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 325 | ← | Archive 328 | Archive 329 | Archive 330 | Archive 331 | Archive 332 | → | Archive 335 |
I first came across this website at Blowpipe (missile), where it is used as one of the principal sources. This uses this article written by the anonymous writer "blacktail". This seems to be raising a lot of red flags; anonymous author, unverifiable expertise. On the face of it, precisely the type of source we shouldn't be using.
Bringing it here for further discussion. W C M email 01:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would like input on whether these sources would help to warrant an article on the topic. Microskiffs are a relatively new class of small boats designed for extreme shallow water fishing, primarily in saltwater. This is a boat class that is accepted within the flats_fishing and saltwater fishing community for areas where microskiffs make sense due to extreme shallow water flats that anglers need to pass through (eg: Florida, Texas, South Carolina). I'd like to create an article on it, but there is no mainstream media attention to this topic - it exists in the fishing world which does not have a WP:RS huge presence online. Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] DrGvago ( talk) 22:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Comment The topic certainly appears to be notable to me. A Google search shows it coming up in large numbers, and if people are becoming interested in a topic like this, then it makes sense for us to begin developing an article on it. I see no problem with using magazines as reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability, as they seem to demonstrate that the subject is indeed notable. I'd say, go for it! A loose necktie ( talk) 05:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Palestinian enclaves as to whether or not these sources are a. reliable and b. support that the term "bantustan" is a widely used name to describe the "enclaves". The sources are as follows:
each segment of the "state" would be further subdivided into enclaves ("Bantustans", as they have been widely called) by the Israeli settlements, highways and military positions.
Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans"
This checkpoint system enabled Israel to severely curtail Palestinians' freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, particularly during the second intifida. Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves, which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa
what are popularly described as "Bantustans", those Palestinian villages fragmented, encircled and isolated from the West Bank by the wall and its checkpoints
An editor has said that these sources do not pass the smell test and that the authors are partisans and the sources do not support that the term bantustan is widely used by anybody besides critics of Israel. In support of that argument, the editor has brought this NYT article which says But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” to support the contention that this is a term only used by critics of Israel. Are the three sources above reliable, and do they support the statement that the term bantustan is widely used without the qualification by critics of Israel? nableezy - 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
To respond to Jayron32's point that any source using the term "Palestinian bantustans" must be critical of Israel and therefore is only of limited value. This is not necessarily true. The applicable policy here is WP:POVNAME. Yes, the term "bantustans" implies a criticism because it suggests a model of racial/ethnic segregation. However, POV names are accepted where objective sources consistently use the phrasing. It is true that there is a slightly higher bar on Wikipedia for loaded phrases, per the policy I just cited. But that is for a good reason. It is so that Wikipedia articles avoid wading into debates and instead default to describing them. The sources presented are not mainstream or objective, and academic not a synonym for either. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
These sources are usable, but the body of available sources is not enough to satisfy WP:POVNAME for "Palestinian bantustans," and there is already a consensus at Talk:Palestinian enclaves to that effect. No one has objected to citing these sources in the article, there is a disagreement over how to properly use them. Trying to phrase this RSN as whether these sources support the specific wording Nableezy has proposed comes off as WP:FORUMSHOPPING and what the article talk page, not RSN, is for. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I'd like to ask you about reliability of the following source: www.slounik.org/rbSauka. That's an unfinished draft of the author's dictionary by Źmicier Saŭka ( be-tarask:Зьміцер Саўка) placed on the online platform of Belarusian dictionaries Slounik.org. Unfortunately this Belarusian linguist passed away in 2016, so the dictionary was never finished (and properly published) by its creator including any kind of reviewing with checking obvious errors. There is also no information about creation time and author's original intentions to finish and to publish this draft as a dictionary. Anyway, a local administrator User:Ymblanter seriously believes [4] that this dictionary is a reliable source in the question whether the Belarusian word "Maskal" (related to Moskal) is a slur or not in Belarusian language. The dictionary draft says [5] that the word Russian can be translated to Belarusian as маскаль if it is Wiktionary:en:ругательство. There are no more Belarusian dictionaries with such statements. Therefore, I ask you to express your opinion about this source. -- Kazimier Lachnovič ( talk) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
this edit introduced a reference to Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism at Long COVID ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I think I should revert because the name sounds too much like Frontiers in … not to ring alarm bells. This isn't MEDRS right? GPinkerton ( talk) 01:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Do people believe that Comingsoon.net is an RS? I see it for example being used to quote a non-RS ... odd, and I'm not sure how we handle that if it is an RS - second question I guess. Thanks. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 ( talk) 22:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Tyndale House a reliable source? When searching past discussion regarding Tyndale when searching Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, all I found was: "Tyndale House (publisher) is an unrelated conservative US religious publisher, one of good reputation, but not remotely in the same academic league [as Tyndale House (Cambridge)]". Is a good reputation enough? Wanted to check with y'all. Their website is: https://www.tyndale.com
Thanks for the help everyone 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 ( talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
We have templates for "no sources", and for "some unreliable sources", but we don't seem to have a template for articles where all the sources are unreliable ones (which happens quite regularly on new page patrol). For example, Longest Words in Hebrew is only sourced to Quora and Preply (which is similar to Quora, although the responders have at least some education). Would it be useful to have a new template specifically for this kind of article? Fram ( talk) 10:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
...Or we could develop a template called "{{
Template:No reliable sources}}
", no?
