered the superheavy element tennessine."- nothing in regards to "firstness". So yes - we can say, perhaps, that according to an op-ed (which is all we have!) that some people think she is the first African-American women involved in contributing to the discovery of a superheavy element. Given Wikipedia's role in advancing this rather hard to verify claim (which requires verifying no African American woman with a position of "Nuclear Operations Technician" (Phelps' position in 2009-11) or above was involved in discovering elements 106 through 116) - it is best to leave this out entirely. AFAICT, ORNL and Phelps haven't advanced the issue of African-American "firstness". Wikipedia has fallen into Wikipedia generated Citogenesis before - Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - and in this case the promotion of this piece outside of Wikipedia (e.g. on twitter) was not insignificant in 2018-9. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I think (here) we have an example of just why there is a gender imbalance on WP. I have tired to find decent RS about here, the best I have found (Chemical & Engineering News) make no mention of this claim. So (for me) alarms bells start to ring, is the claim true? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Kit Chapman wrote a 2016 feature for Chemistry World called " What it takes to make a new element" about the discovery of element 117 tennessine (and other superheavy elements), and wrote a book that is slated to be published this summer by Bloomsbury Publishing called " Superheavy: Making and Breaking the Period Table". A few hours ago, he posted on Twitter: "I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams. She is the first African American woman." Note option #2 above refers specifically to superheavy elements. Can we say, "According to science journalist Kit Chapman, Clarice Phelps is the first African American woman to be part of a team to discover a superheavy element.", cited either to the book or the tweet or both? Pinging DGG, Natureium, and Icewhiz curious about your opinions. Thanks. Leviv ich 00:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Since some people have mentioned this above, I feel I should emphasize it: The fact that the author of the articles is a Wikipedia editor involved in this dispute has absolutely no inherent bearing on their reliability. Zero. None. This is really really straightforward. We care about what the editor does here (eg. citing themselves might have COI issues), and we would care if the author had a direct connection to the subject (since the source then wouldn't be independent), but "wrote a thing on Wikipedia" is never a reason to dismiss a source - it has no bearing and it's meaningless to bring it up. Cytogenesis concerns are worth considering, but if anything the fact that the author of the article is also the editor who wrote the page people are concerned about makes such concerns less credible, not more, since the author of the page, an experienced Wikipedia editor, would obviously know not to cite it (and would know what aspects are sourceable and which are not.) In other words, in order to allege WP:CITOGEN in that situation, you have to be accusing the author of doing so intentionally in order to falsify a source for a claim they know to be false (or unsourceable.) That isn't a light accusation, and it's not something that can be danced around with vague concerns. If anyone has any actual evidence that that's the case, they should offer it, but otherwise they need to drop it; implying it without evidence goes far beyond the boundaries of WP:AGF. (As an aside, note that something written outside of Wikipedia obviously doesn't have to adhere to our policies on WP:PRIMARY or WP:INDEPENDENT, and can serve as the secondary source that allows us to use things we otherwise wouldn't at one step removed; obviously, again, the fact that the author was also a Wikipedia editor has no bearing on this, as long as it's published in reliable sources.) There's still room to discuss if the sources are reliable, but I feel most of the discussions above got badly off-track by fixating on who the author was, something that is, in most respects, irrelevant, beyond what I mentioned above about making accusations of cytogenesis both more dubious and, if nonetheless true, more serious. -- Aquillion ( talk) 01:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Who has quoted form his book? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Also who is Kit Chappman, he is such a noted expert we do not have an article on him, as far as I can tell he is just a science journalist (with a degree in pharmacology), not an expert in either physics (well nuclear chemistry) or ethnography. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
So, we have eliminated the Chapman Chem World article as a source for this claim? Can whomever has advance quotes from his separate Book provide them? And it appears the Book is the only RS for whatever "belief" there is, right? (Or, as there is no rush because we have all the time in the world (as this is a tertiary encyclopedia) we could revisit this after the book is published). 13:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
"His name was James Harris. And he was the first African American to discover an element... He was not the last. In 2009 Clarice Phelps aided in the purification of berkelium, which led to the discovery of element 117 and conformation of element 115".- diff. This does not support first, but merely support Phelps is African American + "aided in...". Icewhiz ( talk) 19:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Lets stop referencing to book, it has not been published yet, and until it has been may be subject to change. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I am wondering if Abbas Milani is a reliable source for describing a tie between MEK and KGB. Specifically, is this edit properly attributed for that matter. I am asking this, since some people find usage of "The National Interest" troubling.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 10:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country (including the Fedayin and parts of the Mujahedin, and Peykar and other offshoots) is a real and growing possibility.". No one is disputing Chubin is a RS - he is however simply irrelevant - this is a 1982 source making a (then) future prediction of a possible threat. This was interesting in 1982 (that Marxist groups in Iran might form an alliance with the Soviets) - from 1991 onwards (all the more so in 2019) - it is irrelevant - we need a source looking backwards and assessing that there was such an alliance - not a source from 1982 looking forwards and warning that there might be one forming. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
That's incorrect. There are two Milani sources, one published in a book, and the other is a commentary piece. Because of the controversy and disinformation surrounding the subject, we concluded that commentary pieces should be avoided in this article. We used the (reliable) Milani source, with the other reliable sources discussing the incident with Russia, here. We also discussed the Chubin and Halliday sources at length on the article's TP, so presenting them here without this background seems disingenuous. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 13:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran."- ties it to Sa'adati (as Milani also does in the book). Icewhiz ( talk) 13:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
..."it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB."-- Mhhossein talk 13:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"Same is true for this opinionated piece (see the "opinion" in the right hand corner of Khamenei) which you used to conclude a fact! ". You're doing just that, using an opinion piece to try to SYNTH that the MEK had ties with the KGB, whereas we have a much better sources (even from the same author) that treat this differently, making this not only a fringe claim but also one not supported by a single reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 14:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
References
This was added to the Hafte Tir bombing page:
"Another conspiracy theory maintains that only state-backed organizations could ever acquire such a powerful bomb and points the finger at Israel's
Mossad"
.
