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 314 | Archive 315 | Archive 316 | Archive 317 | Archive 318 | → | Archive 320 |
There is an increasing trend to hold an RfC here to deprecate a source, which is then followed up by editors removing existing references to that source from articles. However, there are currently no notifications on articles or their talk pages that a source is being considered for deprecation (unlike templates, where {{ tfd}} appears in the articles affected). This is effectively a fait accompli - editors working on article content that aren't watching this page don't hear about the discussion until it's too late to participate in it.
I propose requiring that notifications linking to the RfC are added to the talk pages of affected articles so that article editors can participate in the RfCs before they are closed. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 18:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Many of the individuals who oppose the notification process are the same individuals who are highly active on this noticeboard. These individuals unfortunately have gained too much unchecked decision making power. The Wikipedia community is going to have to deal with this problematic concentration of power. Notification of the wider community of editors who will be affected by these endless RFCs on this board is one step in the right direction. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 10:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
An editor has attempted to add Rebel News to the Jessica Yaniv article. I consider Rebel News to be a highly unreliable web site, that's never usable for facts, and definitely not facts about a living person. It's fairly well known in Canada, and it's likely others would also try to use, so I feel it should be added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. As discussed on the Talk:Jessica Yaniv#Rebel News is not reliable, but is SPAM, they actually use articles like this about the subject of the article, to fundraise for a court case against them. The owner/operator of the Rebel News, Ezra Levant has repeatedly lost libel cases against himself (see article for sources). The site is really a commentary site, not a news web site.
At the moment, nobody seems to be arguing the site is reliable. The editor who added it, seems to be arguing that it's not blacklisted, and is therefore allowed. -- Rob ( talk) 07:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The Grayzone is a deprecated source; however, José Bustani has been recently interviewed there and made several noteworthy claims. Would it be acceptable to use the interview as a source of the claims, clearly attributing them to The Grayzone and Bustani? This looks like something allowed by WP:DEPREC. BeŻet ( talk) 13:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies so far. For instance if we were to say:
José Bustani claimed during an interview with
The Grayzone that he has been spied on while working at the
OPCW
- would that require a secondary source which talks about said interview, or do we feel that the primary source in this case is enough?
BeŻet (
talk) 17:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Is it okay if I ask: where can I find someone or something who or which can quickly check some 450 cites on Cleavage (breasts) to see which cites are unacceptable? It is alright if there is no one or nothing that can help. Aditya( talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I want to create an article about Sirfetch'd, but I'm not sure where to start. Can someone help me out? UB Blacephalon ( talk) 02:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
There is an issue across Wikipedia song articles of songs sung by males where many of them list the vocal register as being an octave above what it actually is. This is due to an error in MusicNotes transcriptions where they do not differentiate between the octave of a male vocal melody and a female vocal melody. Because of this there are a number of Wikipedia song articles that list male vocalists as singing in the vocal range of sopranos, when in fact the actual pitches that the males sing in each song is an octave below that. These articles incorrectly state the singer of the song as singing in that high range, when it is that MusicNotes incorrectly transcribes the vocal melody as being an octave higher than it is. I outline a number of examples of Wikipedia song articles with this issue in this previously had discussion, as well as further expand on the issue /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Music_Notes_Reliability_As_A_Source
The reliability of MusicNotes as a source has been brought up here before, however the issue in that discussion was of a different nature. They were discussing the general credibility of Music Notes but didn't actually have any issue with the content that it was providing and they all agreed the information offered from Music Notes was correct. The issue in that discussion was whether it was reliable enough to speak to the recorded version of the song but did not have any specific grievances with any of the information itself from Music Notes. What I'm pointing out is a bit of a different matter since it is evidence of demonstrably incorrect information that we are using rather than being correct information that comes from a source we aren't entirely confident in. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Musicnotes.com
It is likely quite evident that I am unfamiliar with the mechanisms of Wikipedia editing and thus do not feel that this is an issue I am fully-equipped to undertake. I merely have the knowledge necessary to bring forward this issue in hopes that it is able to be resolved, as I have seen a number of people confused as to why Wikipedia lists so many songs as incorrectly having such a high vocal range. My apologies if anything in my formatting or protocol is incorrect here, I was referred to take this issue here when my previous efforts of correcting this were not effective. Chukulem ( talk) 19:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
In University of the People, Weatherextremes has repeatedly inserted the following sentence: "According to UNESCO the University works with other universities and governments to advise, teach and partner with them on how to launch an online education system to meet the current need and demand in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. [1]"
It's obvious that the source is published on a UNESCO website but I cannot find any other information about its reliability. The information certainly reads as if it's written by the university and not an independent third-party. Except for a statement at the bottom of the page that says that "UNESCO does not endorse any product, service, brand or company," I cannot find any information that says how the information was written, whether it was fact-checked, how errors are corrected, or any other information that would allow us to know if it's reliable. ElKevbo ( talk) 18:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the information is published in the UNESCO websites makes it reliable information. We are talking about an highly reputable organization. Of course UNESCO is right to point out that they do not endorse anyone. The main question is how can you prove that this information was written by UoPeople when it originally appears in the UNESCO website? Weatherextremes ( talk) 00:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Well I beg to differ. The burden of proof lies with the editor who has doubts on the content of a credible source such as UNESCO. ElKevdo should be the one to provide sufficient evidence that the statement is actually written by UoPeople when it appears originally only in the UNESCO website. The source is credible until we see proof otherwise. Please include it in the article. Weatherextremes ( talk) 08:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
No, what is actually foolish is to assume that UNESCO is not a reliable source Weatherextremes ( talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Also what GPinkerton suggests seems a fair compromise and I could go with that.It actually makes it more neutral in terms of wording. Weatherextremes ( talk) 08:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply) 21:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Guy I have been a wiki editor for the past decade and I have consistently edited mostly around meteorology and climatology and occasionally on education. I have repeatedly said that I have been impressed by UoPeople and I have been researching this institution for the past 5 years. I do not see how this is an argument you can use on the reliability of the UNESCO source. To answer your question I believe a lot of people care! Especially in light of Covid-19.I am proposing to change the wording in the article according to what Chess has said. It will make it more neutral and given that it is from a reliable source it will improve overall the quality of the article Weatherextremes ( talk) 00:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Hello! I have a source called Cinema Cats (here is the home page [9]). It is a self described blog [10] and there is no evidence that the information that is posted on it is reviewed or checked for reliability. I don’t think this would be considered a reliable source for information about movies or cats, but I just thought I’d stop by and check! Thank you in advance for your comments. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently used in eleven articles. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 00:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
SPS by none expert, not an RS> Slatersteven ( talk) 14:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Before she started working in porn in 2007, Alexis Texas grew up in Texas. ... As if to confirm that she's attained a level of pornstardom reserved for only the super elite, Texas was named co-host of the 2015 AVN Awards.
Is Uproxx an acceptable source to use, to confirm that Alexis Texas co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards?
Thank you, Right cite ( talk) 16:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
AVN also recently announced that comedienne and actress Danielle Stewart would be joining AVN Awards co-hosts Alexis Texas and Tommy Pistol as the awards show's comedic co-host.
Can we make some assessment, for the perennial sources board, of The Scotsman, The Herald, The National, and the other Scotland-only papers? GPinkerton ( talk) 20:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi I think we need to have a proper discussion about using Indymedia as a source. I'll try to give a breakdown of the situation as I see it. The Independent Media Center (also known as Indymedia, IMC) was an early use of the internet by left-wing anti-globalisation activists in the late 1990s and early 2000s. There was a boom and bust, as corporate social media took on all the facets of the new phenomenon of open publishing, a newswire, a website accessed for free from anywhere etc etc Hundreds of indymedia websites sprang up for different local collectives and most have folded, although some continue eg indymedia NL and indymedia Ireland and many sites are archived. So when I am talking Indymedia, I am talking about many different, mostly city-based news networks, mainly from the 1990s and 2000s.