A loose necktie (
talk) 05:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
What do you think about the reliability of MercoPress? [6] Firestar464 ( talk) 11:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Voice of America is not a reliable source?, according to user:CommanderWaterford. Thanks 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taung Tan ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
VOA is not like the BBC. Among US media, NPR and PBS are most similar to the BBC, as public broadcasters that are considered relatively independent from their governments. However, media such as Voice of America, and the various "Radio Free X" outlets are in a different category. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc. were established explicitly as propaganda outlets, and were openly run as such for decades. Voice of America's official goal was to present a positive image of the United States to the world, while Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (which were covertly controlled by the CIA until the early 1970s) were much more bluntly tasked with broadcasting negative stories about the Soviet Bloc over shortwave radio (so that people in the Soviet Bloc would be able to listen in). The history is detailed here. Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia have gone through various reorganizations over time, but they still are much more tied to the US government than NPR or PBS. Voice of America's editorial section explicitly states that it reflects the views of the US government. There is a supposed "firewall" between the news section and the US government. However, as a former long-time (35 years) Voice of America correspondent / foreign bureau chief Dan Robinson has explained in the Columbia Journalism Review,
The impression often given in media reports is that programming by VOA and other government-funded media is not influenced, directed, or shaped by foreign policy objectives of any administration. This is just absurd. Among other things, the revered firewall certainly didn't stop officials from standing up the Extremism Watch Desk.
During the Trump administration, there was a scandal over the extent to which Trump tried to overtly influence VOA, but as Dan Robinson explains, government influence in VOA reporting precedes the Trump administration (though he was somewhat blunter about it). The influence of the US government on Voice of America is fairly apparent in the types of topics it focuses on. For example, VOA prominently advertises its section, "VOA News on Iran" (the only other regional news section it advertises on its banner is "US News"). Whether or not VOA should be used as a source depends on the subject. In general, I would say that editors should be aware of its biases and connection to the US government. At times, in-line attribution may be appropriate. For contentious claims about subjects the US government has a strong interest in (particularly with regards to countries like Iran and Cuba), VOA should probably only be used with in-line attribution. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 13:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Government-paid journalists can no longer pretend they are just like their friends at CBS, NBC, AP, NPR, Reuters, and others, or expect to be seen as such by those working for non-government media. That’s simply living in delusion.
Hi, this section JP_Sears#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories is entirely from this source [1]. Is this even an RS for this BLP, or is it a blog post by a university employee? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Hi. I've seen this website used as references for BLPs on Pakistani cricketers, but wanted to find out more about its reliability. For example, this edit to Mohammad Hasnain's article adds a cite for his height. Now the article looks like an interview for the site, but at the foot of the page it has a "Discuss" link taking it to the website's forum, which copies the interview. So who is the article's author? A professional writer, or some anon. user on a web forum? Thoughts welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Lugnuts: Briefly coming out of retirement here, from my understanding the author of some of the interviews is Saj Sadiq who seems to have written for Sky Sports a few times. See here and here. He has also wrote for wisden see here so I would assume he is relatively reliable. Not sure about this Amir Hussain though who seems to be another editor on the website but his interviews seem to be reprinted quite a few times. Overall though I would count any interviews done by Saj Sadiq fine but I'll leave Amir Hussain up to you. Thanks and bye. CreativeNorth ( talk) 11:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The magazine's "50 Worst Songs Ever" list commonly cited here does not explain why the songs are bad, it just complains about them. The part of it about "We Built This City" is just the writer bashing "evil corporate rock", and the rule for the list that only allowed songs that were popular hits practically reflects the magazine's bias towards indie music and hatred of pop music. And judging by interviews, the writer of the list, Craig Marks, does not know the meaning of the song (he doesn't know who Guglielmo Marconi is) and takes misheard lyrics too seriously, something the average music critic wouldn't do.