[1]
This does not look like a RS to me, but thought I'd double check. Thanks for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
References
So, there is a history of editors on music topics removing the website CelebMix ( https://celebmix.com/). Two editors I have seen remove this source include SNUGGUMS and IndianBio. I agree with this, and have removed the source from articles myself, as it looks like a celebrity gossip blog with no editorial oversight, but rather, a team of "contributors". The article Boy Oh Boy (Alexandra Stan song) uses this source, as do other several other articles by the artist Alexandra Stan. There has been a discussion on this opened at Talk:Boy Oh Boy (Alexandra Stan song), and the creator of the article believes the writer for CelebMix whose piece is used on the article, Jonathan Currinn ( https://celebmix.com/author/jonathan/), should be included because he has had work published by several other websites, and because he is not imparting "controversial information". His articles (there are numerous) are cited several times throughout the article, so it's difficult to select just one block of text to show what his quotes are being used for, as they are being used extensively.
I have said that we should not be using an unreliable website at all, and I don't believe the writer is an expert in the field enough to have his views be included at wherever he chooses to publish them per WP:SELFPUB. The article in question is a GA and the GA reviewer raised a concern in their review that this website might not be notable, but the creator said that they have used the website before without any fuss, which doesn't really strike me as a good reason, as GAs are usually reviewed by individual editors and not a formal process fact-checked by numerous. It just seems the creator has "gotten away" with using an unreliable source so to speak, and thinks because none of the editors reviewing their articles has insisted it not be included that this makes it okay. I'd like to know what editors here think. Ss 112 20:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I just reviewed Sanjay Misra at AfC. While moving it to mainspace, there was an error message about predatory open-access journals. Until just now, I was entirely naive and unexposed to the fact that this was a thing. Unfortunately, because of this, I am unable to tell which are the predatory open access journals, and which aren't (if, indeed, there are any of the latter). Obviously, I'm concerned about this, and need the communities help with resolving this. I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:17, 5 May 2019 (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 260 | ← | Archive 262 | Archive 263 | Archive 264 | Archive 265 | Archive 266 | → | Archive 270 |
I think it is. It's not a wiki and contains a bibliography with only peer-reviewed publications. It is also made as a better substitute for Google and Wikipedia for students. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:CCBC:262A:863E:CDB8 ( talk) 07:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=, that is just a search-engine output that is likely to vary over time, and (possibly) the seacrher's location and search-history. It is even debatable whether to regard it as a published source, let alone a reliable source. As such, it is never directly citable as a source on wiipedia.
www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=should never be used as references for anything, any more than the output of a Google search should be. -- JBL ( talk) 16:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Can we use a company's financial data to justify publishing an entire section on the company as here: Jet_Airways#Financials ( permalink)?
My take: This appears unacceptable on numerous grounds: WP:PRIMARY, self-published, WP:OR, and fails WP:INDEPENDENT. However, I can see the data as reliable for stating what the official filings say, assuming the data from those filings, annual reports and self-published financial statements are themselves of sufficient notability to justify sentences. I could see how that might be the case for an company as big as this airline. Yet, I still believe some WP:SECONDARY source(s) mentioning the filings would be necessary to put in this kind of information. I would like to hear what others have to say about this and whether this kind of data has been presented for other companies, large or small. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 03:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
http://www.at149st.com/eric.html "Eric “DEAL” Felisbret, is a former graffiti artist, lecturer, and an acknowledged authority on graffiti history. He has spent several decades participating in the culture, observing and documenting it. " as used in Graffiti_in_New_York_City and other graffiti related articles. Self announced "graffiti expert" with significant coverage in reliable sources, but definitely a POV source with a pro vandalism bias. What are the things his page would be considered as appropriate reference? I can see it for cultural history.. but feel uncertain about their use to ascertain graffitists' notability. Graywalls ( talk) 12:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Is anyone familiar with Climate-data.org? It was added as a source here, but all it says about its data source is:
The person behind the website (per this) appears to be this person, who lists their profession as "Digital Marketing Expert". Am I missing something here? Guettarda ( talk) 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Wondering if the book is considered reliable source for this edit. The article is "People's Mujahedin of Iran" (aka MEK) and the section name is "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK". Thank you.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 12:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"One of the seeming purposes of this book is to convince a sceptical audience that Iranian dissident group the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) should be treated as a legitimate voice of Iranian opposition. This claim would be more credible ..."and concludes with
"To simply dismiss such assertions as propaganda of the Iranian intelligence services does not enhance the credibility of an otherwise valuable book.". So there's definitely meat on the claim this is a WP:BIASED source in regards to MEK. I would say this should be used with attribution only, and may not merit inclusion (though I'll note the lack of modern reputable sources on MEK in general - if we had lots of high-quality unbiased sources - it would be much easier to chuck this one). If I'm wrong about "Metis Analytics" (e.g. it not being the publisher (databases often have such errors) or it having a reputation I am unaware of) - then my assessment would quite possibly change. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
What are appropriate sources to add to track listings, if necessary? (Most articles don't have any sources attached to their track listings, so I'm a bit confused on the rules with this.) The Reliable sources article states: "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as...an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times". Is the record company or artist official page considered reliable alongside e-commerce sites? Or should I go straight to Amazon? Bahiagrass ( talk) 16:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I recently noticed a user adding this reference to update subscriber counts for the Top 100 most-subscribed YouTube channels (though not directly this article). The reliability of this source has been questioned by myself and several other users while it was making its way through the encyclopedia.
On first observation, I do not see an About page on the website, so it's unclear as to whether the people running the page have experience in Internet Culture.
Courtesy pinging
CoolSkittle,
Ssilvers,
Cyphoidbomb, and
Fylindfotberserk as users that have previously reverted attempted additions of this source by this other user. Also pinging
Justinmin09 as the user that has been adding this source to give them a chance to make their case.