Indymedia is therefore is proudly self-published and do not worry I will not attempt to argue otherwise. However, I will argue that in specific circumstances, indymedia is a useful and reliable source. Not least because of the specific point made by WP:SOCIALMEDIA but also for other reasons. Wikipedia has changed a lot since the 2000s regarding referencing and verifiability and that is of course great. We need to be sure we are correct, especially regarding BLP issues. Yes if it appeared in indymedia, it probably is in other sources too if it was notable (and some things are, some things aren't), but many of these other sources are lost or paywalled. The 1990s and 2000s are a bit of a deadzone for social movement history since many websites have expired and gone without archives, before the advent of the wayback machine and other means of archiving stuff. So when writing about many of the marginal (and not so marginal) historical events, then I would argue the indymedia service can be useful with specific caveats.
Indymedia is currently listed on perennial sources as "generally unreliable" with the blurb: "The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source." I would dispute that and prefer to see a warning for "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" and a link to this discussion, or whatever else people decide. There have been previous discussions and I can link to them here (two are linked at perennial soources) already. I am struggling to see any sort of consensus formed there at all. 17, 23, 275. 23 and 275 are mentioned on perennial sources.
As a final point, indymedia articles are used judiciously in academic literature and we shouldn't forget that either. I find it strange to contemplate all use of indymedia on wikipedia being deleted when academics will use it with discretion. Here's a quickly compiled list of articles which reference indymedia from my recently read pile, just to illustrate my point. I'm not talking about pieces ABOUT indymedia, I'm talking about academics using indymedia as a source on social movement history.
If it helps to clarify, let's end with a specific example:
Unreliable to me this does not seem to be a reliable source. Consistency appears to be key here. If we allow this self published sources to be legitimated as a reliable source, then there is nothing stopping one from legitimating other self published sources as well. That does not seem to me to be a can of worms that we would want to open. Fortliberty ( talk) 23:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Unreliable It is essentially user generated contents. Using something there isn't a whole lot different from putting things on Wikipedia directly without reference as you could put whatever you want on there, then reference to it as if it was legitimately published. "What will happen with your contribution: Anyone can publish on Indymedia through the links to the forms under 'publish yourself!' to use. All contributions appear almost immediately on the website. The collective tries to read through most of those contributions. The collective can leave the contributions on the basis of the criteria, delete them or move them to another category." (Google translation of https://www.indymedia.nl/node/16) Graywalls ( talk) 02:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment thanks for the replies that are coherent, Graywalls you are doing yourself no favours talking about dogshit. I feel my point is being misread slightly since I am not disputing that indymedia is self-published. I am talking about how many social movement actors published manifestos, listings and so on at indymedia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This means that as other sources are lost / disappear / get paywalled, indymedia will become a useful source for wikipedia since it will be all we have as a record of projects and groups, and this is what makes it different to the given example of Breitbart and Infowars. That's why I brought up academics using it, but I should have realised that would have got us sidetracked into a primary sources discussion which was not my intention. I suppose I'm happy for indymedia to stay marked as generally unreliable and I can see an emerging consensus for that, as long as we have the caveat of WP:SELFSOURCE, referred to by "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable". This allays my fears of all indymedia links being wiped from wikipedia. Regarding my specific example, I only see an answer from Buidhe so far, although I note Graywalls has already deleted it referencing this discussion which seems odd, since I see no consensus for its deletion here. Mujinga ( talk) 10:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I can see an emerging consensus for that, as long as we have the caveat of WP:SELFSOURCE, referred to by "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable".
Before this goes into the archive, it should be clarified that there is no such consensus. What editors said above is that self-published sources can be used on the condition that they attribute authorship but the nature of Indymedia is that authorship is rarely attributed nevertheless authenticated. Indymedia is marked as unreliable in the above discussion particularly because it does not, as a publication, have an editorial process to confirm the details or authorship of its posts. As an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, we only report that which has been reliably stated in reliable, secondary sources. Primary sources are only used to fill out necessary, uncontroversial details that for some reason were excluded from the topic's general, reliable source coverage. But if we need to rely on a primary source to source, e.g., a manifesto, then editors should question why we're mentioning the manifesto at all, since it wasn't covered by reliable sources, especially if the manifesto cannot be attributed by a reputable source to the individual/group. Academics are welcome to discern for themselves whether a primary source is authentic, but that task is outside of our purview. As a tertiary source, we rely on the judgment of such secondary sources and the editorial process that reviews their work in journals to decide how to cover a topic. We specifically avoid the whole authenticity discussion by relying on the reputation of the publisher to decide what to include in an encyclopedia article. The whole point of this discussion and WP:SELFSOURCE is that Indymedia should be cited only under the rarest conditions, not regularly, and not certainly not carte blanche. czar 17:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the reliability of GCatholic.org? There are a lot of citations to it, supporting articles of bishops and things. The Wikipedia page itself has recently been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCatholic.org. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Peleio Aquiles changed R-M269 by replacing its origin (Neolithic Expansion) with Pontic-Caspian steppe. This is mentioned nowhere in the article, he didn't source it or leave an edit summary although he later said he did it on his mobile and had planned to source it later. I went to his page and having seen that he'd already had an argument with User:Drmies about sourcing, so told him it was a bad idea to continue not to source. He exploded there, which doesn't matter, but then went to Talk:Haplogroup R-M269#Administrator insists on owning the entry despite not understanding the subject saying he wasn't going to edit the article again, claimed that Neolithic expansion wasn't sourced (it is, in the lead) but at least helpfully giving this article as a source. [14]. My problem is that looking at that source, it only mentions M269 twice - it does however say " all 7 Yamnaya males did belong to the M269 subclade". And of course the Yamnaya were a steppe tribe. But this is just a bit of data in the article and not in the results, which do however start with "Our results support a view of European pre-history punctuated by two major migrations: first, the arrival of the first farmers during the Early Neolithic from the Near East, and second, the arrival of Yamnaya pastoralists during the Late Neolithic from the steppe." But the article is not about R-M269. Oops, dinner's almost ready, this [15] might help. As he also went to Talk:Haplogroup R1b#Administrator insists on keeping outdated theses in an article on R-M269 to complain and an editor responded, I'll invite User:GenQuest to see if he has any insights. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Some contributors demand a blanket blacklisting of any online publication that includes "blog" in its title - even highly respected online publications like SCOTUSBLOG. While I agree we shouldn't use online publications written by non-notable people, or non-notable organizations - over 99 percent of blogs shouldn't be used. But I think we shouldn't be blinded by these so we exclude using the tiny fraction of things called blogs that do merit being considered reliable sources.
Scotusblog should be an open and shut case. Journalists from respected print publications assigned to report on the SCOTUS, the US Supreme Court, routinely cite SCOTUSBLOG, and defer to the opinions voiced there.
IMO Chuck Hill's blog falls into less than one percent fraction of things called blogs that should not be dismissed because it is called a blog.
Hill is a retired USCG officer who comments on maritime, naval and military matters. This Coast Guard page, full of related links, links to his blog. [19]
This September 2020 article from the US Naval Institute Proceedings cites his blog. [20]
The Center for International Maritime Security has published Hill. Their author's biography of him said [21]:
|
Does this respect shown his blog by RS mean we should consider it generally reliable? Geo Swan ( talk) 16:23, 23 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.
GNews.org is a site run by Guo Wengui. His Wiki article descibes him as a corrupt figure who is pals with Steve Bannon. His site has been used to spread COVID-19 disinformation (see Guo Wengui#GNews. This morning, some IPs have tried to add a BLP smear at Talk:Joe Biden and Talk:Hunter Biden (also at WP:RFPP now that the talk pages have been semiprotected) using gnews.org links. This site was briefly discussed here but no action was taken. I would like to see the source formally deprecated so that these links cannot be added, including to talk pages. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
We apologize if this picture has caused you any serious discomfort! But it is for the sake of justice that we, the New Federal State of China, have made this picture public. Because the friends of the communist are our enemies.
We will not allow anyone to steal from the Chinese people!
We will not allow anyone to enslave the Chinese people!