Bringing here for discussion and potential removal of Blender from the reliable source list. I'd like users to check Blender archives for potential complaining, and sort out which reviews contain complaining and which reviews contain legitimate criticism. -- 2601:199:4181:E00:79CF:C6:51DE:1DB3 ( talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
[25] Could we revisit the reliability of Investopedia? They appear to have editorial oversight. Reading the previous discussions, I don't see much reason for doubt. Benjamin ( talk) 06:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Sources. I'm asking about two sources:
a lazy hit piece that actively misleads readers, giving them the false impression that Siskind is at the center of a stealth plot to infiltrate Silicon Valley and pollute it with noxious far-right ideas
There are multiple issues with that story. See the response by that blog’s author, Scott Alexander, as well as commentary from Yglesias and Fredrik deBoer.
Article. I'm wondering about using these sources in the article on Scott Alexander's now-defunct blog, Slate Star Codex.
Content. The article currently states:
The New York Times published an article about the blog in February 2021, two weeks after Alexander had publicly revealed his name.
This content cites this NYT piece. I'm suggesting that we add an additional sentence by appeal to the above two sources:
This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions.
Shinealittlelight ( talk) 22:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions. In theory the Reason piece could be used for attributed opinion, but I feel that it's WP:UNDUE in context (it's a severe digression given that currently the article doesn't even attempt to summarize the NYT piece - ie. why would we cite an opinion piece responding to a NYT article when our article does no more than acknowledge that the NYT article exists?) I mean, what is the point of the sentence at all - "a NYT article on Slate Star Codex exists, which Reason magazine took issue with?" That seems tangential at the moment. If we were going massively in-depth on the NYT article it might make sense to cover back-and-forth related to it, but we're not. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The website had a homely, almost slapdash design
It was nominally a blog
In a style that was erudite, funny, strange and astoundingly verbose
easy to name prominent adherentssuch as Vox co-founder Matt Yglesias, Scott Aaronson, Kenneth R. Pike, Steven Pinker, Fredrik deBoer, and Scott Alexander himself. All of this, I think, should settle that the perspective itself has DUE weight. And so, given that the perspective has been most elaborated by Reason, and Reason is generally regarded as RS but with a warning to make sure it's DUE, I feel like there's no good reason not to include this perspective sourced to WaPo and Reason. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This is long, but so is the detail of the discussion.
These two were the survivors of a farrago of blogs, tweets and unreliable sources that were posted in an attempt to impeach the NYT article - see the list at Talk:Slate_Star_Codex#The_New_York_Times_article. The editors in question appear to be of the opinion that a large pile of bad sources make a good source.
The WaPo article is a passing mention; SSC fans are attempting to use it to leverage in the opinions of the three linked blogs. Here is the complete text of the passing mention:
The New York Times also ran a long feature by Cade Metz about a blog called Slate Star Codex that was popular with some Silicon Valley types and has since moved to Substack. There are multiple issues with that story. See the response by that blog’s author, Scott Alexander, as well as commentary from Yglesias and Fredrik deBoer.
There is no meaningful RS opinion to abstract from this. As Grayfell pointed out, "that it "has issues and has been critiqued" is comically, absurdly loaded. Every article of interest has issues, and this one has been critiqued... on blogs and twitter. Gossip isn't encyclopedically significant on its own."
The Reason article is a media opinion piece. Reason is listed at WP:RSP as "generally reliable for news and facts." But even if this is treated as a "news and facts" article, rather than an opinion article, this particular article is sufficiently bad that it's difficult to argue that it's WP:DUE, as the RSP entry cautions for Reason's opinions - as its facts are trivially false.
Reason asserts that Nick Land is primarily known for writing about artificial intelligence. Here's the quote:
he best he can do is point out that SSC linked to the blog of Nick Land, a British philosopher "whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists." But before his neo-reactionary turn, Land was primarily known for writing about A.I., so this is rather thin evidence. If this was the only weird slip up in the article, it might have been forgiven.
The problem is that this is false. Per the article on him, Nick Land was a noted postmodern philosopher in the 1990s, but in this century is best known for naming and lending academic heft to the Dark Enlightenment, an outgrowth of neoreaction, has repeatedly advocated white nationalism, and literally invented something he called "hyper-racism" because the ordinary sort wasn't sufficient for him. Land's words on AI are mostly making fun of Eliezer Yudkowsky over Roko's basilisk. The NYT article is a reasonably accurate quick summary.
Reason's source on Land is a passing comment in a blog post by Scott Aaronson, a physicist, on the NYT article in question. Aaronson is not any sort of expert with regard to Land, and appears not to know much about him himself - the Reason writer seems to have picked this blog post because he broadly agreed with its opinions, but is now using it as a source for facts. This shows both sloppiness at facts and an inadequacy at sourcing facts on the Reason writer's part.
The Reason article claims that the NYT article is wrong about Land, but the Reason article is the one that is obviously, trivially, wrong about Land, and the NYT summary is both factually correct and a reasonable summary.
