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 310 | ← | Archive 312 | Archive 313 | Archive 314 | Archive 315 | Archive 316 | → | Archive 320 |
This request for comment has elapsed, and can be closed. Please remove this template while closing. |
What is the reliability of Entrepreneur (magazine) ( entrepreneur.com )? Over 1000 Wikipedia articles cite this publication. The site, like Forbes, runs two types of articles:
For both types, please indicate which of the following applies:
MER-C 16:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The number of posts you can upload depends on your membership level, which clearly says that the more you pay the more you can write. This itself is a issue for me, as it implies that those who pay have better privileges to publish articles. I would hazard a guess that the same applies to more than just the amount of articles one can write per month, and would suggest that it might include how much editoral oversight they have but I don't have any evidence for this. As an example of the issues I see, take this article. There is a suggestion that it is a good idea to ask your colleagues and others you meet on LinkedIn to edit your article so that you can ensure it is saved from deletion. Though this is not encouraging editors to vote keep in AfDs etc., this does suggest that asking colleagues to edit your page will affect the decision on whether their autobiographical wiki article is deleted. Recuriting new editors to influence a decision is prohibited by the meatpuppetry policy, and my reading of the section implies to me they are encourging meatpuppetry (however this is not as clear cut as suggesting vote fraud in AfD). The last tip being to hire a marketing agency to
... take care of the regular updates and visits that are required to build your profileis also troublesome in many ways. This article shows to me that the editorial oversight either doesn't care enough or doesn't read the articles, so there will be articles (like this one) which publish false and/or misleading information. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It is run by a string of editors who have the liberty to delete your article if it is not adequately referenced, or visited and edited by other users. Though, yes, it does say that referencing an article is important (I don't dispute that the article has this part right), but it also says that the editors have
the liberty to delete your article if it is not ... visited and edited by other users. Coupling this with the suggestion that you get your colleagues to edit and visit your page, implies that getting colleagues to edit will not give editors
the liberty to delete your article. Yes, I agree that it does not imply voting at AfD, but it still is a factually questionable statement. I raise this point because if there was good editorial oversight, the editor before publication should have noticed that edits and pageviews are not used to work out if a person is notable / whether a biography should be deleted. Fact checking a major part of one of the 5 tips should have been done. Yes, I have raised only a few concerns and the article does make some good suggestions, but I still feel these articles are similar to a blog site article, because we can't trust that appropriate editorial fact checking has taken place due to the first sentences in my original comment. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
However, there is a key exception: contributor articles that are also published in print issues of Entrepreneur should be treated like articles by Entrepreneur staff writers ( #Type 1: Articles by Entrepreneur staff). For example, "Entrepreneurs Are Paying Wikipedia Editors to Create Profile Pages", which was mentioned in this month's edition of The Signpost, has this message below the timestamp: "This story appears in the July 2017 issue of Entrepreneur." For these articles, the author's title is "Magazine Contributor" (instead of "Entrepreneur Leadership Network Contributor"), and the "Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own." disclaimer is missing. Print editions have a physical limit on the amount of content in each issue, which makes them less prone to the reliability problems associated with web content created by contributors.
As a technical note, since it is not possible to determine whether an Entrepreneur article is written by a staff writer or a contributor from its URL, option 4 is functionally the same as option 3 for this source (unless there is consensus to deprecate all of Entrepreneur, which looks unlikely). — Newslinger talk 11:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Faulty RFC It didn't list the the most plausible option. The listed items are over generalizations and thus all incorrect. Reliability varies with the context and author. Time to stop these faulty over generalization RFC's. North8000 ( talk) 23:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, previous discussions have marked Quillette as as generally unreliable and that opinions constitute undue weight. I think Quillette should be allowed, but require quote attribution. The simple fact that many prominent and mainstream academics like James Flynn (academic) write for Quillette make it a useful source. Do James Flynn or Steven Pinker really constitute undue weight? No one can argue that. Obviously caution should be taken with articles written by non academic / politically motivated "journalists" (as with any publication). Attribution required should fix this. I don't really think Quillette is all bad and the previous discussions about it seem hasty, especially when you consider that VICE and Salon have "no consensus". Perhaps a case-by-case clause should be added. Sxologist ( talk) 10:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I've always thought of Quilette as a less prestigious version of The Spectator, it's an opinion magazine that's full of hot takes and contrarian opinions on contemporary topics and something that shouldn't be cited as a source of fact, only attributed opinions when it constitutes due weight (which Quilette pieces often do not). For instance this piece on Margaret Mead vs Derek Freeman over Coming of Age in Samoa goes against the academic concensus on the controversy that Mead was for the most part correct. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable.) Opinion is not automatically citable simply because it's opinion. Yes, an expert, speaking within their field of expertise, is sometimes citable for their opinion even when not published in an WP:RS (though it will often be WP:UNDUE, but that depends on the restrictions of WP:RSSELF, which means they can't be cited for exceptional claims or anything about a third party, and even then it is sharply lower-quality than when they publish eg. a peer-reviewed paper. Publication in Quillette itself lends no reliability, since they lack the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires - it is functionally a group blog for people who share particular idiosyncratic ideological views. More generally I would usually be extremely skeptical of any attempt to cite opinion to a lower-quality source like this, even from a subject-matter expert; in the modern world we are drowning in a surfeit of opinion, so my intuition when someone wants to cite one from a low-quality source is that it is marginal or even WP:FRINGE, since it isn't covered anywhere reputable. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight.The first discussion listed says nothing of the sort. The second discussion only talks about Quillette in two comments, one of which is an assertion based on no evidence that it is unreliable, and another is a criticism of one line in a single article - hardly the sort of thing that gets a source listed as red and called generally WP:UNDUE. (Incidentally both of those comments are by users who are now indefinitely blocked.) By that standard every source would be in red and all RSOPINIONs would be undue. Certainly no consensus of unreliability or of undueness yet - so let's check the third discussion. Most negative comments there are just assertions, but addressing the evidence presented, we have an opening comment presenting a story where Quillette was hoaxed, and it was claimed to be embellished by Quillette prior to publication. However, the source for this is Quillette's enemies ideologically speaking, the socialist pundits at Jacobin, so I'm going to take the embellishment claim with a grain of salt. (Indeed, they claim Quillette suggested that DSA meetings "would drag on forever...", but then they say ""I included this as fish bait," Carter said." So did Quillette or Carter say it? Someone else above linked to Vox's good coverage of it. They don't mention embellishment, only editing out, and they had access to the original submission and the emails with Quillette.) Another editor noted that the piece was taken down and retracted, and that this is something we look for. Another opinion piece was mentioned, but again, this isn't enough to say Quillette is generally undue. The other negative comments in that discussion are just assertions. It's pretty common for notable and reputable figures to publish there, so such articles certainly could be used in article sections where other op-eds are being used. As editors we need to be careful not to confuse "has due weight" with "agrees with my political beliefs".
declared its support for Charles Murray’s 1994 book The Bell Curve. Umm...no actually. The conclusion the article actually reaches is that
it is not irresponsible to forward reasonable, cautiously worded, and testable hypotheses. More so, the part The Nation piece quotes isn't actually making any original statement. It's a header trying to summarize what the book says.