We will not allow anyone to abuse our children!This picture shows only the tip of the iceberg of what is important in the Chinese Communist Party’s Blue-Gold-Yellow (BGY) program. They take advantage of all those Western politicians, celebrities, and their families who are greedy for Chinese wealth, and threaten them by getting hold of and recording their sex and drug videos, forcing them to sell out their countries and people, and even their own national security in order to cooperate with the Chinese Communist Party’s world domination.
Citing just about anything on GNews would constitute a violation of the living persons policy. There is no valid use case for this website, and it should be blacklisted. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
China–United States trade war ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There's been an ongoing dispute about an editor excluding general reader RSs and replacing them with only some non-U.S. sources and economics treatises. A discussion today about this can be read here. The following sources are included now in a replacement section:
- Guo, Meixin; Lu, Lin; Sheng, Liugang; Yu, Miaojie (2018). "The Day After Tomorrow: Evaluating the Burden of Trump's Trade War". Asian Economic Papers. 17 (1): 101–120. doi:10.1162/asep_a_00592.
- "What is the US-China trade war?". South China Morning Post. April 13, 2020. Retrieved August 16, 2020.
- Chong, Terence Tai-leung; Li, Xiaoyang (2019). "Understanding the China–US trade war: causes, economic impact, and the worst-case scenario". Economic and Political Studies. 7 (2). doi:10.1080/20954816.2019.1595328.
- Bekkers, Eddy; Schroeter, Sofia (February 26, 2020). "An Economic Analysis of the US-China Trade Conflict". World Trade Organization. Retrieved October 23, 2020.
Among the reliable sources deleted are those below. And along with those cites, the entire former "Background" section was also deleted. Any opinions on this replacement of generally acceptable sources with only a few selected expert economists would be helpful. All of the cites above and below also had links to the articles. Thanks.
- Friedman, Thomas. "The U.S. and China Are Finally Having It Out", New York Times, May 1, 2018
- "Normalizing Trade Relations With China Was a Mistake". The Atlantic. June 8, 2018.
- "President Grants Permanent Trade Status to China". www.whitehouse.archives.gov. December 27, 2001.
- "Background Information on China's Accession to the World Trade Organization", Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Dec. 11, 2001
- "China's end of certainty", The Age, Victoria, Australia, Sept. 28, 2000
- Shi Guangsheng. "China and the WTO - marching towards a new era", The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, Australia) Sept. 13, 2000
- Clinton, Bill. "Full Text of Clinton's Speech on China Trade Bill", Federal News Service transcript, March 9, 2000
- Winn, Howard (November 7, 2005). "Accession has brought change to China and WTO". New York Times. Retrieved August 10, 2020.
- "President Donald J. Trump is Confronting China’s Unfair Trade Policies", White House, May 29, 2018
- "China will lower import tariffs on over 850 products from January 1, finance ministry says", CNBC, Dec. 22, 2019
- Blancher, Nicolas R.; Rumbaugh, Thomas (March 1, 2004). China: International Trade and WTO Accession. International Monetary Fund. ISBN 9781451845488.
- Halverson, Karen (May 1, 2004). "China's WTO Accession: Economic, Legal, and Political Implications". Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. 27 (2).
- "Task Force to Combat Trading Violations", Los Angeles Times, Sept. 16, 2003
- "US, China trade conflict was 20 years in the making", Washington Times, May 15, 2019
- "EU steps up WTO action against China’s forced technology transfers", European Commission, Dec. 20, 2018
- "Trump's tariffs: What they are and how they will work", Fox Business, July 9, 2018
Light show ( talk) 01:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply) 03:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)I couldn't find a definitive list of reliable sources for MMA on Wikipedia and I was wondering if https://www.tapology.com is considered one. It seems to have a vast database of fighters and stats seem very up to date they have the last weigh in info of almost fighter.
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.
Book of Trifkovic Srdjan, "The Krajina Chronicle: A History of Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies" [23]. According to WP:FTN comment (here [24]) there is an opinion that this book is not RS (if I understood correctly), so I'm interested in what you think about that source. According to editor @ Fiveby: "Trifkovic is executive director of the foundation which published his work". Mikola22 ( talk) 11:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Fantastic website with lots of great in-depth info about films but...is it reliable? It has an about and press section, seems pretty legit but I need to know before I use it in an FA. Thanks Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This appears to be squatting on a site formerly belonging to New Sarawak Tribune which went out of publication circa 2006. I suspect it is a Wordpress blog, based on the site icon. They seem to reprint news wire items but add some local content which may be promoted or paid. Second opinions are sought. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I found few sources cited in Hindi to some of the India Related Articles, I want to Know that |This from Rajasthan Patrika is considered as reliable or not? Dtt1 Talk 18:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the reliability of the Byline Times? This article could be of relevance in the Great Barrington Declaration article. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
run by a small, dedicated team of journalists providing a platform for freelance reporters and writers. Hardeep Matharu and founder Peter Jukes the editors, both contributors to the site and other publications. No real evidence of oversight or fact checking, and the division of stories into "Fact" and "Reportage" is not explained. Based on the story in question and the opinion pieces in the "Reportage" section, articles there are more the byline.com model of "we don't edit our journalists". fiveby( zero) 15:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
articles predominantly based on historical research, official reports, court documents and open source intelligencewhile reportage is
immersive and current news, informed by frontline reporting and real-life accounts.From that I gather that the difference is that fact is based off documents while reportage is mainly informed by interviews. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"the two graphs showing the frequency of short positions are contested by the Financial Times Alphaville and Fullfact. Byline Times has approached two independent statistical and financial experts with our underlying data researched over many months to understand why others cannot reproduce our results. They cannot detect any upturn in short positions over the summer so we have removed that section and added below.". [7] Third, on 12th September 2019 before the removal of the section, Byline Times published an article claiming
"Critics of Byline Times’ article have been unable to replicate the data for the entire market, and it is seeking to understand why. It may be because Byline Times counted the number of position holders taking out positions, not the number of short positions. However, it is the donor cohort and their short positions which is of primary public interest.". [8] This claim though is not true as the removed section in the original article said
"Between January to May 2019, less than 10 short positions were being taken out by hedge funds per week. However, that all changed dramatically when Boris Johnson announced that he was running for the Conservative Party leadership on May 16. The number of short positions thereafter doubled, tripled and quadrupled and, by the time of his victory was announced, had risen to around 100 per week.". So to summarize:
we cannotand
this seems. But to address your concerns, if one were to decide that a paper should have to consult two financial experts before publishing story that so much as mentions financial instruments then okay the Byline Times and basically any other new source with less than a hundred journalists isn't covered. When the story was published Byline Times had no reason to think that it would have to consult financial experts, the statement was 1. not crucial to the story as a whole; 2. based off evidence from the Financial Conduct Authority (a reliable source); and 3. with regards to a fairly rudimentary financial instrument. I mean when a story focuses around a bank account you don't expect to have to consult financial experts on what a bank account is.
It may be because Byline Times counted the number of position holders taking out positionsdoesn't imply that this is what you said you did. And when it appears next to the original article it is clear that this is the Byline Times giving a guess at what went wrong not lying about what the article said. Ultimately the note was inaccurate.
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |last1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |last1=
(
help)
Semenyuk Svyatoslav Mikhailovich [30] is a Ukrainian author who has a unique concept - proving that Ukrainian ethnic lands stretch far to the west. He has written several books on this topic, but I have not found any scientific publications of him. From what I see in his works, it seems to me that this is pure WP:FRINGE. See also his interview (in Ukrainian): Таємна історія українців (погляд історика). Among many, many other things, he claims: "Meanwhile, our ancestors founded not only Prague, Moscow, Bratislava, Vilno and Krakow, but also the eastern part of the Hungarian capital, called Pest."
He also works as a director at a certain foundation "Інститут українських історико-етнічних земель при Благодійному фонді «Україна-Русь»". Obviously, this is some kind of fringe organization. Direct speech of the President of the mentioned foundation (my translation):
Rostislav Novozhenets, President of the Ukraine-Rus' Charitable Foundation, said that Ukraine should strive to regain all ethnic lands. He expressed this opinion in the town's meeting of Lviv.