The NYT article suggests Scott Alexander is a fan of Charles Murray, and agrees with Murray on the (pseudoscientific) link between race and IQ. This is true, but Reason disagrees with the Alexander article that the NYT links:
This juxtaposition leaves readers with the impression that Siskind agrees with Murray on this point, but in fact, Siskind was merely agreeing with Murray that there ought to be some sort of universal basic income guarantee. It's extremely misleading to suggest that Siskind is aligned with Murray on the subject of race and IQ.
But, in the blog post the NYT article links, Siskind himself says:
The only public figure I can think of in the southeast quadrant with me is Charles Murray. Neither he nor I would dare reduce all class differences to heredity, and he in particular has some very sophisticated theories about class and culture
So Siskind only reduces some of them? He is certainly not broadly disagreeing with Murray in any manner whatsoever. And Siskind is himself a supporter of "human biodiversity", the current term for scientific racism.
The rest of the Reason article makes no strong factual claims - its weight rests on these two factual claims. Reason gets the factual claims completely and trivially wrong, and don't justify the author's opinion based on them. The only substance remaining of the Reason article is that the author doesn't like the NYT article.
This article is a good worked example of why Reason opinion pieces aren't considered RSes, and are unlikely to be of due weight. I appreciate that the SSC fans like it because they agree with it, but its facts are trivially wrong, and it's basing its opinion on the facts it got trivially wrong. Even if most Reason opinion articles were RSes of due weight, this example clearly is not. I submit that the factual sloppiness is pretty good reason not to consider this a significant opinion of due weight for an encyclopedia article - David Gerard ( talk) 00:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what this comment meansIt means that there isn't a robotic yes/no answer dispenser on sources - you have to actually consider them. Grayfell explained this to you at the article talk page as well: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, for a start. If there's good reason to doubt a particular source, that's a matter to go through. So yes, you have to answer the question if you're going to claim to understand how a Wikipedia source dispute works, and you've been on Wikipedia long enough that this is a reasonable expectation - David Gerard ( talk) 02:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
exceptional claims. The proposed content is that the NYT piece has been criticized for inaccuracy. This is not an exceptional claim, so WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not apply. As for WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, this is not a blank check to rely on your political opinions to claim that some commentary is inappropriate. Rather, it's a policy that backs up arguments like "this falls outside their area of expertise" or "in this case they have a conflict of interest" or whatever. But that sort of thing isn't happening here. Rather, they are providing commentary that is DUE per WaPo and the prominent people who have expressed similar commentary, and they are moreover commenting on political issues that are squarely within their wheelhouse. You guys just disagree with them. But that's not a reason to exclude their opinion. Unless of course you can provide some RS--not just your opinion--against some factual claim they've made. But nobody has done that. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 03:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Cybernetics seems to be more or less a superset of AI. Disagree.-- JBchrch ( talk) 03:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
So Siskind only reduces some of them? He is certainly not broadly disagreeing with Murray in any manner whatsoever.The guidelines for WP:PRIMARY instructs editors as follows:
do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions.Are you saying you think the WaPo and Reason pieces together are not RS for this very minimal content I'm proposing? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 16:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions. If you want to include criticism of what the NYT article says about Alexander's political positions, we cannot do so without saying what the NYT article says about Alexander's political positions. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positionsis making a claim of fact, with only the tiniest of qualifications separating the assertion that the Times was
inaccurate and misleadingfrom being made in straight-up Wiki Voice. Both the Reason and WaPo sources are opinion pieces, and the WaPo item gives this topic barely a passing mention, fobbing off the work of criticism. There have been days when I, too, found the Times doing a frustratingly shallow job, but the cure for shallowness isn't piling on more of it. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
“ | Alexander explained that he has a variety of reasons to prefer that his real name, which can be ascertained with minimal investigation, be left out of the paper of record. | ” |
“ | Alexander explained that he has a variety of reasons to prefer that his real name be left out of the paper of record. | ” |
This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positionsis begging the question - what are those purportedly-inaccurate statements? But it appears that there's consensus that it would be UNDUE to explore statements about Alexander's political positions in an article about his blog. If that's the case, then it's also UNDUE to explore criticisms of those statements. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I recently found an article whose best source comes from an article in this website (which seems to be part of the FanSided group). The website claims ( see their about page) to be a 'major' newsource, but this is doubtful. Is this outlet even reliable? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
.Atzmon has said that some family members were Holocaust survivors, and that, although "My great-great-grandfather on my father's side was buried on the Mount of Olives”, his wife’s parents suffered badly.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontel ( talk • contribs)
According to WP:RSP, History is listed as an unreliable source due to its promotion of conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific beliefs (most notably Ancient Aliens). However, the most recent discussion about the channel does not discuss its reliability during its earlier years (including its "Hitler Channel" era), although a discussion from 2009 seems to give mixed opinions. So this discussion is to clarify: was History more reliable in the past? For the purposes of this discussion, the cut-off year I'm giving for "past" is 2010 (the year of Ancient Aliens's premiere), although a year of 2009 (when Pawn Stars started) could also be considered. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 04:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The link you posted leads to a disambiguation page. Are you talking about History (American TV network) or one of its counterparts in other countries? Dimadick ( talk) 08:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Academic source 1: Kashkay, in Ethnologue - SIL International. 2013 (Web-Archiv).