Jalen D. Folf
(talk) 01:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@ JalenFolf: I've reverted a handful of these additions, but there are still about 20 left. Can I impose upon you to scrub these from the articles when you get a chance, please? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Folks!! What is the lastest on the Huff Post at [6]
I see several comment over the last couple of years. I thought this was user generated but this article seems to be by somebody called Curtis Wong who has wrote for Billboards, The National and so and is a staff writer. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 12:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the Mueller Report a reliable secondary source for its investigative findings? It certainly seems that the news media is treating it that way. There are many, many reliable sources summarizing and analyzing Mueller's findings with little to no attribution. R2 ( bleep) 18:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I would call it an extremely reliable, but primary source. We can cite it in limited circumstances, but the usual cautions apply... use it only with great care. Blueboar ( talk) 20:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that OR forbids us from independently (from RS) searching the Mueller Report, the Dossier, court documents, other primary sources, etc., for any content we think should be used here. It is not in our remit to determine the notability of content for inclusion in existing articles here. RS do that for us, and then we certainly can cite the (parts of) primary sources when RS have done so. (I am not speaking about the "notability" criteria used to judge whether a topic is worthy for creating an article here.) Please correct me if I'm wrong, and please ping me. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 20:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources ... It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
"Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources.") R2 ( bleep) 21:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The usual mandate of this board is to take a Wiki text, take a source, and discuss wither it is RS for V purposes. Both primary and secondary sources can be RS, and primary/secondary is actually an inquiry under NOR. But even so, a single source can be both primary and secondary, and the usual inquiry is to take a wiki-text and take the source and decide if it is primary or secondary in that instance. This general discussion is not examining any wiki text, and really if people want NOR to read something like, 'if a government publishes it, it's always primary', what would be really helpful to all of us is go to WP:NOR and amend it to say something like that, so that it is settled. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be a hijacked journal: while it was indexed in MEDLINE until 2009, the website currently calling itself RN Journal seems barely deserving of the name "journal", having undated articles with basic spelling and grammar issues and no peer review. This isn't commonly cited ( Journals Cited by Wikipedia lists only five articles citing it), but its scope is medicine, where verifiability is critical. For an example of its use in Wikipedia (before the apparent hijacking) see the first citation in Enema#Other_solutions, backing up the statement "Equal parts of milk and molasses heated together to slightly above normal body temperature have been used."
I'm looking to build consensus for adding it to the hijacked sources list of WP:SOURCEWATCH. Is the assessment above accurate? Vahurzpu ( talk)
The article Sacha Dean Biyan makes a lot of use of thefwa.com. But this page suggests that that website will publish anything if they like it and receive 70 quid.
WP:RSSELF would seem to rule out use of this website. Or do I misunderstand something? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.marathi.tv/write-for-us/ says, in part, "If you believe you are a good writer & contribute some great content to this website, we invite you to contact us." and "if you need to remove or suggest modifications in our content & are authorised to do so. We will be happy to accommodate your requests." and "Express your unique ideas in different forms from articles, poems, photos or even videos" and "College students, house wives etc are welcome to contribute. No prior experience necessary". These statements lead me to believe that their website cannot be considered reliable by our standards, as it is user-generated content. -- Geniac ( talk) 21:02, 28 April 2019 (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.
company-histories.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
It seem another rip-off of International Directory of Company Histories. So, is this site had copyright problem thus WP:ELNEVER? RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC). Matthew hk ( talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
|via=
and mis-citing fundinguniverse as source. Wikipedia should not encourage to cite pirate site which some academic journal web scrapper was black listed.
Matthew hk (
talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
"Copyright discussion") and Wikipedia:Copyright problems (
"General help/discussion") as two possible venues that might be more helpful. Since there appear to be numerous sites that republish Gale content, it would be useful to make a definite decision on all of these sites at once. If these sites are considered copyright violations, then you can directly request blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm probably not presenting this properly, but I'm struggling with this one.
The issue: there is evidence that the Islamic Republic of Iran recruits former MEK members (IRI’s main political opposition) to provide false testimonies against the MEK as part of a disinformation campaign against the group (some background here and here).
Should we include such allegations by ex-MEK members in Wikipedia if published on reliable sources such as the Guardian?
Requesting feedback from uninvolved editors please. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Trying to assess this source as reliable for information about a Spanish photojournalist, Delmi Alvarez, which needs a major overhaul as it's been heavily edited for years by the subject who doesn't understand Wikipedia, and I'm currently going through it source by source but don't have familiarity with Spanish-language sources. Outonofotographico.com seems to be an online photography magazine? I'd like to use it to provide detail about this photographer's work in Cuba. -- valereee ( talk) 10:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Questions as to whether or not these individual pages (not the journalists or the hosting website, but the individual pages themselves) are sufficient as a Reliable Source to be used as a statement of fact and not just the opinion of the journalists that wrote them:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2019/mar/16/far-right-australian-senator-fraser-anning-attacks-boy-after-being-egged-video https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/peter-dutton-claims-greens-just-as-bad-as-fraser-anning-on-christchurch-attack/ar-BBUTrlf https://www.smh.com.au/national/fraser-anning-spent-most-taxpayers-money-on-family-travel-last-year-20190320-p515sm.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/australian-senator-fraser-anning-egg-incident/index.html https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/the-rise-and-rise-of-australias-right/
Relevant Wikipedia article: Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party . Relevant citations are 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Quality of evidence presented seems weak at best, and could easily point to other conclusions, as the current stated conclusions on the relevant Wikipedia article (The proposed statement of Fact that The Conservative National Party is Far-right ideologically) are mostly subjective and contradict relevant pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as Far right politics. The highly subjective nature of these claims and easily contradicted position of the claim that the Party is factually Far-right is a questionable issue. Example: citation 7, Asia Times article is being used as a citation to support the statement and seems to show that because Anning himself was at a public event that was also participated in by some elements of the Far-right, that may be used as flimsy evidence that he too is Far-right, despite the fact that it was a public event. If this is sufficient burden of proof, then the same burden of proof could be used to state that everyone at e.g OccupyWallStreet was an anarchist, because there were anarchists present. Given that all of the evidence required is weak, in my opinion I have no issue with these pages being linked as citations for claims of far-right ideology, and as such be stated as opinion, but not fact. The burden of proof is on the news articles themselves to provide the evidence to support their conclusion, which they provide, but given the highly charged and subjective nature of politics, the conclusions that the articles come to with the evidence they have presented (and some of them present no evidence at all) could easily lead one to assume that the Party is merely a less mainstream variation of plain "Right wing" and not Far-anything. There are very few similarities between actual Far-right ideologies, such as Fascism or Nazism, and the ideology of the Conservative National Party, while I freely admit there are a couple of similarities (in the same way that the not-far left wing ideology of Democratic Socialism, which is clearly Left-wing, has some similarities with Marxism-Leninism, but could not be considered to be Far-left wing because of those similarities, or at the very least it is an entirely subjective opinion based notion and should not be stated as fact).