"Speaking today about Unity, we mainly talked about the unity of East and West, but this is not entirely correct, because the creators of the Unification Act put the meaning in the word “unity” as the unification of all Ukrainian ethnic lands in one Ukrainian state," he said, recalling that in 1919 the territory of Ukraine was 60% larger than now.
"We lost Lemkivshchyna, Nadsyannia, Kholmshchyna, Podlasie, which was ceded to Poland, Brest, Gomel, which was ceded to Belarus, Starodub, Eastern Slobozhanshchyna, and finally, Kuban, which was united with Ukraine on 28 May 1918," he reminded. Transnistria, Maramureș, Southern Bukovina, which is in Romania today. Therefore, we do not have a unity today, but we must strive for it. "
— [31].
I am sure that these books cannot be considered a reliable source on Early Medieval history. Miki Filigranski can give his reasons why he uses this author's book when drawing his map.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 10:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment, this issue is related to this discussion. Semenyuk is a historian who graduated from the University of Lviv and worked as a professor in schools and universities. There's no issue with WP:FRINGE or WP:WEIGHT because his viewpoint on the White Croats is the same as other prevailing or mainstream views. His other private and semi-professional activities are no concern for the content used in the creation of the map. Isn't the first nor the last historian with some nationalistic, ideological, or methodological tendencies, and because of that we have NPOV and balancing principles for editing. -- Miki Filigranski ( talk) 21:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I would like to discuss the usage of articles from Mises Institute, a lot of which appear in right-libertarian articles, and sometimes in articles related to economics. I would like to propose that this source should only be used as a primary source about the Institute itself, and opinions of its members, but it's an unreliable source of information for anything else.
Mises Institute is a non-profit "think-tank" promoting right-wing libertarian economics. Most of its content are op-eds, but also some "educational" content and definitions.
Should Mises Instute articles be allowed for anything else apart for quoting opinions of its members/writers? BeŻet ( talk) 21:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
**Evidence please and (name) calling something autistic doesn't help either your argument or the argument your arguing for.
Flickotown (
talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
:::It's not a mischaracterization when that's what you actually did. When you say that something has reached the point of autism, it is literally the same thing as calling something autistic. Maybe you would have been able to do what you should have already done and produce evidence of how they (Mises) is unreliable instead of devoting that energy to playing semantics.
Flickotown (
talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
*Comment this isn't an RS issue, it's a WEIGHT issue. If you think it's unreliable then you have to explain why - specifically you have to give examples of things they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable; just saying Mises is biased (presumably because you don't share their politics outlook) isn't nearly good enough. There are other sources which are equally as biased as Mises and they aren't redlisted. (Cf. CATO, CEPR, MEMRI, on the WP:RSP noticeboard)
Flickotown (
talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
:::As I told OP so I will also tell you. If you think Mises is unreliable then you have to explain why. Specifically you have to give examples of things they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable; just griping about Mises and how there is no way in hell anybody should be using Mises (presumably because you don't share their politics outlook) isn't good enough.
Flickotown (
talk) 23:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::It's not a snowball situation and it is also an rfc (that's how it's being treated even if it doesn't adhere to the formal requirements). If you think Mises is unreliable then you have to explain why. Don't bother responding to me if you won't.
Flickotown (
talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::::When I asked you to explain why Mises is unreliable, I didn't mean coming up with a mumbo jumbo of policies. I meant giving specific examples of what they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable, nazis, neo-confederates, etc, etc. If Mises is as extreme as you say it is, then that should be easy to prove. Don't bother responding to me if you won't.
Flickotown (
talk) 00:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
:::That's real original. Mises is "fringe". That's coming from a person with a photo of Gramsci, a person whose views was all about the fringe, whose views were regarded as fringe and whose views are still regarded by many as fringe. The absurdity of your character assassinations of Mises is amazing. What you have to do is not hard to get: if you think Mises is extreme then you need to prove it. And if Mises is as extreme as you say it is, then that should be easy to do. Maybe would you have been able to do that already instead of devoting that energy to responding to every objection to your RFC as if your base-covering will somehow make it easier for the closer to rule for you.
Flickotown (
talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
**Designate as
No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply if I have to choose. This is in keeping with how other sources similar to Mises's profile has been treated.
Flickotown (
talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
References
*Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources means we should treat Mises Institute as reliable as a primary sorce for its own views. I came to this rcf by the grapevine this as a result of encountering one of the editor's who voted here on a separate wiki article. @
Horse Eye's Back: i am taken aback by your comments here. You said a lot of cool-headed things in the discussion page on the Maplewashing page and you also did the same for the "Mass removal of content on China-related articles" section to, so I am kind of struggling to see your opinion that this institute is not a reliable source for information. I had not heard of Mises before and am no an expert on economics, but from what I have read off theirwebsite, i strongly dispute against your argument that the institute should be banned from use on wikipedia. Using just one exmple here, i cannot se anything remotely beyond the pail about saying slave economies thwarted entrepreneurial innovation (
https://mises.org/wire/why-slave-economies-thwart-entrepreneurial-innovation)
Festerhauer (
talk) 22:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I've struck through the edits of two socks, ese Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton/Archive Doug Weller talk 14:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The Von Pip Musical Express is a long-running music blog that features news and reviews, as well as interviews with many notable bands. Several of the interviews are already used in many of our articles. The site and its founder has been featured in several mainstream sources, such as The Guardian and the BBC. According to the site itself, it "has been voted in the BT Digital Music awards top ten music blogs and nominated in the Record of the Day Journalism and PR music awards, being named as runner up in 2009. Andy was also a member of 'The BBC’s Sound Of 2010 taste-makers panel' and has had press accreditation for numerous gigs and festivals including Liverpool Sound City , The Great Escape And Glastonbury." I'm unfamiliar with the site and more used to working with more mainstream sources. I'm particularly interested in opinions on its use for:
It seems to me that using the site for news and other facts might be a problem owing to the lack of editorial oversight, and the founder might not be quite notable enough as a critic to feature his reviews, whereas we may have more leeway with the interviews. Thanks for any and all advice given. Steve T • C 12:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hindenburg Research / https://hindenburgresearch.com/
Used here:
Also see: [34]
Reliable? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
This source [35], which has been in the article for some time and I'm not challenging as an RS in principle, has been used for this change [36] of the sourced text. Does the text correctly represent the source? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Is Quartz a generally reliable source? Can it be used as an indicator of notability? My experience is that I haven't seen anything unreliable from them, or silly coverage, but just wanted to get some thoughts. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
777 uses of a wiki dedicated to Norwegian local history. Any help dealing with this mess greatly appreciated. FDW777 ( talk) 20:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
On the Talk page of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, some members raised concerns about the reliability of the NGO Genocide Watch. In response, sources were provided to highlight the reliability of this NGO. There were as well comments made about it being "minor" and hence not reliable, which to my reading is irrelevant as size of an entity should not have a bearing whether its claims are reliable or not. However, even the size question has been answered. Here is key part of the comment I made which for me adequately answers the concerns. Happy to hear more from the community (tagging @ Armatura:, @ Գարիկ Ավագյան:, @ Rosguill: please tag others as you see fit)
Summary: WP:NOTADEMOCRACY but nevertheless most of you think GW is as reliable as it could get. Again I reiterate, the intention of this forum is to determine whether GW is reliable or not, and nothing to do with the Nagorno Karabakh topic. However, a valued feedback is to paraphrase what they always claim without mentioning the stages. @ Armatura: do you want to do the edit? If anyone else has anything to add on the topic of GW's reliability or not, please do so
References
There's some disagreement about the reliability of this source over at WikiProject Albums, so I thought it would be useful to get a consensus on it over here. It is being used across quite a few album articles as a source of review aggregation. — Torchiest talk edits 00:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
^ That section of the FAQ refers to the "user score" found on every album page—the registered users rating an album. This has nothing to do with the "Critic score", which is calculated using professional ratings. I'm not gonna vote either way, but I thought I'd point this out. Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 02:39, 27 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 314 | Archive 315 | Archive 316 | Archive 317 | Archive 318 | → | Archive 320 |
There is an increasing trend to hold an RfC here to deprecate a source, which is then followed up by editors removing existing references to that source from articles. However, there are currently no notifications on articles or their talk pages that a source is being considered for deprecation (unlike templates, where {{ tfd}} appears in the articles affected). This is effectively a fait accompli - editors working on article content that aren't watching this page don't hear about the discussion until it's too late to participate in it.