came down squarely on the side of the so-called grievance-studies hoax, in which three scholars punked humanities journals by submitting creative nonsense cloaked in social-justice buzzwords.Says nothing about staging, taking part, or deceiving their own readers. And such publishing stings have been praised, as was this one, not just condemned. Your comments about Ngo are confusing - it's scandalous that Ngo did what he did, but then they fired him for it, and they're still in the wrong? So, what were they supposed to do when they found out? Crossroads -talk- 02:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Vox was once an understaffed, short-on-editors website too, and I remember how easy it was for stuff to fall through the cracks then. Take this article I wrote when I was 24 where I completely misread a legal filing, for instance. Online publications are faster-paced, and more lightly staffed, than traditional magazines, and anyone who tells you that that’s compatible with a low rate of errors is trying to sell you something. As Vox has staffed up and gotten larger and more mature, with more comprehensive editing policies, we’ve had fewer errors like the one I made. That’s something I’m proud of. Even at a size like ours, though, huge errors are possible; for example, the Washington Post recently had to issue 15 corrections to a single story. I was never fact-checked during my time as a Post staff writer, and most newspapers operate similarly. But the broader lesson I hope Quillette learns from this [Archie Carter hoax] is a sense of humility about tribalism and confirmation bias.Crossroads -talk- 16:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
What is the reliability of Quillette
Bacondrum ( talk) 00:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
We should not be using rabble-rousing websites as sources for Wikipedia articles, especially when the only plausible uses are precisely those articles where random opinions are not in short supply.Likewise, having slept on it, I think Aquillion is pretty much right to say
citing opinion from there is no different from citing it to a random YouTube video or to a Wikipedia talk page. Those comments are from !votes for option 4, which I'm not convinced is necessary; the ordinary practice of not using opinion pieces for claims of fact and including opinions based on reliable secondary sources would seem be enough without the extra formal step. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. A source (like this one) that simply publishes everything that is handed to it as long as it fits within their narrow ideological bubble doesn't count as meaningful publication at all, since publication there lends no reliability or weight (given the clear lack of fact-checking, it means nothing beyond "this person shares Lehmann's ideology.") Since they don't appear to verify the statements or even the identity of the people publishing there, I don't see how they can meet RSOPINION's standard; citing opinion from there is no different from citing it to a random YouTube video or to a Wikipedia talk page. Even for WP:RSOPINION, the source must meet a bare minimum standard to qualify, which this source plainly fails. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight.It's an outlet designed to stir shit. It has no other purpose. It has no interest in facts. Its associate editor is Toby Young, who supports—in his own words—a type of eugenics, and more recently has been deliberately spreading false, unscientific descriptions of the coronavirus disease affecting us all. As for its other contributors, there's plenty of evidence above of its factual unreliability. Editorial opinions are only significant if they are based on fact and Quillette does not do remotely appropriate factual vetting of its content. It is usable for one thing: "X wrote in Quillette that Y". Even then this does not establish due weight, so we would need reliable coverage to back up any such content. It is only reliable for fact if the same author writing the same content in a blog post on (e.g.) tumblr would be reliable, which is a rare case indeed. — Bilorv ( talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The statements that Quillette editor Toby Young supports eugenics are themselves inaccurate and may even be libellousSir may care to review the extensively cited statements at Toby_Young#Eugenics, and probably also WP:NLT - David Gerard ( talk) 08:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Good case for it being depreciated. They are clearly not interested in factual reporting. Bacondrum ( talk) 03:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
https://theoutline.com/post/7759/quillette-archie-carter-hoax
https://newrepublic.com/article/154205/quillettes-antifa-journalists-list-couldve-gotten-killed
https://theoutline.com/post/8104/phrenology-hirevue-quillette?zd=1&zi=rptzeehv
phrenology was nevertheless deeply influential on the development of modern anthropology, criminology, and evolutionary biology...No, it was not.
I remember learning things in philosophy of mind classes that may as well just have been phrenology without the bumps: in analytic philosophy of mind, it is common to identify the mind with the brain — an identification that phrenology pioneered.So immaterial souls are real now?
The idea that parts of the brain have discrete, localized functions remains common in contemporary neuroscience, in which the equivalent of callipers is the only somewhat more accurate MRI scanner. It is common for news articles to report that neuroscientists have discovered, based on MRIs, “which part of the brain” is responsible for a certain mental activity — but neuroimaging studies have long suffered from small sample sizes, low statistical power, and a lack of replicability.Neuroscience denialism = fail. They also fall prey to the is-ought fallacy:
A phrenological logic is lurking in any intellectual discipline that attempts, whether deliberately or otherwise, to depoliticize the human world. They contradict themselves about Quillette:
Quillette...has literally defended phrenology....neither of these examples defend phrenology wholesale. On the basis of the literally-stated, surface-level meaning alone, it is perhaps more accurate to suggest that these evidence Quillette's willingness to publish pieces which speak well of certain aspects of phrenology.Guess they don't "literally defend" phrenology after all. And regarding one of their examples, progressive magazine Mother Jones sides against the claim Quillette promotes phrenology: [15] Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
But true meaning always goes deeper than mere surface. And while they might all personally, as individuals, deny it: In the most accurate sense possible, when you boil things down to the fundamentals of their logic, these people really are just doing phrenology.XOR'easter ( talk) 06:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
It is common for news articles to report that...is talking as much about the media as anything else. I'm having a hard time reading that bit as more than a critique of sensationalism, some of which has been propagated by (whisper it) the sloppier among the scientists. To say that a field has
long suffered from small sample sizesis not to call it invalid, but to admit that there's a lot left to do. The "deeper meaning" part of Outline story goes further down some rhetorical paths than I would, but setting that aside, documenting a
willingness to publish pieces which speak well of certain aspects of phrenologyis enough to indicate there are problems. XOR'easter ( talk) 07:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
no association with any previously known organization that researches extremism? Well independent researchers are a thing. And the fact that he was
blanket banned for “violating rules against managing multiple Twitter accounts for abusive purposes.”is irrelevant so let's keep reading.
His claims... that a website that posts court documents is a “doxing site,”creates a false dichotomy since you can certainly use the public record to "dox" people at least according to a loose definition that is also used by critics of Quillette. Next, the article refers to
baseless reports that tech platforms discriminate against “conservatives”, a topic on which they have faltered in the past. It is common sense that such bias will, often unintentionally, creep up at institutions that have very few conservatives and Jack Dorsey has admitted as much on the Joe Rogan podcast.
The Quillette article was circulated approvingly on white supremacist forum Stormfront? Well that's unfortunate but it's also guilt by association. And then, they quote a social media researcher who undermines their claim by saying that
any media—right, center or leftwould have the same fact-checking difficulty on this topic as Quillette. Moreover, Lenihan specifically says in his essay that these degrees of separation were
not to accuse them of bias out of hand, but rather to identify them for further study. Connor Behan ( talk) 15:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Per WP:APPNOTE, I am pinging all the participants of the pre-RfC discussion to weigh in who have not done so yet: Sxologist, Black Kite, Adoring nanny, GreenMeansGo, Horse Eye Jack, Masem, Hemiauchenia, Emir of Wikipedia, GPinkerton, Aquillion, MastCell, Atsme, K.e.coffman, Springee, XOR'easter, JzG, David Gerard. Crossroads -talk- 03:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a question for anyone who thinks this is a good (or even usable)
WP:RSOPINION site. Can you give me some examples of sites that you feel don't qualify for use under
WP:RSOPINION? Can you explain why they don't qualify while this one does? What criteria doe you feel a source has to meet to be citable as opinion? I'm scratching my head here because it seems like some people have interpreted some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact
to mean "as long as a source is qualified with an in-line citation to make it their opinion,
WP:RS doesn't apply." That has never been how I read RSOPINION - as it states, a prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable
, which, to me, means that good RSOPINION sources must meet that or a comparable standard, and must therefore be otherwise generally recognized to have a high standard of fact-checking and accuracy. I'm baffled here because failing to verify the identity of the people published there or failing to do even token fact-checking for opinion pieces making exceptional claims (two major issues implied above) seem to trivially fail the most basic requirements we'd need to consider something a reliable source for opinions. --
Aquillion (
talk) 07:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Can I get a community consensus on the reliability and appropriateness of http://horrornews.net? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It says it's not a religious project. [16] It's been used as a source in Great Sphinx of Giza but the webpage doesn't have an author. [17] Also used at Holyland Model of Jerusalem, again no author. [18] Doug Weller talk 14:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm in the process of trying to put together a list of reliable sources for the Horror WikiProject similar to how WP:VG has WP:VG/RS. The discussion is at the talk page and I'd really like to have some input on the sourcing currently listed. I've had one person respond favorably to the list and suggest links (also, if you have any to suggest, please do!). Some of the sources are obviously usable as they've been deemed reliable sources before, so those I'm more listing just for the sake of compiling a list. Once there's been enough consensus I'll add some of the other obvious RS like the NYT, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and other mainstream/mainstream-ish sources that are typically used to establish notability, but I could really use some input and suggestions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 05:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
On Talk:Max Näther, Georgejdorner says that http://www.theaerodrome.com/index.php is a reliable source for information on Max Näther and other WWI fighter pilots. As far as I can tell, theaerodrome is a typical self-published militaria site (which are not usually considered reliable). The page cited [19] does not give any author information or other indication of reliability. Is this a reliable source? ( t · c) buidhe 04:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The article What the Future Holds (album) was recently nominated for DYK by Calvin999. They have indicated that they would like to use an interview that The Sun did with the album's artist as a source for the article. Given that The Sun has been deprecated as a source, would it still be suitable for the interview to be used as a source in the article, or could a one-time IAR exemption be granted here given the information may not be found elsewhere? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 09:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I think what I said has been a bit misconstrued back on the DYK. I said that it's a shame The Sun can't be used (generally), because Steps gave a lengthy interview and said things which haven't been said in other interviews. It also happens to be pretty much the first they did regarding the album too, so was initially the sole source of album info direct from them. When I was asked for another ALT, I said it's a shame The Sun can't be used for more album specific hooks. The Sun source was removed from the article before DYK nomination. I still think that given that it was an interview directly with Steps for the Bizzare section which appears in The Sun, I would like to be able to use it in the article and not for the DYK. The interview is about their album with Steps talking about it answering questions, it's not an opinion based news article which I understand people have decided could be unfit for purpose. I see them as two different circumstances for inclusion. An interview is a great source of info and it's a shame it currently can't be included. To imply that someone made up five members response to a subject for the sake of doing so is an unfair accusation in itself. — Calvin999 11:19, 1 October 2020 (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.