Requesting analysis of the aforementioned news articles and determinations as to why they specifically could/couldn't be used to support the claim of Far-right wing ideology, as a whole or majority, as a statement of fact instead of being displayed as an opinion. Thanks. Sundeki ( talk) 04:27 25 April 2019 (UTC)
AlterNet's unreliability has been discussed before [11], but is it worthy of a depreciation? X-Editor ( talk) 04:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
It is cited in around 900 articles, often for medical claims (it is an abject failure on WP:MEDRS and many of the claims are bogus alt-med nonsense). One particular favourite is punting homeopathy as a remedy for anthrax. Kids: don't try this at home.Following the content on this website can cause actual bodily harm. If this isn't enough of a reason to deprecate it, I don't know what is. Regarding Tsumikiria's concern, there are many other sources that cover progressive politics without this concern, such as HuffPost, Vice, ThinkProgress, etc. We deprecated the Daily Caller and WorldNetDaily anyway even though they may be valuable for providing conservative viewpoints and reporting or interviews of conservative organizations. Plus, an opinion only held by AlterNet will likely be considered WP:UNDUE to include anyway. feminist ( talk) 05:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
There's an ongoing AfD that has raised an interesting question (omitting link since it's ongoing and I've !voted there). Many web-based services have affiliate programs that give kickbacks to publications whose readers buy the service through links on the publication's website. VPNs are a common example, but also web hosts, domain registrars, antivirus software, etc. There are several otherwise reputable publications that use affiliate links, and which seem to take pains to ensure their coverage is neutral. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the whole reason these companies are getting reviews in the first place is because of the opportunity for kickbacks. That makes it hard to factor them into a determination of notability. It doesn't seem too far removed from an "everybody who reviews this, even negative reviews, gets [a few bucks or the product for free or whatever]." What are best practices for evaluating such publications? If they otherwise have a decent reputation (PC World and Mashable were two examples that gave reviews), how should affiliate kickbacks factor in? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Is this web page [13] by John Kiesz [14] a reliable source for the statement " It was in the fall of 1937 when Elder Armstrong's credentials were revoked by the Salem Church of God organization. The reason given by the Board of Twelve Oregon Conference of the Church of God, 7th Day (COG7) for this adverse action against Herbert W. Armstrong, was because he taught and kept the annual Feast days. But the real reason seems to have been because of his bad attitude" in Armstrongism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Doug Weller talk 15:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
This is used at Kingdom of Judah and LMLK seal and several other articles [21]as is the site owner, G.M. Grena. Grena is a creationist with a Bachelor of science degree [22] working in engineering as a " Engineer/Programmer/Researcher/Writer" [23] He is also used without the website in some articles. [24] Doug Weller talk 14:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
"The division between “before Sennacherib” and “after-Sennacherib” lmlk stamp impressions had already been suggested by Grena (2004: 337), based on 13 lmlk jar handles from 7th century “Babylonian Attack” strata in Jerusalem, Arad, Lachish, Timna and Horvat Shilha. See Ussishkin 2011 contra this division, but see Lipschits 2012 in response, and cf. Finkelstein 2012.bringing up what appears to be the pre-cursor of "Lipschits, Sergi and Koch" whom they are citiing. I'd say very borderline for use at all (the possible saving grace here is citations/referrals by reputable sources) - definitely not for anything controversial. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Can this source:
I spoke with Julie Ezold, a program manager who worked with Phelps on the tennessine project; Kit Chapman, the journalist who first brought Phelps to Jess Wade’s attention; and Phelps herself to tease out the details behind the scientist’s achievement.
It goes like this: In the fall of 2011, Phelps was part of a small team at ORNL charged with purifying samples of berkelium-249, a radioactive element so hard to obtain that it can only be made in two places in the world. After months of preliminary purifications, ORNL scientists handed Phelps and her coworkers Rose Boll and Shelley Van Cleve a bottle containing 27 milligrams of berkelium-249. Through expert manipulations inside radiation-proof glove boxes, Phelps, Boll, and Van Cleve removed from the sample any specks of impurity that could interfere with the reaction to make tennessine. They lost less than a milligram of material in the process.
The ultrapure berkelium-249 was shipped to the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Russia, where it was bombarded with calcium ions to create the new chemical element. That experiment — a repeat of one conducted two years earlier — gave scientists the data they needed to confirm tennessine’s existence.
— Original article (marked opinion) in Undark Magazine ( author's LinkedIn), republished by Slate [28] (not marked opinion, in a technology section), Fast Company [29] (not marked opinion or apparently categorized), and The Wire (India) [30] (not marked opinion, in science section).
...be cited for this passage in Draft:Clarice Phelps:
Phelps and fellow Oak Ridge scientists Rose Boll and Shelley van Cleve removed impurities from the berkelium sample using radiation-proof gloveboxes, losing less than a milligram in the process.