I propose requiring that notifications linking to the RfC are added to the talk pages of affected articles so that article editors can participate in the RfCs before they are closed. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 18:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Many of the individuals who oppose the notification process are the same individuals who are highly active on this noticeboard. These individuals unfortunately have gained too much unchecked decision making power. The Wikipedia community is going to have to deal with this problematic concentration of power. Notification of the wider community of editors who will be affected by these endless RFCs on this board is one step in the right direction. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 10:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
An editor has attempted to add Rebel News to the Jessica Yaniv article. I consider Rebel News to be a highly unreliable web site, that's never usable for facts, and definitely not facts about a living person. It's fairly well known in Canada, and it's likely others would also try to use, so I feel it should be added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. As discussed on the Talk:Jessica Yaniv#Rebel News is not reliable, but is SPAM, they actually use articles like this about the subject of the article, to fundraise for a court case against them. The owner/operator of the Rebel News, Ezra Levant has repeatedly lost libel cases against himself (see article for sources). The site is really a commentary site, not a news web site.
At the moment, nobody seems to be arguing the site is reliable. The editor who added it, seems to be arguing that it's not blacklisted, and is therefore allowed. -- Rob ( talk) 07:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The Grayzone is a deprecated source; however, José Bustani has been recently interviewed there and made several noteworthy claims. Would it be acceptable to use the interview as a source of the claims, clearly attributing them to The Grayzone and Bustani? This looks like something allowed by WP:DEPREC. BeŻet ( talk) 13:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies so far. For instance if we were to say:
José Bustani claimed during an interview with
The Grayzone that he has been spied on while working at the
OPCW
- would that require a secondary source which talks about said interview, or do we feel that the primary source in this case is enough?
BeŻet (
talk) 17:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Is it okay if I ask: where can I find someone or something who or which can quickly check some 450 cites on Cleavage (breasts) to see which cites are unacceptable? It is alright if there is no one or nothing that can help. Aditya( talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I want to create an article about Sirfetch'd, but I'm not sure where to start. Can someone help me out? UB Blacephalon ( talk) 02:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
There is an issue across Wikipedia song articles of songs sung by males where many of them list the vocal register as being an octave above what it actually is. This is due to an error in MusicNotes transcriptions where they do not differentiate between the octave of a male vocal melody and a female vocal melody. Because of this there are a number of Wikipedia song articles that list male vocalists as singing in the vocal range of sopranos, when in fact the actual pitches that the males sing in each song is an octave below that. These articles incorrectly state the singer of the song as singing in that high range, when it is that MusicNotes incorrectly transcribes the vocal melody as being an octave higher than it is. I outline a number of examples of Wikipedia song articles with this issue in this previously had discussion, as well as further expand on the issue /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Music_Notes_Reliability_As_A_Source
The reliability of MusicNotes as a source has been brought up here before, however the issue in that discussion was of a different nature. They were discussing the general credibility of Music Notes but didn't actually have any issue with the content that it was providing and they all agreed the information offered from Music Notes was correct. The issue in that discussion was whether it was reliable enough to speak to the recorded version of the song but did not have any specific grievances with any of the information itself from Music Notes. What I'm pointing out is a bit of a different matter since it is evidence of demonstrably incorrect information that we are using rather than being correct information that comes from a source we aren't entirely confident in. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Musicnotes.com
It is likely quite evident that I am unfamiliar with the mechanisms of Wikipedia editing and thus do not feel that this is an issue I am fully-equipped to undertake. I merely have the knowledge necessary to bring forward this issue in hopes that it is able to be resolved, as I have seen a number of people confused as to why Wikipedia lists so many songs as incorrectly having such a high vocal range. My apologies if anything in my formatting or protocol is incorrect here, I was referred to take this issue here when my previous efforts of correcting this were not effective. Chukulem ( talk) 19:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
In University of the People, Weatherextremes has repeatedly inserted the following sentence: "According to UNESCO the University works with other universities and governments to advise, teach and partner with them on how to launch an online education system to meet the current need and demand in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. [1]"
It's obvious that the source is published on a UNESCO website but I cannot find any other information about its reliability. The information certainly reads as if it's written by the university and not an independent third-party. Except for a statement at the bottom of the page that says that "UNESCO does not endorse any product, service, brand or company," I cannot find any information that says how the information was written, whether it was fact-checked, how errors are corrected, or any other information that would allow us to know if it's reliable. ElKevbo ( talk) 18:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the information is published in the UNESCO websites makes it reliable information. We are talking about an highly reputable organization. Of course UNESCO is right to point out that they do not endorse anyone. The main question is how can you prove that this information was written by UoPeople when it originally appears in the UNESCO website? Weatherextremes ( talk) 00:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Well I beg to differ. The burden of proof lies with the editor who has doubts on the content of a credible source such as UNESCO. ElKevdo should be the one to provide sufficient evidence that the statement is actually written by UoPeople when it appears originally only in the UNESCO website. The source is credible until we see proof otherwise. Please include it in the article. Weatherextremes ( talk) 08:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
No, what is actually foolish is to assume that UNESCO is not a reliable source Weatherextremes ( talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Also what GPinkerton suggests seems a fair compromise and I could go with that.It actually makes it more neutral in terms of wording. Weatherextremes ( talk) 08:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply) 21:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Guy I have been a wiki editor for the past decade and I have consistently edited mostly around meteorology and climatology and occasionally on education. I have repeatedly said that I have been impressed by UoPeople and I have been researching this institution for the past 5 years. I do not see how this is an argument you can use on the reliability of the UNESCO source. To answer your question I believe a lot of people care! Especially in light of Covid-19.I am proposing to change the wording in the article according to what Chess has said. It will make it more neutral and given that it is from a reliable source it will improve overall the quality of the article Weatherextremes ( talk) 00:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Hello! I have a source called Cinema Cats (here is the home page [9]). It is a self described blog [10] and there is no evidence that the information that is posted on it is reviewed or checked for reliability. I don’t think this would be considered a reliable source for information about movies or cats, but I just thought I’d stop by and check! Thank you in advance for your comments. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently used in eleven articles. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 00:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
SPS by none expert, not an RS> Slatersteven ( talk) 14:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Before she started working in porn in 2007, Alexis Texas grew up in Texas. ... As if to confirm that she's attained a level of pornstardom reserved for only the super elite, Texas was named co-host of the 2015 AVN Awards.
Is Uproxx an acceptable source to use, to confirm that Alexis Texas co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards?
Thank you, Right cite ( talk) 16:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
AVN also recently announced that comedienne and actress Danielle Stewart would be joining AVN Awards co-hosts Alexis Texas and Tommy Pistol as the awards show's comedic co-host.
Can we make some assessment, for the perennial sources board, of The Scotsman, The Herald, The National, and the other Scotland-only papers? GPinkerton ( talk) 20:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi I think we need to have a proper discussion about using Indymedia as a source. I'll try to give a breakdown of the situation as I see it. The Independent Media Center (also known as Indymedia, IMC) was an early use of the internet by left-wing anti-globalisation activists in the late 1990s and early 2000s. There was a boom and bust, as corporate social media took on all the facets of the new phenomenon of open publishing, a newswire, a website accessed for free from anywhere etc etc Hundreds of indymedia websites sprang up for different local collectives and most have folded, although some continue eg indymedia NL and indymedia Ireland and many sites are archived. So when I am talking Indymedia, I am talking about many different, mostly city-based news networks, mainly from the 1990s and 2000s.