@
Emigré55: claimed on the article
Anna van Egmont that Marc Couwenbergh an art historian of note was. See
this version of the article, and specific source 9 (
[22]) and 10 (
[23]). The same sources are used for
Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus). Despite multiple requests for clarification (
Talk:Anna_van_Egmont#Couwenbergh_art_historian and
Talk:Anna_van_Egmont#Marc_Couwenbergh, no answer was coming forward. A check on the linkedin-page of Marc Couwenbergh made clear that he does not call himself an art historian. As Emigré55 is clearly
upset about the removal, I like to hear the opinion of the community if these sources are reliable and if Marc Couwenberg is an art historian of note.
The Banner
talk 16:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@
Emigré55: --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk) 16:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publicationsit's a failure of WP:SPS. FDW777 ( talk) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
List of his books in Research Library of Rijksmuseum
|
---|
|
LinkedIn elements of presentation omitted by The Banner
|
---|
|
"There are none so blind as those who will not see":
On the contrary, I provided enough evidences that he is an expert, through his books but also by his peers (e.g. at “De Correspondent”, as per your own and somewhat biased and limited vision of the word
expert), which you simply ignore.
You only pursue your own opinion, according to the rule YOU want to establish, not the rule of Wikipedia (about reliability of a blog) which I reminded you, and who is or not an “
expert” , simply ignoring the extensive definition of the word appearing in Wikipedia.
Simply read the definition of the word “
expert” in Wikipedia, and your will find all reasons simply not to deny that Couwenbergh is/can be called an expert in his field, even if it is not your own opinion about him.
Please also refrain from accusing me of “creative” reading, and using words such as “nonesense” (sic! I guess you meant nonsense), which I could now see as
personal attacks.
Because of the use of these words by you, and your totally negative attitude, even denying simple facts, it seems now to me that you only want to destroy this article, instead of bringing something positive to a couple of articles which were very poor before I started to contribute to them.
I would strongly advise you not to start an edit war based on your own opinion about Couwenberg not being an expert.
For the reason here above explained, this discussion is now over with you as far as I am concerned.
Please consider that there are 6,818,119 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.
--
Emigré55 (
talk) 10:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Where is the discussion about Marc Couwenberg? That discussion was not closed. The Banner talk 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I have a bit of a strange one. I think it might be a RS, but I want to ask.
Name of work: How Dogwhistles Work [24] [25]
Abstract:
Extended content
|
---|
Henderson, R. & McCready, E.. (2018). How Dogwhistles Work. 10.1007/978-3-319-93794-6_16. The paper focuses on the semantics and pragmatics of dogwhistles, namely expressions that send one message to an outgroup while at the same time sending a second (often taboo, controversial, or inflammatory) message to an ingroup. There are three questions that need to be resolved to understand the semantics and pragmatics of the phenomenon at hand: (i) What kind of meaning is dogwhistle content—implicature, conventional implicature, etc.; (ii) how do (some but not all) hearers recover the dogwhistle content, and (iii) how do expressions become endowed with dogwhistle content? These three questions are interrelated, but previous analyses have emphasized answers to a subset of these questions in ways that provide unsatisfactory answers to the others. The goal for this paper is to take stock of existing accounts, while showing a way forward that reconciles their differences. |
The authors:
OK, so it appears to be a paper written by a couple of academics. The question is whether it is a peer reviewed paper. Here comes the strange bit; where it was published:
What in the world does artificial intelligence have to do with alleged hidden meanings behind things US politicians say? Do the people running the AI symposium have the expertise needed to evaluate a paper about US political speech? Did any actual linguists peer review the paper? I am surprised that they accepted a paper which appears to have nothing to do with AI.
Background:
Extended content
|
---|
Our article on Dog whistle (politics) keeps being edited in such a way to support the POV that every accusation of dog-whistling is automatically true, no evidence required. In general society, there are some who hold that every accusation of dog-whistling is automatically false, but they haven't shown up on this page yet. (They are pretty clearly wrong in the case of the phrase "Family Values" being a dog-whistle to evangelical Christians). Any material that implies that the accusation may or may not be true is challenged and if possible suppressed. In some cases you can look at the editor's history and see that in other pages they are pushing the idea that republicans in general and Trump in particular are constantly dog-whistling, no evidence required. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This doesn't look like a RS to me. 82.7.174.132 ( talk) 15:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
as used in Wilmington, Delaware
Also in 2002, Wilmington became perhaps the first U.S. city with surveillance cameras covering the downtown area. [1]
Would
Website description "The Infoshop project is run by a collective of anarchists, anti-authoritarians, socialists and people of other political stripes. We don’t adhere to a specific flavor of anarchism or libertarianism, but we’ve often been called “big tent anarchists.” We take that to mean that we provide a wide range of anarchist news, opinion and information with the idea that our readers and users have the freedom to make use of that info as they see fit."
Wouldn't this basically be a same classification as Breitbart, Post Millennial and like, except it's a left winged version? I checked archives and there is only one discussion that mentions this and it's not a substantial discussion. Graywalls ( talk) 05:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, https://web.archive.org/web/20120107013451/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG5 as used in Market socialism. There's a disclaimer on the bottom "Anti-copyright 2011. Some material on this site may be covered by so-called "intellectual property" laws." Broader question. They're definitely biased, reliability is questionable and there's an issue of intellectual property rights issues making some of the stuff from them a WP:COPYVIOEL. Shouldn't Infoshop.org be deprecated? Graywalls ( talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
References
I've been in a discussion on
Talk:Adam Peaty about the reliability of
SwimSwam.com as a source. It states that it is SwimSwam.com is the world’s most popular swimming news and lifestyle website. SwimSwam provides global coverage of swimming, open water swimming and the “swim lifestyle” outside the pool (and/or lake, ocean, river, etc.). Our slogan is Everything for the swim fan on SwimSwam!
You can also
submit a story. As such I can't see the editorial policy that would allow us to use it as a reliable source particularly for a BLP. This has all arisen over a disagreement over
this article which consists of three of Peaty's instagram quotes (lambasting The Sun for an intrusion of privacy) and the aforementioned article from The Sun that has now been removed. So is SwimSwam a reliable source for article's about a BLP's private life? Any third opinions would be much appreciated.
Woody (
talk) 21:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Is https://www.dailypress.com/ a reliable source?
Source: Dietrich, Tamara (April 26, 2005). "Standing Up to Saddam and His Son Took Courage". Daily Press (Newport News). p. C1. ProQuest https://search.proquest.com/docview/343333770. If the proquest content is not accessible, it's also reproduced here at the bottom http://www.zindamagazine.com/html/archives/2005/4.27.05/index_wed.php This source is a summary of an interview with the article subject, Georges Sada, and David Eberly.
Wikipedia Article: Georges Sada
Content in the article:
U.S. Air Force Colonel David Eberly credits Sada with saving his life and the lives of fellow prisoners by lobbying Qusai Hussein to forgo the executions Hussein was demanding. Sada was imprisoned briefly for his resistance to the executions.[2][better source needed]
Is this source reliable? For example, David Eberly was also interviewed by PBS and never mentioned Georges Sada, the article subject. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/1.html
The following is separate from RS but still worth noting: The content in the article quoted above has other issues, such as being a sort of primary source as the article is just a summary of an interview with the article subject, Georges Sada, and David Eberly. The claim that Sada saved Eberly and other pilots from execution originates with Sada himself, and in the above source link, Eberly seems to go along with agreeing with Sada and has no confirmation. As noted, when Eberly was interviewed by PBS, he made no mention of Sada. There has been no verification on this claim to date that Sada was ordered to execute the pilots and refused, among some of Sada's other claims about himself. He also is best known for pushing a refuted and baseless conspiracy theory about Iraq moving its WMDs to Syria in late 2002 (see WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Syria), so I'm unsure how much credibility Georges Sada has as a primary source, which in general is already discouraged in Wikipedia articles. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 04:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliable? I don't see it myself. Over 450 references. Guy ( help! - typo?) 20:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
At least two low quality articles make use of the source VLSI Research to establish facts. The list WP:SAL Semiconductor equipment sales leaders by year and the article WP:COMPANIES ASM International. Should VLSI Research be considered a reliable source? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 00:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The company was founded by Arthur del Prado (1931-2016) as ‘Advanced Semiconductor Materials’ in 1964.[2][unreliable source?]
Semiconductor equipment companies ASML, ASM Pacific Technology and Besi are former divisions of ASM.[2][unreliable source?]
1960s: In 1964, Arthur del Prado founds ASM as ‘Advanced Semiconductor Materials’ in Bilthoven, the Netherlands.[2][unreliable source?]
1980s: Following an initial public offering on the Nasdaq in May 1981, the company expands. In 1982 ASM Japan is established.[2][unreliable source?]
Background:
There are a large amount of bogus quotes in various sources. It appears that humans are good at remembering a saying while forgetting who said it, and we have a tendency to assign the quotes to a plausible source. Example:
One source says that the correct attribution is Rita Mae Brown. [34] but see Wikiquote: [35]
Now in the case of the above quote, we can find sources that specifically say that it was misattributed, but what about a quote where multiple sources (but not reliable sources on quote attribution) claim that a famous person said it, no source has bothered to say it is misattributed, and an exhaustive search (which would, of course, be WP:OR) cannot find any evidence of when and where the person supposedly said it? Do we say "attributed to" in such cases?