...and if so, does it need to be attributed, and if so, to whom? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Leviv ich 05:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with Icewhiz, opinions are just that. But I am not sure this is likely to be fake. All in two minds over it. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The Fastcompany ref is probably sufficient. I don't agree with the assertion above that they wouldn't bother to fact-check it merely because it was covered elsewhere - Fastcompany is a reputable publication, so if they're publishing an article where the writer says they spoke to a primary source, I feel we can trust that and report it as fact (and, in the absence of any reason to doubt either, I don't think it would require in-line attributions.) As an aside, this is also mentioned in this podcast with Chemical & Engineering News, which also seems usable as a source. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me whether this site: Open Doors is a reliable source for our articles? It is being used in our Religious persecution#Persecution of Christians article with the following text:
"community of Christians who come together to support persecuted believers". That being said - harsh persecution in North Korea, Iraq (mainly when ISIS controlled parts of Iraq), and Pakistan are relatively easy. China has very complex relationship with some churches and this may be correct. In regards to Iran - see [31] [32] - AFAIK the issue in Iran is mostly related to proselytizing (spreading the faith) and converts to Christianity. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.Open Doors has no independence from the topic at all. It is a charity that is run as a Christian ministry. They are an activist organization with an agenda, (but all human rights organizations are) so that's against using it.
Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.Fact checking with other sources indicates Open Doors facts are reliable, so that's in favor of using it. The UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM [34] which describes itself as "an independent, bipartisan U.S. government advisory body, separate from the State Department, that monitors religious freedom abroad and makes policy recommendations to the president, secretary of state, and Congress" lists "Countries of particular concern"' as well as "SPECIAL WATCH LIST COUNTRIES" that are the same countries as those on Open Doors World Watch list. Open Doors' claims are the same claims made by PEW research: [35]. They too list the same countries at the high end of persecution on their list. And it's the same in the State department reports: [36].
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The author dedicates the book to Maryam Rajavi and other "brothers & sisters" in MEK:
This book is dedicated to Maryam Rajavi and countless other sisters and brothers of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran with whom I have had the privilege to work and campaign. Their self-sacrifice and the self-sacrifice of the PMOI over decades has been an inspiration.
The book is a series of interviews with MEK members. Am I right thinking the book is just a primary source (and not even a reliable one)? Can it serve as a source for the following assertion in this Wiki article:
"Other analysts state that MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions" -- Kazemita1 ( talk) 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"The PMOI has never sought to achieve its goals using terror. It has never targeted civilians, nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of PMOI campaigns against the Iranian regime."
"According to Struan Stevenson, the MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions"
As some of you are aware, I've been preparing an RfC on Fox News for some time now. I don't intend on pursuing it at the moment, but I do want to make the material available for others to use as they see fit. Here's what I gathered so far (and I keep updating it with new sources); you may also review the attached discussion, and in particular this note on why the material is organized the way it is, and why I'm putting it aside for the time being. If anyone wants to try and draft a new proposal or essay based on this material, feel free - I'm available for questions, clarifications etc.
As always, comments are welcome. However, as the goal of this project was to allow a more informed discussion to take place, let's avoid turning this into another two-source discussion that won't lead anywhere. François Robere ( talk) 18:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
pushing the line between "reporting" and "commentary", and between "commentary" and "advocacy". Likewise, it seems that your work is simply a bad case of " I don't like it, and you shouldn't either". Especially since, all of your points apply to every single RS in the list. In other words, you have successfully written a hit piece that doesn't actually cite legitimate concerns other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Moreover, I'm not even making the argument that Fox News is a reliable source. I'm just pointing out that your "seven deadly sins of..." clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't give an unbiased assessment of Fox News. Personally, I don't care if Fox is depreciated at the end of the voting, I've never cited them anyway. However, I do care that people vote reliable vs unreliable based upon the reliability of their actual reporting, regardless of "public perception". After all, this webiste is called "Wikipedia" not "Whatever-is-perceived-as-popular-pedia". Lastly, a major counterpoint to everything you wrote is that Fox News is the most watched news network on cable, again" [1] according to Neilson data, and "one study" could say drinking diet coke is great for you, that doesn't mean it actually is. ElectroChip123 ( talk) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
if the Muller report verifies Trump's claim of "no collusion" then Mother Jones, Vox, Buzzfeed, SPLC, ect need to be blacklisted for peddling conspiracy theoriesThree problems here: First, you're making a highly unlikely hypothetical assumption to reject a concrete problem. Second, you're assuming the correct and factual reporting amassed by these outlets (which are generally careful not to make accusations of criminal activity against anyone) can be dismissed if its conclusions are wrong. Put differently, you're assuming a factual report about Trump's Russian ties is false, because those ties don't amount to eg. spying. Third, there's a massive difference between the occasional good faith reporting of falsities, which is usually prevented by a proper editorial process and treated by retraction, correction and possible dismissal; and the repeated peddling of over the top lies with no consequences to those doing the reporting. I cite several cases where Fox has done the latter, as well as multiple RS that explicitly use the term "propaganda" to describe it.
(which are generally careful not to make accusations of criminal activity against anyone)is blatantly laughable. Do you even live in the United States? Have you not seen the mounting pile of falsehoods perpetuated by the media (both sides are guilty of it). Every "cops shot innocent man" story, of which the cop is later acquitted is one such example. If the media was accurately reporting criminal cases, the court verdicts wouldn't be so surprising. For example, did you know that Trayvone Martin was involved in gang activity and had recently robbed a 7/11 before he got shot? Did the media show anything other than "innocent little kid" photos of Trayvone? Fox News did, MSNBC and CNN did not. The entire #BelieveAllWomen failure during the Kavanagh hearings is another blatant example contradicting your view. At some point, not believing the information provided by the FBI and Police becomes WP:FRINGE. Also, there is a reason I said "If" in my statement on the Muller report. Clearly, if the report shows "no collusion" in spite of your firm belief that Trump colluded, then you will refuse to concede that CNN peddled a conspiracy theory. Also, even college students (not the most conservative demographic out there) believe that MSNBC has a liberal (left-wing) bias. ElectroChip123 ( talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I've seen multiple RS use the term "propaganda" to describe anyone they don't likeI assume you have a concrete idea on why Christopher Browning, Jay Rosen, Erik Wemple, Thomas Ricks, Bill Kristol, Ralph Peters or Andrew Sullivan would use that term in bad faith? If not, then you risk violating WP:BLPTALK. I suggest clarifying what you meant or striking it out.
Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RSCan you cite sources stating that Maddow's reporting is so often incorrect and politically motivated (not just biased, but targeted to support specific parties or politicians), that it amounts to propaganda? Can you cite sources stating that other MSNBC hosts do the same, and that its "news" side is subsequently affected? For example, several Fox hosts routinely appear in Republican candidates' election events; is this something that, to the best of your knowledge, repeats in MSNBC?
You claimed Maddow is comparable to Fox's hosts" no, I claimed
the talk shows are mentioned separately for every thing that is listed as a RS and has a talk show. Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RS (if it had that title)? Clearly, no. Hannity, Tucker, Laura, Judge Piero, etc, are right-wing, and do occasionally dabble in conspiracies. That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks do.The talk show hosts on Fox are equally as biased as the talk show hosts on other networks, neither of which have anything to do with the realiabilty of the repective news network. ElectroChip123 ( talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks doCan you cite sources supporting this statement?
citing the recent example of the Covington debacleLet's do that. I've ran a search in the four media outlets you mentioned earlier (along with the SPLC, but they made no statement on that on their website): in their initial reporting three of the outlets used the terms "taunt" and "mock" sporadically, but were otherwise neutral and thorough, including context and the usual caveats [43] [44] [45] [46]; all but Vox (which does analysis rather than reporting) reported on the teens' responses in a neutral, uneditorializing fashion [47] [48] [49] [50]; all reported on subsequent, contradictory videos [51] [52] [53] [54]; all but Vox reported on the Diocese report [55] [56] [57]; and all published opinions criticizing previous reporting and trying to draw conclusions to prevent it from happening in the future [58] [59] [60] [61]. Does this sound like Fox News to you?
he fact that all except Fox had to later issue retractions of their original reporting shows that all of them, except for Fox, were biased/incorrect in their original reportingYeah, but the two cases aren't even remotely close. There's nothing wrong in making an honest mistake - and that video was convincing. It says nothing of Fox's accuracy either, though the fact the fact that Fox diverges so much and so often from virtually everyone else does raise questions about Fox - questions to which we already have answers.
Nothing in the original video comes close to warranting the response it was given by "everyone except Fox"What exactly was that response? I just showed you that, overall, all four outlets provided balanced, and usually nuanced coverage of the affair; with the only so called "bias" being a sporadic use of 2-3 biasing terms in the initial report. This is hardly comparable to how Fox conspiracies: repeatedly, in multiple shows throughout the day, for anywhere from days to months, and without any critical outlook or balance.
Fox News does issue retractions, when they get the facts wrongAs noted in my little essay, there's been cases when they failed to retract for months, and others where when they eventually retracted, they did so partially or replaced one biased phrase with another; and unlike virtually all other networks, they never fire anyone for falsifying information or intentionally introducing bias to reports. François Robere ( talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
all of your points apply to every single RS in the listYou're welcome to argue that if you have the sources to support it. At the moment you're dismissing legitimate and well-founded concerns (by which I mean they're supported by a plethora of sources arguing or leading to the same) based on opinion alone.
I'm just pointing out that your "seven deadly sins of..." clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't give an unbiased assessment of Fox NewsFirst off, WP:NPOV only applies to article space. Second, I'm not to blame if the RS on the subject are as decisive as they are. We're not supposed to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE, and I'm not trying to.
We're not supposed to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE. Yes, and Fox News is the most watched cable network in the country. Excluding the most watched cable network in the United States would be violating WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even if you think they are hopelessly biased and that no one should be listening to them, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Furthermore, how can we ensure our artiles are written from a neutral point of view if we only look at one sides POV? ElectroChip123 ( talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongsWe're not righting wrongs, we're choosing reasonable sources. This is well within our mandate.
Furthermore, how can we ensure our articles are written from a neutral point of view if we only look at one sides POV?Are we? We regularly cite a whole slew of conservative sources, from the Wall Street Journal to the National Review; I doubt Fox has anything to add on top of these in terms of breadth or depth. Also, this argument of yours could be used just as well in favor of de-deprecating AlterNet and Occupy Democrats, which I doubt you'll support. François Robere ( talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Lastly, a major counterpoint to everything you wrote is that Fox News is the most watched news network on cable, again" according to Neilson dataThis isn't a counterpoint, just an ad populum.
"one study" could say drinking diet coke is great for you, that doesn't mean it actually is.Unfortunately Wikipedia is driven by WP:RS, so we're forced to consider that one study whatever the truth may be. In the case of Fox News we have not one study or critique but many, and we ought to consider all of them with respect to using Fox as a source. François Robere ( talk) 07:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It's easy for other networks/media sources to spew hatred and spread disinformation about a top competitorJust as it's easy for the top competitor to spread all sorts of disinformation to solidify its market share. Indeed, for Fox News it is part of the business model these days, having been born as a venture for more accessible - some would say lighter, or popular - right-leaning news, quickly turning to sensationalism and partisanship to grow its share. BTW, Fox's main revenue stream comes from subscribers, [64] and its the NBC group that carries the advertising market. [65]
I am also not aware of any media outlets with a pundit line-up that...I'm not aware of any network where those problems go beyond the occasional pundit to form the basis of the network's business model, as sources suggest is the case with Fox. François Robere ( talk) 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
References
To ease others into the discussion, here are some extracts from the sources cited in the essay.
François Robere (
talk) 13:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Extracts
|
---|
Stuff only Fox doesThings you see across Fox (including its news division and website) that you don't see anywhere else. Claiming "others do it too" is perfectly legitimate, but please support it with evidence if you do:
Stuff experts say
Stuff that you can play with yourselfReferences
|
soaringThat's already been pointed out as an ad populum. All the rest of the arguments have similarly been repeated ad nauseam. They are false equivalencies. This is the type of thinking that Fox promotes, and why it's such a problem. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
And the false equivalency argumentAs long as such arguments are being made, expect them to be called out as such.
it's all part of the debate processIt's not a debate any more than Fox is news. That's the problem.
What exactly...Propaganda.
It obviously doesn't align with your...Ad hominem.