Indymedia is therefore is proudly self-published and do not worry I will not attempt to argue otherwise. However, I will argue that in specific circumstances, indymedia is a useful and reliable source. Not least because of the specific point made by WP:SOCIALMEDIA but also for other reasons. Wikipedia has changed a lot since the 2000s regarding referencing and verifiability and that is of course great. We need to be sure we are correct, especially regarding BLP issues. Yes if it appeared in indymedia, it probably is in other sources too if it was notable (and some things are, some things aren't), but many of these other sources are lost or paywalled. The 1990s and 2000s are a bit of a deadzone for social movement history since many websites have expired and gone without archives, before the advent of the wayback machine and other means of archiving stuff. So when writing about many of the marginal (and not so marginal) historical events, then I would argue the indymedia service can be useful with specific caveats.
Indymedia is currently listed on perennial sources as "generally unreliable" with the blurb: "The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source." I would dispute that and prefer to see a warning for "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" and a link to this discussion, or whatever else people decide. There have been previous discussions and I can link to them here (two are linked at perennial soources) already. I am struggling to see any sort of consensus formed there at all. 17, 23, 275. 23 and 275 are mentioned on perennial sources.
As a final point, indymedia articles are used judiciously in academic literature and we shouldn't forget that either. I find it strange to contemplate all use of indymedia on wikipedia being deleted when academics will use it with discretion. Here's a quickly compiled list of articles which reference indymedia from my recently read pile, just to illustrate my point. I'm not talking about pieces ABOUT indymedia, I'm talking about academics using indymedia as a source on social movement history.
If it helps to clarify, let's end with a specific example:
Unreliable to me this does not seem to be a reliable source. Consistency appears to be key here. If we allow this self published sources to be legitimated as a reliable source, then there is nothing stopping one from legitimating other self published sources as well. That does not seem to me to be a can of worms that we would want to open. Fortliberty ( talk) 23:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Unreliable It is essentially user generated contents. Using something there isn't a whole lot different from putting things on Wikipedia directly without reference as you could put whatever you want on there, then reference to it as if it was legitimately published. "What will happen with your contribution: Anyone can publish on Indymedia through the links to the forms under 'publish yourself!' to use. All contributions appear almost immediately on the website. The collective tries to read through most of those contributions. The collective can leave the contributions on the basis of the criteria, delete them or move them to another category." (Google translation of https://www.indymedia.nl/node/16) Graywalls ( talk) 02:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment thanks for the replies that are coherent, Graywalls you are doing yourself no favours talking about dogshit. I feel my point is being misread slightly since I am not disputing that indymedia is self-published. I am talking about how many social movement actors published manifestos, listings and so on at indymedia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This means that as other sources are lost / disappear / get paywalled, indymedia will become a useful source for wikipedia since it will be all we have as a record of projects and groups, and this is what makes it different to the given example of Breitbart and Infowars. That's why I brought up academics using it, but I should have realised that would have got us sidetracked into a primary sources discussion which was not my intention. I suppose I'm happy for indymedia to stay marked as generally unreliable and I can see an emerging consensus for that, as long as we have the caveat of WP:SELFSOURCE, referred to by "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable". This allays my fears of all indymedia links being wiped from wikipedia. Regarding my specific example, I only see an answer from Buidhe so far, although I note Graywalls has already deleted it referencing this discussion which seems odd, since I see no consensus for its deletion here. Mujinga ( talk) 10:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I can see an emerging consensus for that, as long as we have the caveat of WP:SELFSOURCE, referred to by "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable".
Before this goes into the archive, it should be clarified that there is no such consensus. What editors said above is that self-published sources can be used on the condition that they attribute authorship but the nature of Indymedia is that authorship is rarely attributed nevertheless authenticated. Indymedia is marked as unreliable in the above discussion particularly because it does not, as a publication, have an editorial process to confirm the details or authorship of its posts. As an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, we only report that which has been reliably stated in reliable, secondary sources. Primary sources are only used to fill out necessary, uncontroversial details that for some reason were excluded from the topic's general, reliable source coverage. But if we need to rely on a primary source to source, e.g., a manifesto, then editors should question why we're mentioning the manifesto at all, since it wasn't covered by reliable sources, especially if the manifesto cannot be attributed by a reputable source to the individual/group. Academics are welcome to discern for themselves whether a primary source is authentic, but that task is outside of our purview. As a tertiary source, we rely on the judgment of such secondary sources and the editorial process that reviews their work in journals to decide how to cover a topic. We specifically avoid the whole authenticity discussion by relying on the reputation of the publisher to decide what to include in an encyclopedia article. The whole point of this discussion and WP:SELFSOURCE is that Indymedia should be cited only under the rarest conditions, not regularly, and not certainly not carte blanche. czar 17:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the reliability of GCatholic.org? There are a lot of citations to it, supporting articles of bishops and things. The Wikipedia page itself has recently been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCatholic.org. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Peleio Aquiles changed R-M269 by replacing its origin (Neolithic Expansion) with Pontic-Caspian steppe. This is mentioned nowhere in the article, he didn't source it or leave an edit summary although he later said he did it on his mobile and had planned to source it later. I went to his page and having seen that he'd already had an argument with User:Drmies about sourcing, so told him it was a bad idea to continue not to source. He exploded there, which doesn't matter, but then went to Talk:Haplogroup R-M269#Administrator insists on owning the entry despite not understanding the subject saying he wasn't going to edit the article again, claimed that Neolithic expansion wasn't sourced (it is, in the lead) but at least helpfully giving this article as a source. [14]. My problem is that looking at that source, it only mentions M269 twice - it does however say " all 7 Yamnaya males did belong to the M269 subclade". And of course the Yamnaya were a steppe tribe. But this is just a bit of data in the article and not in the results, which do however start with "Our results support a view of European pre-history punctuated by two major migrations: first, the arrival of the first farmers during the Early Neolithic from the Near East, and second, the arrival of Yamnaya pastoralists during the Late Neolithic from the steppe." But the article is not about R-M269. Oops, dinner's almost ready, this [15] might help. As he also went to Talk:Haplogroup R1b#Administrator insists on keeping outdated theses in an article on R-M269 to complain and an editor responded, I'll invite User:GenQuest to see if he has any insights. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Some contributors demand a blanket blacklisting of any online publication that includes "blog" in its title - even highly respected online publications like SCOTUSBLOG. While I agree we shouldn't use online publications written by non-notable people, or non-notable organizations - over 99 percent of blogs shouldn't be used. But I think we shouldn't be blinded by these so we exclude using the tiny fraction of things called blogs that do merit being considered reliable sources.
Scotusblog should be an open and shut case. Journalists from respected print publications assigned to report on the SCOTUS, the US Supreme Court, routinely cite SCOTUSBLOG, and defer to the opinions voiced there.
IMO Chuck Hill's blog falls into less than one percent fraction of things called blogs that should not be dismissed because it is called a blog.
Hill is a retired USCG officer who comments on maritime, naval and military matters. This Coast Guard page, full of related links, links to his blog. [19]
This September 2020 article from the US Naval Institute Proceedings cites his blog. [20]
The Center for International Maritime Security has published Hill. Their author's biography of him said [21]:
|
Does this respect shown his blog by RS mean we should consider it generally reliable? Geo Swan ( talk) 16:23, 23 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.
GNews.org is a site run by Guo Wengui. His Wiki article descibes him as a corrupt figure who is pals with Steve Bannon. His site has been used to spread COVID-19 disinformation (see Guo Wengui#GNews. This morning, some IPs have tried to add a BLP smear at Talk:Joe Biden and Talk:Hunter Biden (also at WP:RFPP now that the talk pages have been semiprotected) using gnews.org links. This site was briefly discussed here but no action was taken. I would like to see the source formally deprecated so that these links cannot be added, including to talk pages. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
We apologize if this picture has caused you any serious discomfort! But it is for the sake of justice that we, the New Federal State of China, have made this picture public. Because the friends of the communist are our enemies.
We will not allow anyone to steal from the Chinese people!
We will not allow anyone to enslave the Chinese people!