Related: What if a famous person actually did say it, but someone else said it much earlier? Example: Denis Healey and Law of holes. Do we say "attributed to" in such cases?
At issue is Law of holes. Is it attributed to Will Rogers or misattributed to Will Rogers? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Citron Research ( Andrew Left) is prominently cited at TransDigm Group#Inaccurate filings with Department of Defense and "hidden monopoly". Is he a reliable source? No previous RSNB discussions that I could find. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
On the article Christian Zionism, User:Torchist has been adding the source article Lovers of Zion by Thomas Ice (from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University to source many statements in the article [37]. They also use it at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Template:Protestant Zionism to support the inclusion of many people in that template.
Is that article a reliable source for facts, or is it a fringe partisan source which shouldn't be used as factual (it of course can be used to show the opinion of Ice, if needed)? I don't think we should be including sourcing where the conclusion is "Nevertheless, like those who have gone before us, we will stand on biblical conviction as we constantly watch for the further outworking of Gods' historical plan, revolving around His people-Israel and his any-moment return. Maranatha!". Fram ( talk) 14:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems like it's something in between a wordpress blog and a news blog. They're not clear about who they are on the website. Should this be considered a WP:SPS or a group blog?
It is used at Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine and about 40 other places.
The Carolinas Campus, until 2014, had a similar relationship with the private Wofford College, but currently participates in the "College Town Consortium" with five other local colleges. The annual White Coat Ceremony for first year medical students is held at nearby Converse College. [1]
Graywalls ( talk) 03:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Is https://www.looktothestars.org/ a reliable source? It is used to back up a claim on Anna Wilding (director) that the Wilding Foundation helped with the 2011 Christchurch earthquake relief efforts. The relief operation has been heavily documented but I can't find another source to back up this claim. -- haminoon ( talk) 23:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The use of Find a Grave as a reliable source needs to be clarified as the assertion "5. Find a Grave does not exercise editorial control, and the material added to the site by volunteers is not vetted (WP:QS)." at Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find_a_Grave is false for any entry that has a fame rating. These entries are curated and cannot be changed without editorial over site. All Find a Grave entries with a fame rating should be reclassified as a reliable source. Richard Bruce Bradford ( talk) 07:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Who is behind Find a Grave? First and foremost, you are. Thousands of contributors submit new listings, updates, corrections, photographs and virtual flowers every hour. [...] The community continues to add and update memorials every day. We look forward to an exciting future for the site and the community!
I can only find one direct discussion of this domain, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46 § Campaign Materials. The site is used a lot more than I would expect given that it has no About page and no indication of reliability. I just removed a lot of cites to blogs.4president.org (which, for some links, redirects to blog.4president.us, for others to a Typepad blog) based on WP:POLEND - I am not surprised that people have completely ignored this but it was adopted after RfC and is unambiguous:
There remain about 90 articles sourced to this site. I strongly suspect that it's not a RS for any of those, either. Guy ( help! - typo?) 20:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Especially on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict page, I couldn't verify some of the sources from other reliable sources that comes from these websites (which go to same publisher). And then, I looked to the website's Wikipedia page; however I couldn't find enough citations from reliability (most of them comes from the page's itself or social media pages) and I learnt that it's a internet portal (which has suspicious reliability because of gathering information from emails, online forums, etc.). I'm doubting that it's not a reliable source (except the photos, which are used in numerous reliable sources). Ahmetlii ( talk) 20:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Orgone § RfC about in/excluding sources on pseudoscience I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Are these sources reliable? All these sites are film-based. TamilMirchi ( talk) 19:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
A user told me it was a blog and therefore not a reliable source. Can anyone confirm? Veverve ( talk) 02:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
If this is the wrong place, my apologies. I read through the deprecated sources, the reasons for deprecation and fake news with no corrections came up frequently with some but not a ton of regard as to gravitas or frequency.
NBC staged fake news with some significance and it is unlikely any correction or clarification will be coming, at what point does it reach deprecation or even notable levels for the WP to lose an iota of WP credibility? Trying to stay current, not referencing Duke Lacrosse, Covington, Iraq WMD 100yrs worth to........no Ukranian famine.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/undecided-voters-nbc-biden-town-hall
Staged fake news are not the actions of a reliable source for anything, certainly not anything involved in the topic of the staged fake event.
At what point does NBC or any of the what were considered mainstream US media considered less reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:c801:b1f0:191e:5cb6:a14d:c35f ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
In my search for further clarification-Multiple 'undecided' voters at ABC town hall had history of anti-Trump social media posts https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/multiple-undecided-voters-at-abc-town-hall-had-history-of-anti-trump-social-media-posts/ At least here they use the word may-unlike above where it is captured on video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:c801:b1f0:191e:5cb6:a14d:c35f ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not stage fake news. Although, as mentioned above gravity and frequency were not that considerate on the deprecation list. Surely, staging fake events must carry more weight than merely the written word?
This looks like another self-published nobility fansite. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Run by a group of young women, some of whom have an academic background in history but not, apparently, as professional historians. Reliable or not? Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I was just wondering if PopSugar is considered a reliable source. It isn't listed as an unreliable source in WP:RS, but I have seen some people view it as a gossip website. Here is a link to the website.
This SPLC source states that one of the conspiracy theories supported by elements of the Patriot movement is 9/11. [45] It was removed twice by an IP, the first time with an edit summary that said "no evidence", the last time with the edit summary "the SPLC's only evidence of truther involvement is a quote from a Patriot who rejects trutherism. Not reliable". If we have to, we can say "according to the SPLC", but I don't think we can require the source to quote specific statements for everything.
A major revert in the history section [46] it justified by saying "no, there are not two theories. the prior text misrepresented its sources". Basically that edit removed the following:
"The reformist wing of the patriot movement is considered to have had its genesis in 1958 with the formation of the John Birch Society and opposition to communism, the United Nations and the civil rights movement. [1] An insurgent wing has been traced in origins to the Liberty Lobby active in the 1950s with promotion of themes of White supremacy and antisemitism. [2]"
That can probably be improved, but are the sources being misrepresented? Originally the first line said "had its origin" but I changed that to "had its genesis". One tricky thing is that the source by Lyons and Berlet is linked to a dead url (I forgot to remove it) rather than to the book. [47] Page 175 starts a chapter on "The Pillars of U.S. populist conservatism, the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby" and says "These and other "Americanist" and "Patriot" movements promoted a brand of xenophobic nationalism that implicitly embraced White northern..." - that's the source of the genesis statement and it does say patriot movement, so I don't think the article should suggest there was no "patriot movement" until "the 1980s American farm crisis". That's my mine issue with the history section.
However, I can now see that the bit about the insurgent wing with the quote "bracketed by..." is talking about the 1990s. The context of that quote is a section that says: "It was in this context of resurgent isolationism and unilateralism that a self-conscious Patriot movement coalesced. It involved some 5 million persons who suspected—to varying degrees—that the government was manipulated by secret elites and planned the imminent imposition of some form of tyranny.7 This suspicion has been the basic theme of the John Birch Society since the late 1950s. The Patriot movement was bracketed on the reformist side by the Birch Society and the conspiracist segment of the Christian Right, and on the insurgent side hy the Liberty Lobby and groups promoting themes historically associated with White supremacy and antisemitism. A variety of preexisting far-right vigilante groups (including Christian Identity adherents and outright neonazi groups) were influential in helping to organize the broader Patriot movement." Doug Weller talk 16:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
References
...marking the genesis of a Patriot narrative. The Birch Society was founded in 1958 by Robert Welch,...
The Patriot movement was bracketed on the reformist side by the Birch Society and the conspiracist segment of the Christian Right and on the insurgent side by the Liberty Lobby and groups promoting themes historically associated with White supremacy and antisemitism.
Bijan Kumar Roy, Subal Chandra Biswas and Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay,
Designing Unicode‐compliant Indic‐script based Institutional Digital Repository with special reference to Bengali, page 56, International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology Vol.8, No.3, 53-67 (September, 2018)
...Is that a reliable source? I have no clue of the credibility of the journal. I found this and this about it. And found that it is based in Korea. Not much discussion about it in other journals. Aditya( talk • contribs) 18:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
In establishing the fact that an event took place; 1er Congreso Internacional "Combate del Delito Transnacional y los Procesos de Integración". This file document indicate the event was opened by Patricia Bullrich, Diego Santilli, and Cristian Ritondo. And this file document indicate participating entities not mentioned in the other document (securitycollege.us , Airport Security Police (Argentina), upsra.org.ar , capsi.ar.org , and Consejo de Seguridad en Cadena de Suministro/Supply chain security council ISO 28000 ) The signatories appear to be representing "org. caisar isafe spp", and Sandra Bartkoff herself. I want help in assessing the credibility/integrity of these entities.
so it might be helpful assessing the credibility of those news sources as well.