Academic source 2: Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History, and Threats to Survival. ABC-Clio. 2020
Both sources are specialized in social sciences, languages and peoples, but were rejected by user Qahramani44. Is this rejection justified? I don't think so. I need a third authoritative and independent opinion. -- Zulkhadeer ( talk) 10:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Hijiri: Here is the original source of 2016 of James B. Minahan with the latest estimate as of 2015: [45]
What can we do with these kind of racist comments btw? [46] So, if you tell me I am tendentious, understand why I have to be. Because this mindset we are dealing with is deeply racist. — Zulkhadeer ( talk) 17:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Canterbury Tail: This was so predictable. No, it makes no sense with you guys. I'm quitting. I thought, this place was for serious talk. -- Zulkhadeer ( talk) 06:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC) @ Hijiri88: I could also have linked other edits, just look at his first contributions. But it's ok. I am not wished here, I understand. -- Zulkhadeer ( talk) 06:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
In a discussion on the Cusper generation page, WGSN is thought to be a "self-published" source. WGSN is a trend forecasting company and its parent company, Ascential, is a business-to-business media business specialising in exhibitions & festivals and information services. If not reliable as a primary source would it be reliable as a supplementary source for cusp generations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cusper#Recent_additions https://www.wgsn.com/insight/p/article/88103?lang=en Examining ( talk) 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I see that this source has yet to be deliberated. I’m working with Examining on the cusper page. We already have a reliable published source up that uses a cusper range of 1992-1998, and WGSN appears to use the same range for the Millennial/Gen Z cusp group. We were hoping that it could be used as a supplemental source to the main source.
Maybe to help clarify, it looks like they did a case study to research their 1992-1998 cusp group. Are marketing case studies reliable enough to use? Examining linked the case study above. From what I could find, case studies appear to be a valuable tool for marketing, but wasn’t sure how reliable Wikipedia considers them. https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/case-studies-marketing Centennial357 ( talk) 23:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Especially for "She was listed number three on the "50 Most Powerful 2017: Philanthropy & Community Voices" list in the Orlando Magazine July 2017 issue." [47] which is in the lead and might make the reader think that the list is a national one, not just an Orlando one which is what it is. The magazine is basically a lifestyle magazine for "an educated, urban-oriented audience which poses both the income and the inclination to indulge in a diverse range of pursuits." I doubt that it's a reliable source for anything. It's used 4 times.
I doubt that Precious Christian Devotionals [48] is an RS either.
The lead is a clear NPOV violation but that's another issue. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Are books through Printed Matter, Inc. generally usable for the purpose of establishing notability of subject discussed within their book? They're a publisher that accepts books by artists for submission and distribute the books that they like. https://www.printedmatter.org/services/submit-your-book Do their books pass criteria for "reliably published", especially for notability purposes? It doesn't seem like they're involved in content editing. Graywalls ( talk) 16:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
By the way, if the executive director of publishing organization whose purpose is "Welcome to Printed Matter, Inc., the world’s leading non-profit organization dedicated to the dissemination and appreciation of artists’ books." does his own book about something and publish it through his own organization rather than through a different publisher independent of him, that would be WP:SPS, right? Graywalls ( talk) 17:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Is Lucien Merlet's, Biographie de Jean de Montagu, grand maître de France (1350-1409) a reliable source for Jean de Montagu and his mother Biette de Cassinel?
The article
can be found in the peer-reviewed journal, "
Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes".--This particular journal has over 60 citations on Wikipedia.
This article has been cited in numerous academic articles and numerous academic books. Aside from age, are there any real concerns for this source? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, is
a reliable source for Biette Cassinel, possible mistress of Charles V, and her son Jean de Montagu? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Are things that are published by the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews-website; https://www.ifcj.org WP:RS for historical facts?