We will not allow anyone to abuse our children!This picture shows only the tip of the iceberg of what is important in the Chinese Communist Party’s Blue-Gold-Yellow (BGY) program. They take advantage of all those Western politicians, celebrities, and their families who are greedy for Chinese wealth, and threaten them by getting hold of and recording their sex and drug videos, forcing them to sell out their countries and people, and even their own national security in order to cooperate with the Chinese Communist Party’s world domination.
Citing just about anything on GNews would constitute a violation of the living persons policy. There is no valid use case for this website, and it should be blacklisted. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
China–United States trade war ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There's been an ongoing dispute about an editor excluding general reader RSs and replacing them with only some non-U.S. sources and economics treatises. A discussion today about this can be read here. The following sources are included now in a replacement section:
- Guo, Meixin; Lu, Lin; Sheng, Liugang; Yu, Miaojie (2018). "The Day After Tomorrow: Evaluating the Burden of Trump's Trade War". Asian Economic Papers. 17 (1): 101–120. doi:10.1162/asep_a_00592.
- "What is the US-China trade war?". South China Morning Post. April 13, 2020. Retrieved August 16, 2020.
- Chong, Terence Tai-leung; Li, Xiaoyang (2019). "Understanding the China–US trade war: causes, economic impact, and the worst-case scenario". Economic and Political Studies. 7 (2). doi:10.1080/20954816.2019.1595328.
- Bekkers, Eddy; Schroeter, Sofia (February 26, 2020). "An Economic Analysis of the US-China Trade Conflict". World Trade Organization. Retrieved October 23, 2020.
Among the reliable sources deleted are those below. And along with those cites, the entire former "Background" section was also deleted. Any opinions on this replacement of generally acceptable sources with only a few selected expert economists would be helpful. All of the cites above and below also had links to the articles. Thanks.
- Friedman, Thomas. "The U.S. and China Are Finally Having It Out", New York Times, May 1, 2018
- "Normalizing Trade Relations With China Was a Mistake". The Atlantic. June 8, 2018.
- "President Grants Permanent Trade Status to China". www.whitehouse.archives.gov. December 27, 2001.
- "Background Information on China's Accession to the World Trade Organization", Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Dec. 11, 2001
- "China's end of certainty", The Age, Victoria, Australia, Sept. 28, 2000
- Shi Guangsheng. "China and the WTO - marching towards a new era", The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, Australia) Sept. 13, 2000
- Clinton, Bill. "Full Text of Clinton's Speech on China Trade Bill", Federal News Service transcript, March 9, 2000
- Winn, Howard (November 7, 2005). "Accession has brought change to China and WTO". New York Times. Retrieved August 10, 2020.
- "President Donald J. Trump is Confronting China’s Unfair Trade Policies", White House, May 29, 2018
- "China will lower import tariffs on over 850 products from January 1, finance ministry says", CNBC, Dec. 22, 2019
- Blancher, Nicolas R.; Rumbaugh, Thomas (March 1, 2004). China: International Trade and WTO Accession. International Monetary Fund. ISBN 9781451845488.
- Halverson, Karen (May 1, 2004). "China's WTO Accession: Economic, Legal, and Political Implications". Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. 27 (2).
- "Task Force to Combat Trading Violations", Los Angeles Times, Sept. 16, 2003
- "US, China trade conflict was 20 years in the making", Washington Times, May 15, 2019
- "EU steps up WTO action against China’s forced technology transfers", European Commission, Dec. 20, 2018
- "Trump's tariffs: What they are and how they will work", Fox Business, July 9, 2018
Light show ( talk) 01:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply) 03:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)I couldn't find a definitive list of reliable sources for MMA on Wikipedia and I was wondering if https://www.tapology.com is considered one. It seems to have a vast database of fighters and stats seem very up to date they have the last weigh in info of almost fighter.
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.
Book of Trifkovic Srdjan, "The Krajina Chronicle: A History of Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies" [23]. According to WP:FTN comment (here [24]) there is an opinion that this book is not RS (if I understood correctly), so I'm interested in what you think about that source. According to editor @ Fiveby: "Trifkovic is executive director of the foundation which published his work". Mikola22 ( talk) 11:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Fantastic website with lots of great in-depth info about films but...is it reliable? It has an about and press section, seems pretty legit but I need to know before I use it in an FA. Thanks Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This appears to be squatting on a site formerly belonging to New Sarawak Tribune which went out of publication circa 2006. I suspect it is a Wordpress blog, based on the site icon. They seem to reprint news wire items but add some local content which may be promoted or paid. Second opinions are sought. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I found few sources cited in Hindi to some of the India Related Articles, I want to Know that |This from Rajasthan Patrika is considered as reliable or not? Dtt1 Talk 18:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the reliability of the Byline Times? This article could be of relevance in the Great Barrington Declaration article. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
run by a small, dedicated team of journalists providing a platform for freelance reporters and writers. Hardeep Matharu and founder Peter Jukes the editors, both contributors to the site and other publications. No real evidence of oversight or fact checking, and the division of stories into "Fact" and "Reportage" is not explained. Based on the story in question and the opinion pieces in the "Reportage" section, articles there are more the byline.com model of "we don't edit our journalists". fiveby( zero) 15:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
articles predominantly based on historical research, official reports, court documents and open source intelligencewhile reportage is
immersive and current news, informed by frontline reporting and real-life accounts.From that I gather that the difference is that fact is based off documents while reportage is mainly informed by interviews. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"the two graphs showing the frequency of short positions are contested by the Financial Times Alphaville and Fullfact. Byline Times has approached two independent statistical and financial experts with our underlying data researched over many months to understand why others cannot reproduce our results. They cannot detect any upturn in short positions over the summer so we have removed that section and added below.". [7] Third, on 12th September 2019 before the removal of the section, Byline Times published an article claiming
"Critics of Byline Times’ article have been unable to replicate the data for the entire market, and it is seeking to understand why. It may be because Byline Times counted the number of position holders taking out positions, not the number of short positions. However, it is the donor cohort and their short positions which is of primary public interest.". [8] This claim though is not true as the removed section in the original article said
"Between January to May 2019, less than 10 short positions were being taken out by hedge funds per week. However, that all changed dramatically when Boris Johnson announced that he was running for the Conservative Party leadership on May 16. The number of short positions thereafter doubled, tripled and quadrupled and, by the time of his victory was announced, had risen to around 100 per week.". So to summarize:
we cannotand
this seems. But to address your concerns, if one were to decide that a paper should have to consult two financial experts before publishing story that so much as mentions financial instruments then okay the Byline Times and basically any other new source with less than a hundred journalists isn't covered. When the story was published Byline Times had no reason to think that it would have to consult financial experts, the statement was 1. not crucial to the story as a whole; 2. based off evidence from the Financial Conduct Authority (a reliable source); and 3. with regards to a fairly rudimentary financial instrument. I mean when a story focuses around a bank account you don't expect to have to consult financial experts on what a bank account is.
It may be because Byline Times counted the number of position holders taking out positionsdoesn't imply that this is what you said you did. And when it appears next to the original article it is clear that this is the Byline Times giving a guess at what went wrong not lying about what the article said. Ultimately the note was inaccurate.
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |last1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |last1=
(
help)
Semenyuk Svyatoslav Mikhailovich [30] is a Ukrainian author who has a unique concept - proving that Ukrainian ethnic lands stretch far to the west. He has written several books on this topic, but I have not found any scientific publications of him. From what I see in his works, it seems to me that this is pure WP:FRINGE. See also his interview (in Ukrainian): Таємна історія українців (погляд історика). Among many, many other things, he claims: "Meanwhile, our ancestors founded not only Prague, Moscow, Bratislava, Vilno and Krakow, but also the eastern part of the Hungarian capital, called Pest."
He also works as a director at a certain foundation "Інститут українських історико-етнічних земель при Благодійному фонді «Україна-Русь»". Obviously, this is some kind of fringe organization. Direct speech of the President of the mentioned foundation (my translation):
Rostislav Novozhenets, President of the Ukraine-Rus' Charitable Foundation, said that Ukraine should strive to regain all ethnic lands. He expressed this opinion in the town's meeting of Lviv.