Our job isNo, it's to create a respectable encyclopedia. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Adding to what Ronz wrote:
Their coverage of the Russian collusion delusion (as some refer to it) proved to be accurate in that there was no collusion per the Mueller reportFirst off, Mueller wasn't out to prove "collusion" - that term originated with the media; [70] the "no collusion" claim was then heartily adopted by Trump and Co., in one of their ever-changing stories. [71] Insofar as Mueller was out to find connections between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, he found them. [72] As for Fox's "accurate coverage", sources #6 #9, #14 and #18 in the excerpts above give you an idea of just how biased and inaccurate their coverage was compared with other outlets. Finally, I haven't seen a single source presented by any of the proponents of Fox News in this entire discussion, that supports any of their claims regarding Fox's accuracy or other networks lack thereof, and by extension their obligation to correct or retract any of those stories.
References
Hello- I wish someone with a background in Russian politics would give us a look at the claim made on the Russian apartment bombings page which reads, "According to historians, the bombings were coordinated by the Russian state security services to bring Putin into the presidency." I have tagged it as needing a better source. It's a sensitive topic, but I think that we need to get a clearer idea of where the academic community stands on the issue, so I'm making this request. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 03:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Sources:
Satter, David (17 August 2016). "The Unsolved Mystery Behind the Act of Terror That Brought Putin to Power". National Review.
"David Satter – House committee on Foreign Affairs" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 29 January 2012.
Felshtinsky & Pribylovsky 2008, pp. 105–111 Felshtinsky, Yuri; Pribylovsky, Vladimir (20 April 2008), The Age of Assassins. The Rise and Rise of Vladimir Putin, London: Gibson Square Books, ISBN 978-1-906142-07-0, retrieved 23 May 2010
Video on YouTubeIn Memoriam Aleksander Litvinenko, Jos de Putter, Tegenlicht documentary VPRO 2007, Moscow, 2004 Interview with Anna Politkovskaya
Evangelista 2002, p. 81 Evangelista, Matthew (2004), The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet Union?, Brookings Institution Press, ISBN 978-0-8157-2497-1
’’The consolidation of Dictatorship in Russia’’ by Joel M. Ostrow, Georgil Satarov, Irina Khakamada p.96
Geographyinitiative ( talk) 04:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Can these sources:
Take Clarice Phelps, the first African American woman to be part of a team that discovered a superheavy element.
— Contributed op-ed in The Washington Post by Maryam Zaringhalam ( LinkedIn) and Jess Wade (aka Jesswade88, original creator of the Wikipedia article)
The nuclear scientist is thought to be the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element; she was part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory team that purified the radioactive sample of berkelium-249 from which the new element, tennessine, was created. ... As far as we know, Phelps was the first African American woman to play such a pivotal role in introducing a new chemical element to the world.
— Original article (marked opinion) in Undark Magazine ( author's LinkedIn), republished by Slate [77] (not marked opinion, in a technology section), Fast Company [78] (not marked opinion or apparently categorized), and The Wire (India) [79] (not marked opinion, in science section).
Clarice Phelps likely was the first Black woman to have contributed to the discovery of a new element.
— This article in The Daily Dot ( WP:RSP green for "internet culture", piece is not marked opinion or otherwise, categorized in " IRL" section)
...be cited for any of these passages in Draft:Clarice Phelps:
...is the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of any element.
...is the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of a superheavy element.
...is considered the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of any element/ superheavy element.
...is considered by [attribution] to be the first African American woman to have contributed to the discovery of any element/ superheavy element.
If attributed, to whom: author(s), publication(s), weasels ("...is considered by some to be...")? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Leviv ich 05:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
"is the first African-American woman to identify an element"and was propagated via twitter and other social media in 2018-9. This version contained other false claims - e.g.
"She graduated from the University of Tennessee with a PhD in chemistry in 2014."cited to this which does not contain the PHD claim (and Phelps hereself doesn't represent herself as a Dr.). The "dr." claims have CITOGENED as well - a search for "dr. Clarice Phelps" on twitter - comes up with all sorts of tweets by advocates of women in science referring to Phelps as a Dr. The citation for "firstness" - is ORNL PR which reads
"Phelps was part of the team that discovered the superheavy element tennessine."- nothing in regards to "firstness". So yes - we can say, perhaps, that according to an op-ed (which is all we have!) that some people think she is the first African-American women involved in contributing to the discovery of a superheavy element. Given Wikipedia's role in advancing this rather hard to verify claim (which requires verifying no African American woman with a position of "Nuclear Operations Technician" (Phelps' position in 2009-11) or above was involved in discovering elements 106 through 116) - it is best to leave this out entirely. AFAICT, ORNL and Phelps haven't advanced the issue of African-American "firstness". Wikipedia has fallen into Wikipedia generated Citogenesis before - Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents - and in this case the promotion of this piece outside of Wikipedia (e.g. on twitter) was not insignificant in 2018-9. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I think (here) we have an example of just why there is a gender imbalance on WP. I have tired to find decent RS about here, the best I have found (Chemical & Engineering News) make no mention of this claim. So (for me) alarms bells start to ring, is the claim true? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Kit Chapman wrote a 2016 feature for Chemistry World called " What it takes to make a new element" about the discovery of element 117 tennessine (and other superheavy elements), and wrote a book that is slated to be published this summer by Bloomsbury Publishing called " Superheavy: Making and Breaking the Period Table". A few hours ago, he posted on Twitter: "I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams. She is the first African American woman." Note option #2 above refers specifically to superheavy elements. Can we say, "According to science journalist Kit Chapman, Clarice Phelps is the first African American woman to be part of a team to discover a superheavy element.", cited either to the book or the tweet or both? Pinging DGG, Natureium, and Icewhiz curious about your opinions. Thanks. Leviv ich 00:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Since some people have mentioned this above, I feel I should emphasize it: The fact that the author of the articles is a Wikipedia editor involved in this dispute has absolutely no inherent bearing on their reliability. Zero. None. This is really really straightforward. We care about what the editor does here (eg. citing themselves might have COI issues), and we would care if the author had a direct connection to the subject (since the source then wouldn't be independent), but "wrote a thing on Wikipedia" is never a reason to dismiss a source - it has no bearing and it's meaningless to bring it up. Cytogenesis concerns are worth considering, but if anything the fact that the author of the article is also the editor who wrote the page people are concerned about makes such concerns