I am currently working on a draft Draft:CONARC (Consulta National de Rebeldías y Capturas / National Register of Fugitives and Arrests) in Argentina Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 01:16, 11 October 2020 (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 310 | ← | Archive 312 | Archive 313 | Archive 314 | Archive 315 | Archive 316 | → | Archive 320 |
This request for comment has elapsed, and can be closed. Please remove this template while closing. |
What is the reliability of Entrepreneur (magazine) ( entrepreneur.com )? Over 1000 Wikipedia articles cite this publication. The site, like Forbes, runs two types of articles:
For both types, please indicate which of the following applies:
MER-C 16:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The number of posts you can upload depends on your membership level, which clearly says that the more you pay the more you can write. This itself is a issue for me, as it implies that those who pay have better privileges to publish articles. I would hazard a guess that the same applies to more than just the amount of articles one can write per month, and would suggest that it might include how much editoral oversight they have but I don't have any evidence for this. As an example of the issues I see, take this article. There is a suggestion that it is a good idea to ask your colleagues and others you meet on LinkedIn to edit your article so that you can ensure it is saved from deletion. Though this is not encouraging editors to vote keep in AfDs etc., this does suggest that asking colleagues to edit your page will affect the decision on whether their autobiographical wiki article is deleted. Recuriting new editors to influence a decision is prohibited by the meatpuppetry policy, and my reading of the section implies to me they are encourging meatpuppetry (however this is not as clear cut as suggesting vote fraud in AfD). The last tip being to hire a marketing agency to
... take care of the regular updates and visits that are required to build your profileis also troublesome in many ways. This article shows to me that the editorial oversight either doesn't care enough or doesn't read the articles, so there will be articles (like this one) which publish false and/or misleading information. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It is run by a string of editors who have the liberty to delete your article if it is not adequately referenced, or visited and edited by other users. Though, yes, it does say that referencing an article is important (I don't dispute that the article has this part right), but it also says that the editors have
the liberty to delete your article if it is not ... visited and edited by other users. Coupling this with the suggestion that you get your colleagues to edit and visit your page, implies that getting colleagues to edit will not give editors
the liberty to delete your article. Yes, I agree that it does not imply voting at AfD, but it still is a factually questionable statement. I raise this point because if there was good editorial oversight, the editor before publication should have noticed that edits and pageviews are not used to work out if a person is notable / whether a biography should be deleted. Fact checking a major part of one of the 5 tips should have been done. Yes, I have raised only a few concerns and the article does make some good suggestions, but I still feel these articles are similar to a blog site article, because we can't trust that appropriate editorial fact checking has taken place due to the first sentences in my original comment. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
However, there is a key exception: contributor articles that are also published in print issues of Entrepreneur should be treated like articles by Entrepreneur staff writers ( #Type 1: Articles by Entrepreneur staff). For example, "Entrepreneurs Are Paying Wikipedia Editors to Create Profile Pages", which was mentioned in this month's edition of The Signpost, has this message below the timestamp: "This story appears in the July 2017 issue of Entrepreneur." For these articles, the author's title is "Magazine Contributor" (instead of "Entrepreneur Leadership Network Contributor"), and the "Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own." disclaimer is missing. Print editions have a physical limit on the amount of content in each issue, which makes them less prone to the reliability problems associated with web content created by contributors.
As a technical note, since it is not possible to determine whether an Entrepreneur article is written by a staff writer or a contributor from its URL, option 4 is functionally the same as option 3 for this source (unless there is consensus to deprecate all of Entrepreneur, which looks unlikely). — Newslinger talk 11:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Faulty RFC It didn't list the the most plausible option. The listed items are over generalizations and thus all incorrect. Reliability varies with the context and author. Time to stop these faulty over generalization RFC's. North8000 ( talk) 23:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, previous discussions have marked Quillette as as generally unreliable and that opinions constitute undue weight. I think Quillette should be allowed, but require quote attribution. The simple fact that many prominent and mainstream academics like James Flynn (academic) write for Quillette make it a useful source. Do James Flynn or Steven Pinker really constitute undue weight? No one can argue that. Obviously caution should be taken with articles written by non academic / politically motivated "journalists" (as with any publication). Attribution required should fix this. I don't really think Quillette is all bad and the previous discussions about it seem hasty, especially when you consider that VICE and Salon have "no consensus". Perhaps a case-by-case clause should be added. Sxologist ( talk) 10:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I've always thought of Quilette as a less prestigious version of The Spectator, it's an opinion magazine that's full of hot takes and contrarian opinions on contemporary topics and something that shouldn't be cited as a source of fact, only attributed opinions when it constitutes due weight (which Quilette pieces often do not). For instance this piece on Margaret Mead vs Derek Freeman over Coming of Age in Samoa goes against the academic concensus on the controversy that Mead was for the most part correct. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable.) Opinion is not automatically citable simply because it's opinion. Yes, an expert, speaking within their field of expertise, is sometimes citable for their opinion even when not published in an WP:RS (though it will often be WP:UNDUE, but that depends on the restrictions of WP:RSSELF, which means they can't be cited for exceptional claims or anything about a third party, and even then it is sharply lower-quality than when they publish eg. a peer-reviewed paper. Publication in Quillette itself lends no reliability, since they lack the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires - it is functionally a group blog for people who share particular idiosyncratic ideological views. More generally I would usually be extremely skeptical of any attempt to cite opinion to a lower-quality source like this, even from a subject-matter expert; in the modern world we are drowning in a surfeit of opinion, so my intuition when someone wants to cite one from a low-quality source is that it is marginal or even WP:FRINGE, since it isn't covered anywhere reputable. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight.The first discussion listed says nothing of the sort. The second discussion only talks about Quillette in two comments, one of which is an assertion based on no evidence that it is unreliable, and another is a criticism of one line in a single article - hardly the sort of thing that gets a source listed as red and called generally WP:UNDUE. (Incidentally both of those comments are by users who are now indefinitely blocked.) By that standard every source would be in red and all RSOPINIONs would be undue. Certainly no consensus of unreliability or of undueness yet - so let's check the third discussion. Most negative comments there are just assertions, but addressing the evidence presented, we have an opening comment presenting a story where Quillette was hoaxed, and it was claimed to be embellished by Quillette prior to publication. However, the source for this is Quillette's enemies ideologically speaking, the socialist pundits at Jacobin, so I'm going to take the embellishment claim with a grain of salt. (Indeed, they claim Quillette suggested that DSA meetings "would drag on forever...", but then they say ""I included this as fish bait," Carter said." So did Quillette or Carter say it? Someone else above linked to Vox's good coverage of it. They don't mention embellishment, only editing out, and they had access to the original submission and the emails with Quillette.) Another editor noted that the piece was taken down and retracted, and that this is something we look for. Another opinion piece was mentioned, but again, this isn't enough to say Quillette is generally undue. The other negative comments in that discussion are just assertions. It's pretty common for notable and reputable figures to publish there, so such articles certainly could be used in article sections where other op-eds are being used. As editors we need to be careful not to confuse "has due weight" with "agrees with my political beliefs".
declared its support for Charles Murray’s 1994 book The Bell Curve. Umm...no actually. The conclusion the article actually reaches is that
it is not irresponsible to forward reasonable, cautiously worded, and testable hypotheses. More so, the part The Nation piece quotes isn't actually making any original statement. It's a header trying to summarize what the book says.