I came across this source on the Eli Cohen-article, as a source for "In January 1947, Eli enlisted in the Egyptian Army as an alternative to paying the prescribed sum that all young Jews were obliged to pay, but he was declared ineligible on grounds of questionable loyalty. Later that year, he left university and began studying at home after facing harassment by the Muslim Brotherhood".
https://www.ifcj.org-links are used on these pages; I'm fine with using it as a source on the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews-article, but what about the others? Huldra ( talk) 21:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Are letters to the editor published in otherwise reliable sources, reliable. Are they considered subject to normal editorial controls just because the editor has allowed their publication? Nigel Ish ( talk) 09:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Are letters to the editor published in otherwise reliable sources, reliable&
Would letters from authors of articles previously published in the source offering corrections further information to their original article be usable as a source?, I would say "no". I would, however, say that they would cast significant doubt, to the extent of being dispositive, on the reliability of the source for the aspects of that source that they are correcting or clarifying. Too often we treat publisher, publication or article as the granularity of reliability - it ought be the statement. - Ryk72 talk 10:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
How's LifeHacker nowadays? In 2020, there was a small RSN discussion with a 2-1 consensus that it was unreliable. Sounds like they were concerned about it being a blog, and a lack of editorial oversight. Today I tried to take a LifeHacker source out of an article and got reverted. Is it more reliable nowadays? Here's an example article: [51] Here's a link to their About page. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 14:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
What makes you think LifeHacker is not a WP:RS? Checking up on it, it has editorial oversight and uses professional writers: see https://lifehacker.com/about– Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Bellingcat became an RS in September 2019 and I believe this is an inconsistent application of Wikipedia source standards as compared to similar sources. Either Bellingcat should be downgraded or similar sites such as Buzzfeed should be upgraded to match for the following reasons:
The allegations contained in The Greyzone [ sic] report are false and a complete misrepresentation of our work.CowHouse ( talk) 04:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Bellingcat has been in operation for less than 10 years and during that time, has gone through quite an arc of changes in their reporting methodology ... Bellingcat did not dramatically restructure it's operations prior to this change in status to RS, in fact quite the opposite.CowHouse ( talk) 03:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no balancing mention of "the rise of far-left movements", see WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
"environmental degredation" and "the rise of far-right movements" are top investigative concerns. There is no balancing mention of "the rise of far-left movements" or extremism in generalis WP:FALSEBALANCE. Sources are expected to cover things accurately; a source that artificially weighed everything along a left-right axis in order to create the appearance of balance would in fact be a more biased source than one that simply covers the most important stories, since they'd be overtly using their own editorial position to bias coverage. If we allowed this sort of argument to cast a source as biased, editors could frame any source they please as biased simply by disagreeing with its conclusions. Thegreyzone is not a WP:RS and nothing they say has any weight. And, finally, the link to their editorial standards seems to work just fine. None of this changes the fundimentals identified in the previous RFC - they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and no reputable source seriously questions that. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm posting here in response to a discussion taking place at the AfD for the book series Blood of Ra. (Article itself is here.) There has been some question as to whether Kirkus Indie would be usable as a reliable source that can establish notability.
Now here is the main issue: does the fee make Kirkus Indie automatically unreliable? My concern is that it poses a conflict of interest since it's not strictly independent. Arguments for the usability of the site from the AfD typically center upon the disclaimer that not all reviews will be positive and that Kirkus is a notable review institution.
This doesn't seem to have had a recent-ish discussion, as the prior discussions were in December/January 2014/5 and May 2015. I personally am uncomfortable seeing a fee review service as reliable, but I think it's worth discussing Kirkus Indie in specific. They're not as bad as say, Reader's Favorite, for example. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 12:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree based on this that Kirkus indie doesn't indicate notability, the fact that the author has to pay for it and can decline the submission means that it's not independent. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (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 325 | ← | Archive 328 | Archive 329 | Archive 330 | Archive 331 | Archive 332 | → | Archive 335 |
I first came across this website at Blowpipe (missile), where it is used as one of the principal sources. This uses this article written by the anonymous writer "blacktail". This seems to be raising a lot of red flags; anonymous author, unverifiable expertise. On the face of it, precisely the type of source we shouldn't be using.
Bringing it here for further discussion. W C M email 01:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would like input on whether these sources would help to warrant an article on the topic. Microskiffs are a relatively new class of small boats designed for extreme shallow water fishing, primarily in saltwater. This is a boat class that is accepted within the flats_fishing and saltwater fishing community for areas where microskiffs make sense due to extreme shallow water flats that anglers need to pass through (eg: Florida, Texas, South Carolina). I'd like to create an article on it, but there is no mainstream media attention to this topic - it exists in the fishing world which does not have a WP:RS huge presence online. Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] DrGvago ( talk) 22:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Comment The topic certainly appears to be notable to me. A Google search shows it coming up in large numbers, and if people are becoming interested in a topic like this, then it makes sense for us to begin developing an article on it. I see no problem with using magazines as reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability, as they seem to demonstrate that the subject is indeed notable. I'd say, go for it! A loose necktie ( talk) 05:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Palestinian enclaves as to whether or not these sources are a. reliable and b. support that the term "bantustan" is a widely used name to describe the "enclaves". The sources are as follows:
each segment of the "state" would be further subdivided into enclaves ("Bantustans", as they have been widely called) by the Israeli settlements, highways and military positions.
Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans"
This checkpoint system enabled Israel to severely curtail Palestinians' freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, particularly during the second intifida. Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves, which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa
what are popularly described as "Bantustans", those Palestinian villages fragmented, encircled and isolated from the West Bank by the wall and its checkpoints
An editor has said that these sources do not pass the smell test and that the authors are partisans and the sources do not support that the term bantustan is widely used by anybody besides critics of Israel. In support of that argument, the editor has brought this NYT article which says But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” to support the contention that this is a term only used by critics of Israel. Are the three sources above reliable, and do they support the statement that the term bantustan is widely used without the qualification by critics of Israel? nableezy - 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
To respond to Jayron32's point that any source using the term "Palestinian bantustans" must be critical of Israel and therefore is only of limited value. This is not necessarily true. The applicable policy here is WP:POVNAME. Yes, the term "bantustans" implies a criticism because it suggests a model of racial/ethnic segregation. However, POV names are accepted where objective sources consistently use the phrasing. It is true that there is a slightly higher bar on Wikipedia for loaded phrases, per the policy I just cited. But that is for a good reason. It is so that Wikipedia articles avoid wading into debates and instead default to describing them. The sources presented are not mainstream or objective, and academic not a synonym for either. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
These sources are usable, but the body of available sources is not enough to satisfy WP:POVNAME for "Palestinian bantustans," and there is already a consensus at Talk:Palestinian enclaves to that effect. No one has objected to citing these sources in the article, there is a disagreement over how to properly use them. Trying to phrase this RSN as whether these sources support the specific wording Nableezy has proposed comes off as WP:FORUMSHOPPING and what the article talk page, not RSN, is for. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I'd like to ask you about reliability of the following source: www.slounik.org/rbSauka. That's an unfinished draft of the author's dictionary by Źmicier Saŭka ( be-tarask:Зьміцер Саўка) placed on the online platform of Belarusian dictionaries Slounik.org. Unfortunately this Belarusian linguist passed away in 2016, so the dictionary was never finished (and properly published) by its creator including any kind of reviewing with checking obvious errors. There is also no information about creation time and author's original intentions to finish and to publish this draft as a dictionary. Anyway, a local administrator User:Ymblanter seriously believes [4] that this dictionary is a reliable source in the question whether the Belarusian word "Maskal" (related to Moskal) is a slur or not in Belarusian language. The dictionary draft says [5] that the word Russian can be translated to Belarusian as маскаль if it is Wiktionary:en:ругательство. There are no more Belarusian dictionaries with such statements. Therefore, I ask you to express your opinion about this source. -- Kazimier Lachnovič ( talk) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
this edit introduced a reference to Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism at Long COVID ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I think I should revert because the name sounds too much like Frontiers in … not to ring alarm bells. This isn't MEDRS right? GPinkerton ( talk) 01:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Do people believe that Comingsoon.net is an RS? I see it for example being used to quote a non-RS ... odd, and I'm not sure how we handle that if it is an RS - second question I guess. Thanks. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 ( talk) 22:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Tyndale House a reliable source? When searching past discussion regarding Tyndale when searching Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, all I found was: "Tyndale House (publisher) is an unrelated conservative US religious publisher, one of good reputation, but not remotely in the same academic league [as Tyndale House (Cambridge)]". Is a good reputation enough? Wanted to check with y'all. Their website is: https://www.tyndale.com
Thanks for the help everyone 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 ( talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
We have templates for "no sources", and for "some unreliable sources", but we don't seem to have a template for articles where all the sources are unreliable ones (which happens quite regularly on new page patrol). For example, Longest Words in Hebrew is only sourced to Quora and Preply (which is similar to Quora, although the responders have at least some education). Would it be useful to have a new template specifically for this kind of article? Fram ( talk) 10:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
...Or we could develop a template called "{{
Template:No reliable sources}}
", no?
A loose necktie (
talk) 05:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
What do you think about the reliability of MercoPress? [6] Firestar464 ( talk) 11:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Voice of America is not a reliable source?, according to user:CommanderWaterford. Thanks 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taung Tan ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
VOA is not like the BBC. Among US media, NPR and PBS are most similar to the BBC, as public broadcasters that are considered relatively independent from their governments. However, media such as Voice of America, and the various "Radio Free X" outlets are in a different category. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc. were established explicitly as propaganda outlets, and were openly run as such for decades. Voice of America's official goal was to present a positive image of the United States to the world, while Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (which were covertly controlled by the CIA until the early 1970s) were much more bluntly tasked with broadcasting negative stories about the Soviet Bloc over shortwave radio (so that people in the Soviet Bloc would be able to listen in). The history is detailed here. Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia have gone through various reorganizations over time, but they still are much more tied to the US government than NPR or PBS. Voice of America's editorial section explicitly states that it reflects the views of the US government. There is a supposed "firewall" between the news section and the US government. However, as a former long-time (35 years) Voice of America correspondent / foreign bureau chief Dan Robinson has explained in the Columbia Journalism Review,
The impression often given in media reports is that programming by VOA and other government-funded media is not influenced, directed, or shaped by foreign policy objectives of any administration. This is just absurd. Among other things, the revered firewall certainly didn't stop officials from standing up the Extremism Watch Desk.