"Speaking today about Unity, we mainly talked about the unity of East and West, but this is not entirely correct, because the creators of the Unification Act put the meaning in the word “unity” as the unification of all Ukrainian ethnic lands in one Ukrainian state," he said, recalling that in 1919 the territory of Ukraine was 60% larger than now.
"We lost Lemkivshchyna, Nadsyannia, Kholmshchyna, Podlasie, which was ceded to Poland, Brest, Gomel, which was ceded to Belarus, Starodub, Eastern Slobozhanshchyna, and finally, Kuban, which was united with Ukraine on 28 May 1918," he reminded. Transnistria, Maramureș, Southern Bukovina, which is in Romania today. Therefore, we do not have a unity today, but we must strive for it. "
— [31].
I am sure that these books cannot be considered a reliable source on Early Medieval history. Miki Filigranski can give his reasons why he uses this author's book when drawing his map.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 10:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment, this issue is related to this discussion. Semenyuk is a historian who graduated from the University of Lviv and worked as a professor in schools and universities. There's no issue with WP:FRINGE or WP:WEIGHT because his viewpoint on the White Croats is the same as other prevailing or mainstream views. His other private and semi-professional activities are no concern for the content used in the creation of the map. Isn't the first nor the last historian with some nationalistic, ideological, or methodological tendencies, and because of that we have NPOV and balancing principles for editing. -- Miki Filigranski ( talk) 21:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I would like to discuss the usage of articles from Mises Institute, a lot of which appear in right-libertarian articles, and sometimes in articles related to economics. I would like to propose that this source should only be used as a primary source about the Institute itself, and opinions of its members, but it's an unreliable source of information for anything else.
Mises Institute is a non-profit "think-tank" promoting right-wing libertarian economics. Most of its content are op-eds, but also some "educational" content and definitions.
Should Mises Instute articles be allowed for anything else apart for quoting opinions of its members/writers? BeŻet ( talk) 21:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
**Evidence please and (name) calling something autistic doesn't help either your argument or the argument your arguing for.
Flickotown (
talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
:::It's not a mischaracterization when that's what you actually did. When you say that something has reached the point of autism, it is literally the same thing as calling something autistic. Maybe you would have been able to do what you should have already done and produce evidence of how they (Mises) is unreliable instead of devoting that energy to playing semantics.
Flickotown (
talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
*Comment this isn't an RS issue, it's a WEIGHT issue. If you think it's unreliable then you have to explain why - specifically you have to give examples of things they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable; just saying Mises is biased (presumably because you don't share their politics outlook) isn't nearly good enough. There are other sources which are equally as biased as Mises and they aren't redlisted. (Cf. CATO, CEPR, MEMRI, on the WP:RSP noticeboard)
Flickotown (
talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
:::As I told OP so I will also tell you. If you think Mises is unreliable then you have to explain why. Specifically you have to give examples of things they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable; just griping about Mises and how there is no way in hell anybody should be using Mises (presumably because you don't share their politics outlook) isn't good enough.
Flickotown (
talk) 23:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::It's not a snowball situation and it is also an rfc (that's how it's being treated even if it doesn't adhere to the formal requirements). If you think Mises is unreliable then you have to explain why. Don't bother responding to me if you won't.
Flickotown (
talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::::When I asked you to explain why Mises is unreliable, I didn't mean coming up with a mumbo jumbo of policies. I meant giving specific examples of what they've done/work they've produced that makes them unreliable, nazis, neo-confederates, etc, etc. If Mises is as extreme as you say it is, then that should be easy to prove. Don't bother responding to me if you won't.
Flickotown (
talk) 00:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
:::That's real original. Mises is "fringe". That's coming from a person with a photo of Gramsci, a person whose views was all about the fringe, whose views were regarded as fringe and whose views are still regarded by many as fringe. The absurdity of your character assassinations of Mises is amazing. What you have to do is not hard to get: if you think Mises is extreme then you need to prove it. And if Mises is as extreme as you say it is, then that should be easy to do. Maybe would you have been able to do that already instead of devoting that energy to responding to every objection to your RFC as if your base-covering will somehow make it easier for the closer to rule for you.
Flickotown (
talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
**Designate as
No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply if I have to choose. This is in keeping with how other sources similar to Mises's profile has been treated.
Flickotown (
talk) 22:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
References
*Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources means we should treat Mises Institute as reliable as a primary sorce for its own views. I came to this rcf by the grapevine this as a result of encountering one of the editor's who voted here on a separate wiki article. @
Horse Eye's Back: i am taken aback by your comments here. You said a lot of cool-headed things in the discussion page on the Maplewashing page and you also did the same for the "Mass removal of content on China-related articles" section to, so I am kind of struggling to see your opinion that this institute is not a reliable source for information. I had not heard of Mises before and am no an expert on economics, but from what I have read off theirwebsite, i strongly dispute against your argument that the institute should be banned from use on wikipedia. Using just one exmple here, i cannot se anything remotely beyond the pail about saying slave economies thwarted entrepreneurial innovation (
https://mises.org/wire/why-slave-economies-thwart-entrepreneurial-innovation)
Festerhauer (
talk) 22:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I've struck through the edits of two socks, ese Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton/Archive Doug Weller talk 14:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The Von Pip Musical Express is a long-running music blog that features news and reviews, as well as interviews with many notable bands. Several of the interviews are already used in many of our articles. The site and its founder has been featured in several mainstream sources, such as The Guardian and the BBC. According to the site itself, it "has been voted in the BT Digital Music awards top ten music blogs and nominated in the Record of the Day Journalism and PR music awards, being named as runner up in 2009. Andy was also a member of 'The BBC’s Sound Of 2010 taste-makers panel' and has had press accreditation for numerous gigs and festivals including Liverpool Sound City , The Great Escape And Glastonbury." I'm unfamiliar with the site and more used to working with more mainstream sources. I'm particularly interested in opinions on its use for:
It seems to me that using the site for news and other facts might be a problem owing to the lack of editorial oversight, and the founder might not be quite notable enough as a critic to feature his reviews, whereas we may have more leeway with the interviews. Thanks for any and all advice given. Steve T • C 12:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hindenburg Research / https://hindenburgresearch.com/
Used here:
Also see: [34]
Reliable? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
This source [35], which has been in the article for some time and I'm not challenging as an RS in principle, has been used for this change [36] of the sourced text. Does the text correctly represent the source? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Is Quartz a generally reliable source? Can it be used as an indicator of notability? My experience is that I haven't seen anything unreliable from them, or silly coverage, but just wanted to get some thoughts. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
777 uses of a wiki dedicated to Norwegian local history. Any help dealing with this mess greatly appreciated. FDW777 ( talk) 20:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
On the Talk page of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, some members raised concerns about the reliability of the NGO Genocide Watch. In response, sources were provided to highlight the reliability of this NGO. There were as well comments made about it being "minor" and hence not reliable, which to my reading is irrelevant as size of an entity should not have a bearing whether its claims are reliable or not. However, even the size question has been answered. Here is key part of the comment I made which for me adequately answers the concerns. Happy to hear more from the community (tagging @ Armatura:, @ Գարիկ Ավագյան:, @ Rosguill: please tag others as you see fit)
Summary: WP:NOTADEMOCRACY but nevertheless most of you think GW is as reliable as it could get. Again I reiterate, the intention of this forum is to determine whether GW is reliable or not, and nothing to do with the Nagorno Karabakh topic. However, a valued feedback is to paraphrase what they always claim without mentioning the stages. @ Armatura: do you want to do the edit? If anyone else has anything to add on the topic of GW's reliability or not, please do so
References
There's some disagreement about the reliability of this source over at WikiProject Albums, so I thought it would be useful to get a consensus on it over here. It is being used across quite a few album articles as a source of review aggregation. — Torchiest talk edits 00:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
^ That section of the FAQ refers to the "user score" found on every album page—the registered users rating an album. This has nothing to do with the "Critic score", which is calculated using professional ratings. I'm not gonna vote either way, but I thought I'd point this out. Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 02:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)