came down squarely on the side of the so-called grievance-studies hoax, in which three scholars punked humanities journals by submitting creative nonsense cloaked in social-justice buzzwords.Says nothing about staging, taking part, or deceiving their own readers. And such publishing stings have been praised, as was this one, not just condemned. Your comments about Ngo are confusing - it's scandalous that Ngo did what he did, but then they fired him for it, and they're still in the wrong? So, what were they supposed to do when they found out? Crossroads -talk- 02:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Vox was once an understaffed, short-on-editors website too, and I remember how easy it was for stuff to fall through the cracks then. Take this article I wrote when I was 24 where I completely misread a legal filing, for instance. Online publications are faster-paced, and more lightly staffed, than traditional magazines, and anyone who tells you that that’s compatible with a low rate of errors is trying to sell you something. As Vox has staffed up and gotten larger and more mature, with more comprehensive editing policies, we’ve had fewer errors like the one I made. That’s something I’m proud of. Even at a size like ours, though, huge errors are possible; for example, the Washington Post recently had to issue 15 corrections to a single story. I was never fact-checked during my time as a Post staff writer, and most newspapers operate similarly. But the broader lesson I hope Quillette learns from this [Archie Carter hoax] is a sense of humility about tribalism and confirmation bias.Crossroads -talk- 16:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
What is the reliability of Quillette
Bacondrum ( talk) 00:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
We should not be using rabble-rousing websites as sources for Wikipedia articles, especially when the only plausible uses are precisely those articles where random opinions are not in short supply.Likewise, having slept on it, I think Aquillion is pretty much right to say
citing opinion from there is no different from citing it to a random YouTube video or to a Wikipedia talk page. Those comments are from !votes for option 4, which I'm not convinced is necessary; the ordinary practice of not using opinion pieces for claims of fact and including opinions based on reliable secondary sources would seem be enough without the extra formal step. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. A source (like this one) that simply publishes everything that is handed to it as long as it fits within their narrow ideological bubble doesn't count as meaningful publication at all, since publication there lends no reliability or weight (given the clear lack of fact-checking, it means nothing beyond "this person shares Lehmann's ideology.") Since they don't appear to verify the statements or even the identity of the people publishing there, I don't see how they can meet RSOPINION's standard; citing opinion from there is no different from citing it to a random YouTube video or to a Wikipedia talk page. Even for WP:RSOPINION, the source must meet a bare minimum standard to qualify, which this source plainly fails. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight.It's an outlet designed to stir shit. It has no other purpose. It has no interest in facts. Its associate editor is Toby Young, who supports—in his own words—a type of eugenics, and more recently has been deliberately spreading false, unscientific descriptions of the coronavirus disease affecting us all. As for its other contributors, there's plenty of evidence above of its factual unreliability. Editorial opinions are only significant if they are based on fact and Quillette does not do remotely appropriate factual vetting of its content. It is usable for one thing: "X wrote in Quillette that Y". Even then this does not establish due weight, so we would need reliable coverage to back up any such content. It is only reliable for fact if the same author writing the same content in a blog post on (e.g.) tumblr would be reliable, which is a rare case indeed. — Bilorv ( talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The statements that Quillette editor Toby Young supports eugenics are themselves inaccurate and may even be libellousSir may care to review the extensively cited statements at Toby_Young#Eugenics, and probably also WP:NLT - David Gerard ( talk) 08:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Good case for it being depreciated. They are clearly not interested in factual reporting. Bacondrum ( talk) 03:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
https://theoutline.com/post/7759/quillette-archie-carter-hoax
https://newrepublic.com/article/154205/quillettes-antifa-journalists-list-couldve-gotten-killed
https://theoutline.com/post/8104/phrenology-hirevue-quillette?zd=1&zi=rptzeehv
phrenology was nevertheless deeply influential on the development of modern anthropology, criminology, and evolutionary biology...No, it was not.
I remember learning things in philosophy of mind classes that may as well just have been phrenology without the bumps: in analytic philosophy of mind, it is common to identify the mind with the brain — an identification that phrenology pioneered.So immaterial souls are real now?
The idea that parts of the brain have discrete, localized functions remains common in contemporary neuroscience, in which the equivalent of callipers is the only somewhat more accurate MRI scanner. It is common for news articles to report that neuroscientists have discovered, based on MRIs, “which part of the brain” is responsible for a certain mental activity — but neuroimaging studies have long suffered from small sample sizes, low statistical power, and a lack of replicability.Neuroscience denialism = fail. They also fall prey to the is-ought fallacy:
A phrenological logic is lurking in any intellectual discipline that attempts, whether deliberately or otherwise, to depoliticize the human world. They contradict themselves about Quillette:
Quillette...has literally defended phrenology....neither of these examples defend phrenology wholesale. On the basis of the literally-stated, surface-level meaning alone, it is perhaps more accurate to suggest that these evidence Quillette's willingness to publish pieces which speak well of certain aspects of phrenology.Guess they don't "literally defend" phrenology after all. And regarding one of their examples, progressive magazine Mother Jones sides against the claim Quillette promotes phrenology: [15] Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
But true meaning always goes deeper than mere surface. And while they might all personally, as individuals, deny it: In the most accurate sense possible, when you boil things down to the fundamentals of their logic, these people really are just doing phrenology.XOR'easter ( talk) 06:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
It is common for news articles to report that...is talking as much about the media as anything else. I'm having a hard time reading that bit as more than a critique of sensationalism, some of which has been propagated by (whisper it) the sloppier among the scientists. To say that a field has
long suffered from small sample sizesis not to call it invalid, but to admit that there's a lot left to do. The "deeper meaning" part of Outline story goes further down some rhetorical paths than I would, but setting that aside, documenting a
willingness to publish pieces which speak well of certain aspects of phrenologyis enough to indicate there are problems. XOR'easter ( talk) 07:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
no association with any previously known organization that researches extremism? Well independent researchers are a thing. And the fact that he was
blanket banned for “violating rules against managing multiple Twitter accounts for abusive purposes.”is irrelevant so let's keep reading.
His claims... that a website that posts court documents is a “doxing site,”creates a false dichotomy since you can certainly use the public record to "dox" people at least according to a loose definition that is also used by critics of Quillette. Next, the article refers to
baseless reports that tech platforms discriminate against “conservatives”, a topic on which they have faltered in the past. It is common sense that such bias will, often unintentionally, creep up at institutions that have very few conservatives and Jack Dorsey has admitted as much on the Joe Rogan podcast.
The Quillette article was circulated approvingly on white supremacist forum Stormfront? Well that's unfortunate but it's also guilt by association. And then, they quote a social media researcher who undermines their claim by saying that
any media—right, center or leftwould have the same fact-checking difficulty on this topic as Quillette. Moreover, Lenihan specifically says in his essay that these degrees of separation were
not to accuse them of bias out of hand, but rather to identify them for further study. Connor Behan ( talk) 15:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Per WP:APPNOTE, I am pinging all the participants of the pre-RfC discussion to weigh in who have not done so yet: Sxologist, Black Kite, Adoring nanny, GreenMeansGo, Horse Eye Jack, Masem, Hemiauchenia, Emir of Wikipedia, GPinkerton, Aquillion, MastCell, Atsme, K.e.coffman, Springee, XOR'easter, JzG, David Gerard. Crossroads -talk- 03:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a question for anyone who thinks this is a good (or even usable)
WP:RSOPINION site. Can you give me some examples of sites that you feel don't qualify for use under
WP:RSOPINION? Can you explain why they don't qualify while this one does? What criteria doe you feel a source has to meet to be citable as opinion? I'm scratching my head here because it seems like some people have interpreted some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact
to mean "as long as a source is qualified with an in-line citation to make it their opinion,
WP:RS doesn't apply." That has never been how I read RSOPINION - as it states, a prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable
, which, to me, means that good RSOPINION sources must meet that or a comparable standard, and must therefore be otherwise generally recognized to have a high standard of fact-checking and accuracy. I'm baffled here because failing to verify the identity of the people published there or failing to do even token fact-checking for opinion pieces making exceptional claims (two major issues implied above) seem to trivially fail the most basic requirements we'd need to consider something a reliable source for opinions. --
Aquillion (
talk) 07:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Can I get a community consensus on the reliability and appropriateness of http://horrornews.net? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It says it's not a religious project. [16] It's been used as a source in Great Sphinx of Giza but the webpage doesn't have an author. [17] Also used at Holyland Model of Jerusalem, again no author. [18] Doug Weller talk 14:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm in the process of trying to put together a list of reliable sources for the Horror WikiProject similar to how WP:VG has WP:VG/RS. The discussion is at the talk page and I'd really like to have some input on the sourcing currently listed. I've had one person respond favorably to the list and suggest links (also, if you have any to suggest, please do!). Some of the sources are obviously usable as they've been deemed reliable sources before, so those I'm more listing just for the sake of compiling a list. Once there's been enough consensus I'll add some of the other obvious RS like the NYT, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and other mainstream/mainstream-ish sources that are typically used to establish notability, but I could really use some input and suggestions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 05:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
On Talk:Max Näther, Georgejdorner says that http://www.theaerodrome.com/index.php is a reliable source for information on Max Näther and other WWI fighter pilots. As far as I can tell, theaerodrome is a typical self-published militaria site (which are not usually considered reliable). The page cited [19] does not give any author information or other indication of reliability. Is this a reliable source? ( t · c) buidhe 04:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The article What the Future Holds (album) was recently nominated for DYK by Calvin999. They have indicated that they would like to use an interview that The Sun did with the album's artist as a source for the article. Given that The Sun has been deprecated as a source, would it still be suitable for the interview to be used as a source in the article, or could a one-time IAR exemption be granted here given the information may not be found elsewhere? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 09:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I think what I said has been a bit misconstrued back on the DYK. I said that it's a shame The Sun can't be used (generally), because Steps gave a lengthy interview and said things which haven't been said in other interviews. It also happens to be pretty much the first they did regarding the album too, so was initially the sole source of album info direct from them. When I was asked for another ALT, I said it's a shame The Sun can't be used for more album specific hooks. The Sun source was removed from the article before DYK nomination. I still think that given that it was an interview directly with Steps for the Bizzare section which appears in The Sun, I would like to be able to use it in the article and not for the DYK. The interview is about their album with Steps talking about it answering questions, it's not an opinion based news article which I understand people have decided could be unfit for purpose. I see them as two different circumstances for inclusion. An interview is a great source of info and it's a shame it currently can't be included. To imply that someone made up five members response to a subject for the sake of doing so is an unfair accusation in itself. — Calvin999 11:19, 1 October 2020 (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.