less credible, not more, since the author of the page, an experienced Wikipedia editor, would obviously know not to cite it (and would know what aspects are sourceable and which are not.) In other words, in order to allege WP:CITOGEN in that situation, you have to be accusing the author of doing so intentionally in order to falsify a source for a claim they know to be false (or unsourceable.) That isn't a light accusation, and it's not something that can be danced around with vague concerns. If anyone has any actual evidence that that's the case, they should offer it, but otherwise they need to drop it; implying it without evidence goes far beyond the boundaries of WP:AGF. (As an aside, note that something written outside of Wikipedia obviously doesn't have to adhere to our policies on WP:PRIMARY or WP:INDEPENDENT, and can serve as the secondary source that allows us to use things we otherwise wouldn't at one step removed; obviously, again, the fact that the author was also a Wikipedia editor has no bearing on this, as long as it's published in reliable sources.) There's still room to discuss if the sources are reliable, but I feel most of the discussions above got badly off-track by fixating on who the author was, something that is, in most respects, irrelevant, beyond what I mentioned above about making accusations of cytogenesis both more dubious and, if nonetheless true, more serious. -- Aquillion ( talk) 01:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Who has quoted form his book? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Also who is Kit Chappman, he is such a noted expert we do not have an article on him, as far as I can tell he is just a science journalist (with a degree in pharmacology), not an expert in either physics (well nuclear chemistry) or ethnography. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
So, we have eliminated the Chapman Chem World article as a source for this claim? Can whomever has advance quotes from his separate Book provide them? And it appears the Book is the only RS for whatever "belief" there is, right? (Or, as there is no rush because we have all the time in the world (as this is a tertiary encyclopedia) we could revisit this after the book is published). 13:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
"His name was James Harris. And he was the first African American to discover an element... He was not the last. In 2009 Clarice Phelps aided in the purification of berkelium, which led to the discovery of element 117 and conformation of element 115".- diff. This does not support first, but merely support Phelps is African American + "aided in...". Icewhiz ( talk) 19:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Lets stop referencing to book, it has not been published yet, and until it has been may be subject to change. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I am wondering if Abbas Milani is a reliable source for describing a tie between MEK and KGB. Specifically, is this edit properly attributed for that matter. I am asking this, since some people find usage of "The National Interest" troubling.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 10:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country (including the Fedayin and parts of the Mujahedin, and Peykar and other offshoots) is a real and growing possibility.". No one is disputing Chubin is a RS - he is however simply irrelevant - this is a 1982 source making a (then) future prediction of a possible threat. This was interesting in 1982 (that Marxist groups in Iran might form an alliance with the Soviets) - from 1991 onwards (all the more so in 2019) - it is irrelevant - we need a source looking backwards and assessing that there was such an alliance - not a source from 1982 looking forwards and warning that there might be one forming. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
That's incorrect. There are two Milani sources, one published in a book, and the other is a commentary piece. Because of the controversy and disinformation surrounding the subject, we concluded that commentary pieces should be avoided in this article. We used the (reliable) Milani source, with the other reliable sources discussing the incident with Russia, here. We also discussed the Chubin and Halliday sources at length on the article's TP, so presenting them here without this background seems disingenuous. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 13:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran."- ties it to Sa'adati (as Milani also does in the book). Icewhiz ( talk) 13:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
..."it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB."-- Mhhossein talk 13:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"Same is true for this opinionated piece (see the "opinion" in the right hand corner of Khamenei) which you used to conclude a fact! ". You're doing just that, using an opinion piece to try to SYNTH that the MEK had ties with the KGB, whereas we have a much better sources (even from the same author) that treat this differently, making this not only a fringe claim but also one not supported by a single reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 14:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
References
This was added to the Hafte Tir bombing page:
"Another conspiracy theory maintains that only state-backed organizations could ever acquire such a powerful bomb and points the finger at Israel's
Mossad"
.
[1]
This does not look like a RS to me, but thought I'd double check. Thanks for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
References
So, there is a history of editors on music topics removing the website CelebMix ( https://celebmix.com/). Two editors I have seen remove this source include SNUGGUMS and IndianBio. I agree with this, and have removed the source from articles myself, as it looks like a celebrity gossip blog with no editorial oversight, but rather, a team of "contributors". The article Boy Oh Boy (Alexandra Stan song) uses this source, as do other several other articles by the artist Alexandra Stan. There has been a discussion on this opened at Talk:Boy Oh Boy (Alexandra Stan song), and the creator of the article believes the writer for CelebMix whose piece is used on the article, Jonathan Currinn ( https://celebmix.com/author/jonathan/), should be included because he has had work published by several other websites, and because he is not imparting "controversial information". His articles (there are numerous) are cited several times throughout the article, so it's difficult to select just one block of text to show what his quotes are being used for, as they are being used extensively.
I have said that we should not be using an unreliable website at all, and I don't believe the writer is an expert in the field enough to have his views be included at wherever he chooses to publish them per WP:SELFPUB. The article in question is a GA and the GA reviewer raised a concern in their review that this website might not be notable, but the creator said that they have used the website before without any fuss, which doesn't really strike me as a good reason, as GAs are usually reviewed by individual editors and not a formal process fact-checked by numerous. It just seems the creator has "gotten away" with using an unreliable source so to speak, and thinks because none of the editors reviewing their articles has insisted it not be included that this makes it okay. I'd like to know what editors here think. Ss 112 20:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I just reviewed Sanjay Misra at AfC. While moving it to mainspace, there was an error message about predatory open-access journals. Until just now, I was entirely naive and unexposed to the fact that this was a thing. Unfortunately, because of this, I am unable to tell which are the predatory open access journals, and which aren't (if, indeed, there are any of the latter). Obviously, I'm concerned about this, and need the communities help with resolving this. I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 00:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)