@
Emigré55: claimed on the article
Anna van Egmont that Marc Couwenbergh an art historian of note was. See
this version of the article, and specific source 9 (
[22]) and 10 (
[23]). The same sources are used for
Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus). Despite multiple requests for clarification (
Talk:Anna_van_Egmont#Couwenbergh_art_historian and
Talk:Anna_van_Egmont#Marc_Couwenbergh, no answer was coming forward. A check on the linkedin-page of Marc Couwenbergh made clear that he does not call himself an art historian. As Emigré55 is clearly
upset about the removal, I like to hear the opinion of the community if these sources are reliable and if Marc Couwenberg is an art historian of note.
The Banner
talk 16:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@
Emigré55: --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk) 16:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publicationsit's a failure of WP:SPS. FDW777 ( talk) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
List of his books in Research Library of Rijksmuseum
|
---|
|
LinkedIn elements of presentation omitted by The Banner
|
---|
|
"There are none so blind as those who will not see":
On the contrary, I provided enough evidences that he is an expert, through his books but also by his peers (e.g. at “De Correspondent”, as per your own and somewhat biased and limited vision of the word
expert), which you simply ignore.
You only pursue your own opinion, according to the rule YOU want to establish, not the rule of Wikipedia (about reliability of a blog) which I reminded you, and who is or not an “
expert” , simply ignoring the extensive definition of the word appearing in Wikipedia.
Simply read the definition of the word “
expert” in Wikipedia, and your will find all reasons simply not to deny that Couwenbergh is/can be called an expert in his field, even if it is not your own opinion about him.
Please also refrain from accusing me of “creative” reading, and using words such as “nonesense” (sic! I guess you meant nonsense), which I could now see as
personal attacks.
Because of the use of these words by you, and your totally negative attitude, even denying simple facts, it seems now to me that you only want to destroy this article, instead of bringing something positive to a couple of articles which were very poor before I started to contribute to them.
I would strongly advise you not to start an edit war based on your own opinion about Couwenberg not being an expert.
For the reason here above explained, this discussion is now over with you as far as I am concerned.
Please consider that there are 6,818,119 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.
--
Emigré55 (
talk) 10:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Where is the discussion about Marc Couwenberg? That discussion was not closed. The Banner talk 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I have a bit of a strange one. I think it might be a RS, but I want to ask.
Name of work: How Dogwhistles Work [24] [25]
Abstract:
Extended content
|
---|
Henderson, R. & McCready, E.. (2018). How Dogwhistles Work. 10.1007/978-3-319-93794-6_16. The paper focuses on the semantics and pragmatics of dogwhistles, namely expressions that send one message to an outgroup while at the same time sending a second (often taboo, controversial, or inflammatory) message to an ingroup. There are three questions that need to be resolved to understand the semantics and pragmatics of the phenomenon at hand: (i) What kind of meaning is dogwhistle content—implicature, conventional implicature, etc.; (ii) how do (some but not all) hearers recover the dogwhistle content, and (iii) how do expressions become endowed with dogwhistle content? These three questions are interrelated, but previous analyses have emphasized answers to a subset of these questions in ways that provide unsatisfactory answers to the others. The goal for this paper is to take stock of existing accounts, while showing a way forward that reconciles their differences. |
The authors:
OK, so it appears to be a paper written by a couple of academics. The question is whether it is a peer reviewed paper. Here comes the strange bit; where it was published:
What in the world does artificial intelligence have to do with alleged hidden meanings behind things US politicians say? Do the people running the AI symposium have the expertise needed to evaluate a paper about US political speech? Did any actual linguists peer review the paper? I am surprised that they accepted a paper which appears to have nothing to do with AI.
Background:
Extended content
|
---|
Our article on Dog whistle (politics) keeps being edited in such a way to support the POV that every accusation of dog-whistling is automatically true, no evidence required. In general society, there are some who hold that every accusation of dog-whistling is automatically false, but they haven't shown up on this page yet. (They are pretty clearly wrong in the case of the phrase "Family Values" being a dog-whistle to evangelical Christians). Any material that implies that the accusation may or may not be true is challenged and if possible suppressed. In some cases you can look at the editor's history and see that in other pages they are pushing the idea that republicans in general and Trump in particular are constantly dog-whistling, no evidence required. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC) |
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This doesn't look like a RS to me. 82.7.174.132 ( talk) 15:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
as used in Wilmington, Delaware
Also in 2002, Wilmington became perhaps the first U.S. city with surveillance cameras covering the downtown area. [1]
Would
Website description "The Infoshop project is run by a collective of anarchists, anti-authoritarians, socialists and people of other political stripes. We don’t adhere to a specific flavor of anarchism or libertarianism, but we’ve often been called “big tent anarchists.” We take that to mean that we provide a wide range of anarchist news, opinion and information with the idea that our readers and users have the freedom to make use of that info as they see fit."
Wouldn't this basically be a same classification as Breitbart, Post Millennial and like, except it's a left winged version? I checked archives and there is only one discussion that mentions this and it's not a substantial discussion. Graywalls ( talk) 05:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, https://web.archive.org/web/20120107013451/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG5 as used in Market socialism. There's a disclaimer on the bottom "Anti-copyright 2011. Some material on this site may be covered by so-called "intellectual property" laws." Broader question. They're definitely biased, reliability is questionable and there's an issue of intellectual property rights issues making some of the stuff from them a WP:COPYVIOEL. Shouldn't Infoshop.org be deprecated? Graywalls ( talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
References
I've been in a discussion on
Talk:Adam Peaty about the reliability of
SwimSwam.com as a source. It states that it is SwimSwam.com is the world’s most popular swimming news and lifestyle website. SwimSwam provides global coverage of swimming, open water swimming and the “swim lifestyle” outside the pool (and/or lake, ocean, river, etc.). Our slogan is Everything for the swim fan on SwimSwam!
You can also
submit a story. As such I can't see the editorial policy that would allow us to use it as a reliable source particularly for a BLP. This has all arisen over a disagreement over
this article which consists of three of Peaty's instagram quotes (lambasting The Sun for an intrusion of privacy) and the aforementioned article from The Sun that has now been removed. So is SwimSwam a reliable source for article's about a BLP's private life? Any third opinions would be much appreciated.
Woody (
talk) 21:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Is https://www.dailypress.com/ a reliable source?
Source: Dietrich, Tamara (April 26, 2005). "Standing Up to Saddam and His Son Took Courage". Daily Press (Newport News). p. C1. ProQuest https://search.proquest.com/docview/343333770. If the proquest content is not accessible, it's also reproduced here at the bottom http://www.zindamagazine.com/html/archives/2005/4.27.05/index_wed.php This source is a summary of an interview with the article subject, Georges Sada, and David Eberly.
Wikipedia Article: Georges Sada
Content in the article:
U.S. Air Force Colonel David Eberly credits Sada with saving his life and the lives of fellow prisoners by lobbying Qusai Hussein to forgo the executions Hussein was demanding. Sada was imprisoned briefly for his resistance to the executions.[2][better source needed]
Is this source reliable? For example, David Eberly was also interviewed by PBS and never mentioned Georges Sada, the article subject. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/1.html
The following is separate from RS but still worth noting: The content in the article quoted above has other issues, such as being a sort of primary source as the article is just a summary of an interview with the article subject, Georges Sada, and David Eberly. The claim that Sada saved Eberly and other pilots from execution originates with Sada himself, and in the above source link, Eberly seems to go along with agreeing with Sada and has no confirmation. As noted, when Eberly was interviewed by PBS, he made no mention of Sada. There has been no verification on this claim to date that Sada was ordered to execute the pilots and refused, among some of Sada's other claims about himself. He also is best known for pushing a refuted and baseless conspiracy theory about Iraq moving its WMDs to Syria in late 2002 (see WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Syria), so I'm unsure how much credibility Georges Sada has as a primary source, which in general is already discouraged in Wikipedia articles. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 04:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliable? I don't see it myself. Over 450 references. Guy ( help! - typo?) 20:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
At least two low quality articles make use of the source VLSI Research to establish facts. The list WP:SAL Semiconductor equipment sales leaders by year and the article WP:COMPANIES ASM International. Should VLSI Research be considered a reliable source? Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 00:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The company was founded by Arthur del Prado (1931-2016) as ‘Advanced Semiconductor Materials’ in 1964.[2][unreliable source?]
Semiconductor equipment companies ASML, ASM Pacific Technology and Besi are former divisions of ASM.[2][unreliable source?]
1960s: In 1964, Arthur del Prado founds ASM as ‘Advanced Semiconductor Materials’ in Bilthoven, the Netherlands.[2][unreliable source?]
1980s: Following an initial public offering on the Nasdaq in May 1981, the company expands. In 1982 ASM Japan is established.[2][unreliable source?]
Background:
There are a large amount of bogus quotes in various sources. It appears that humans are good at remembering a saying while forgetting who said it, and we have a tendency to assign the quotes to a plausible source. Example:
One source says that the correct attribution is Rita Mae Brown. [34] but see Wikiquote: [35]
Now in the case of the above quote, we can find sources that specifically say that it was misattributed, but what about a quote where multiple sources (but not reliable sources on quote attribution) claim that a famous person said it, no source has bothered to say it is misattributed, and an exhaustive search (which would, of course, be WP:OR) cannot find any evidence of when and where the person supposedly said it? Do we say "attributed to" in such cases?
Related: What if a famous person actually did say it, but someone else said it much earlier? Example: Denis Healey and Law of holes. Do we say "attributed to" in such cases?
At issue is Law of holes. Is it attributed to Will Rogers or misattributed to Will Rogers? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Citron Research ( Andrew Left) is prominently cited at TransDigm Group#Inaccurate filings with Department of Defense and "hidden monopoly". Is he a reliable source? No previous RSNB discussions that I could find. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
On the article Christian Zionism, User:Torchist has been adding the source article Lovers of Zion by Thomas Ice (from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University to source many statements in the article [37]. They also use it at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Template:Protestant Zionism to support the inclusion of many people in that template.
Is that article a reliable source for facts, or is it a fringe partisan source which shouldn't be used as factual (it of course can be used to show the opinion of Ice, if needed)? I don't think we should be including sourcing where the conclusion is "Nevertheless, like those who have gone before us, we will stand on biblical conviction as we constantly watch for the further outworking of Gods' historical plan, revolving around His people-Israel and his any-moment return. Maranatha!". Fram ( talk) 14:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems like it's something in between a wordpress blog and a news blog. They're not clear about who they are on the website. Should this be considered a WP:SPS or a group blog?
It is used at Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine and about 40 other places.
The Carolinas Campus, until 2014, had a similar relationship with the private Wofford College, but currently participates in the "College Town Consortium" with five other local colleges. The annual White Coat Ceremony for first year medical students is held at nearby Converse College. [1]
Graywalls ( talk) 03:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Is https://www.looktothestars.org/ a reliable source? It is used to back up a claim on Anna Wilding (director) that the Wilding Foundation helped with the 2011 Christchurch earthquake relief efforts. The relief operation has been heavily documented but I can't find another source to back up this claim. -- haminoon ( talk) 23:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The use of Find a Grave as a reliable source needs to be clarified as the assertion "5. Find a Grave does not exercise editorial control, and the material added to the site by volunteers is not vetted (WP:QS)." at Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find_a_Grave is false for any entry that has a fame rating. These entries are curated and cannot be changed without editorial over site. All Find a Grave entries with a fame rating should be reclassified as a reliable source. Richard Bruce Bradford ( talk) 07:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Who is behind Find a Grave? First and foremost, you are. Thousands of contributors submit new listings, updates, corrections, photographs and virtual flowers every hour. [...] The community continues to add and update memorials every day. We look forward to an exciting future for the site and the community!
I can only find one direct discussion of this domain, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46 § Campaign Materials. The site is used a lot more than I would expect given that it has no About page and no indication of reliability. I just removed a lot of cites to blogs.4president.org (which, for some links, redirects to blog.4president.us, for others to a Typepad blog) based on WP:POLEND - I am not surprised that people have completely ignored this but it was adopted after RfC and is unambiguous:
There remain about 90 articles sourced to this site. I strongly suspect that it's not a RS for any of those, either. Guy ( help! - typo?) 20:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Especially on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict page, I couldn't verify some of the sources from other reliable sources that comes from these websites (which go to same publisher). And then, I looked to the website's Wikipedia page; however I couldn't find enough citations from reliability (most of them comes from the page's itself or social media pages) and I learnt that it's a internet portal (which has suspicious reliability because of gathering information from emails, online forums, etc.). I'm doubting that it's not a reliable source (except the photos, which are used in numerous reliable sources). Ahmetlii ( talk) 20:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Orgone § RfC about in/excluding sources on pseudoscience I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Are these sources reliable? All these sites are film-based. TamilMirchi ( talk) 19:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
A user told me it was a blog and therefore not a reliable source. Can anyone confirm? Veverve ( talk) 02:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
If this is the wrong place, my apologies. I read through the deprecated sources, the reasons for deprecation and fake news with no corrections came up frequently with some but not a ton of regard as to gravitas or frequency.
NBC staged fake news with some significance and it is unlikely any correction or clarification will be coming, at what point does it reach deprecation or even notable levels for the WP to lose an iota of WP credibility? Trying to stay current, not referencing Duke Lacrosse, Covington, Iraq WMD 100yrs worth to........no Ukranian famine.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/undecided-voters-nbc-biden-town-hall
Staged fake news are not the actions of a reliable source for anything, certainly not anything involved in the topic of the staged fake event.
At what point does NBC or any of the what were considered mainstream US media considered less reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:c801:b1f0:191e:5cb6:a14d:c35f ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
In my search for further clarification-Multiple 'undecided' voters at ABC town hall had history of anti-Trump social media posts https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/multiple-undecided-voters-at-abc-town-hall-had-history-of-anti-trump-social-media-posts/ At least here they use the word may-unlike above where it is captured on video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:c801:b1f0:191e:5cb6:a14d:c35f ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not stage fake news. Although, as mentioned above gravity and frequency were not that considerate on the deprecation list. Surely, staging fake events must carry more weight than merely the written word?
This looks like another self-published nobility fansite. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Run by a group of young women, some of whom have an academic background in history but not, apparently, as professional historians. Reliable or not? Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I was just wondering if PopSugar is considered a reliable source. It isn't listed as an unreliable source in WP:RS, but I have seen some people view it as a gossip website. Here is a link to the website.
This SPLC source states that one of the conspiracy theories supported by elements of the Patriot movement is 9/11. [45] It was removed twice by an IP, the first time with an edit summary that said "no evidence", the last time with the edit summary "the SPLC's only evidence of truther involvement is a quote from a Patriot who rejects trutherism. Not reliable". If we have to, we can say "according to the SPLC", but I don't think we can require the source to quote specific statements for everything.
A major revert in the history section [46] it justified by saying "no, there are not two theories. the prior text misrepresented its sources". Basically that edit removed the following:
"The reformist wing of the patriot movement is considered to have had its genesis in 1958 with the formation of the John Birch Society and opposition to communism, the United Nations and the civil rights movement. [1] An insurgent wing has been traced in origins to the Liberty Lobby active in the 1950s with promotion of themes of White supremacy and antisemitism. [2]"
That can probably be improved, but are the sources being misrepresented? Originally the first line said "had its origin" but I changed that to "had its genesis". One tricky thing is that the source by Lyons and Berlet is linked to a dead url (I forgot to remove it) rather than to the book. [47] Page 175 starts a chapter on "The Pillars of U.S. populist conservatism, the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby" and says "These and other "Americanist" and "Patriot" movements promoted a brand of xenophobic nationalism that implicitly embraced White northern..." - that's the source of the genesis statement and it does say patriot movement, so I don't think the article should suggest there was no "patriot movement" until "the 1980s American farm crisis". That's my mine issue with the history section.
However, I can now see that the bit about the insurgent wing with the quote "bracketed by..." is talking about the 1990s. The context of that quote is a section that says: "It was in this context of resurgent isolationism and unilateralism that a self-conscious Patriot movement coalesced. It involved some 5 million persons who suspected—to varying degrees—that the government was manipulated by secret elites and planned the imminent imposition of some form of tyranny.7 This suspicion has been the basic theme of the John Birch Society since the late 1950s. The Patriot movement was bracketed on the reformist side by the Birch Society and the conspiracist segment of the Christian Right, and on the insurgent side hy the Liberty Lobby and groups promoting themes historically associated with White supremacy and antisemitism. A variety of preexisting far-right vigilante groups (including Christian Identity adherents and outright neonazi groups) were influential in helping to organize the broader Patriot movement." Doug Weller talk 16:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
References
...marking the genesis of a Patriot narrative. The Birch Society was founded in 1958 by Robert Welch,...
The Patriot movement was bracketed on the reformist side by the Birch Society and the conspiracist segment of the Christian Right and on the insurgent side by the Liberty Lobby and groups promoting themes historically associated with White supremacy and antisemitism.
Bijan Kumar Roy, Subal Chandra Biswas and Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay,
Designing Unicode‐compliant Indic‐script based Institutional Digital Repository with special reference to Bengali, page 56, International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology Vol.8, No.3, 53-67 (September, 2018)
...Is that a reliable source? I have no clue of the credibility of the journal. I found this and this about it. And found that it is based in Korea. Not much discussion about it in other journals. Aditya( talk • contribs) 18:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
In establishing the fact that an event took place; 1er Congreso Internacional "Combate del Delito Transnacional y los Procesos de Integración". This file document indicate the event was opened by Patricia Bullrich, Diego Santilli, and Cristian Ritondo. And this file document indicate participating entities not mentioned in the other document (securitycollege.us , Airport Security Police (Argentina), upsra.org.ar , capsi.ar.org , and Consejo de Seguridad en Cadena de Suministro/Supply chain security council ISO 28000 ) The signatories appear to be representing "org. caisar isafe spp", and Sandra Bartkoff herself. I want help in assessing the credibility/integrity of these entities.
so it might be helpful assessing the credibility of those news sources as well.
I am currently working on a draft Draft:CONARC (Consulta National de Rebeldías y Capturas / National Register of Fugitives and Arrests) in Argentina Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 01:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)