During the Trump administration, there was a scandal over the extent to which Trump tried to overtly influence VOA, but as Dan Robinson explains, government influence in VOA reporting precedes the Trump administration (though he was somewhat blunter about it). The influence of the US government on Voice of America is fairly apparent in the types of topics it focuses on. For example, VOA prominently advertises its section, "VOA News on Iran" (the only other regional news section it advertises on its banner is "US News"). Whether or not VOA should be used as a source depends on the subject. In general, I would say that editors should be aware of its biases and connection to the US government. At times, in-line attribution may be appropriate. For contentious claims about subjects the US government has a strong interest in (particularly with regards to countries like Iran and Cuba), VOA should probably only be used with in-line attribution. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 13:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Government-paid journalists can no longer pretend they are just like their friends at CBS, NBC, AP, NPR, Reuters, and others, or expect to be seen as such by those working for non-government media. That’s simply living in delusion.
Hi, this section JP_Sears#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories is entirely from this source [1]. Is this even an RS for this BLP, or is it a blog post by a university employee? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Hi. I've seen this website used as references for BLPs on Pakistani cricketers, but wanted to find out more about its reliability. For example, this edit to Mohammad Hasnain's article adds a cite for his height. Now the article looks like an interview for the site, but at the foot of the page it has a "Discuss" link taking it to the website's forum, which copies the interview. So who is the article's author? A professional writer, or some anon. user on a web forum? Thoughts welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Lugnuts: Briefly coming out of retirement here, from my understanding the author of some of the interviews is Saj Sadiq who seems to have written for Sky Sports a few times. See here and here. He has also wrote for wisden see here so I would assume he is relatively reliable. Not sure about this Amir Hussain though who seems to be another editor on the website but his interviews seem to be reprinted quite a few times. Overall though I would count any interviews done by Saj Sadiq fine but I'll leave Amir Hussain up to you. Thanks and bye. CreativeNorth ( talk) 11:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The magazine's "50 Worst Songs Ever" list commonly cited here does not explain why the songs are bad, it just complains about them. The part of it about "We Built This City" is just the writer bashing "evil corporate rock", and the rule for the list that only allowed songs that were popular hits practically reflects the magazine's bias towards indie music and hatred of pop music. And judging by interviews, the writer of the list, Craig Marks, does not know the meaning of the song (he doesn't know who Guglielmo Marconi is) and takes misheard lyrics too seriously, something the average music critic wouldn't do.
Bringing here for discussion and potential removal of Blender from the reliable source list. I'd like users to check Blender archives for potential complaining, and sort out which reviews contain complaining and which reviews contain legitimate criticism. -- 2601:199:4181:E00:79CF:C6:51DE:1DB3 ( talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
[25] Could we revisit the reliability of Investopedia? They appear to have editorial oversight. Reading the previous discussions, I don't see much reason for doubt. Benjamin ( talk) 06:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Sources. I'm asking about two sources:
a lazy hit piece that actively misleads readers, giving them the false impression that Siskind is at the center of a stealth plot to infiltrate Silicon Valley and pollute it with noxious far-right ideas
There are multiple issues with that story. See the response by that blog’s author, Scott Alexander, as well as commentary from Yglesias and Fredrik deBoer.
Article. I'm wondering about using these sources in the article on Scott Alexander's now-defunct blog, Slate Star Codex.
Content. The article currently states:
The New York Times published an article about the blog in February 2021, two weeks after Alexander had publicly revealed his name.
This content cites this NYT piece. I'm suggesting that we add an additional sentence by appeal to the above two sources:
This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions.
Shinealittlelight ( talk) 22:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions. In theory the Reason piece could be used for attributed opinion, but I feel that it's WP:UNDUE in context (it's a severe digression given that currently the article doesn't even attempt to summarize the NYT piece - ie. why would we cite an opinion piece responding to a NYT article when our article does no more than acknowledge that the NYT article exists?) I mean, what is the point of the sentence at all - "a NYT article on Slate Star Codex exists, which Reason magazine took issue with?" That seems tangential at the moment. If we were going massively in-depth on the NYT article it might make sense to cover back-and-forth related to it, but we're not. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The website had a homely, almost slapdash design
It was nominally a blog
In a style that was erudite, funny, strange and astoundingly verbose
easy to name prominent adherentssuch as Vox co-founder Matt Yglesias, Scott Aaronson, Kenneth R. Pike, Steven Pinker, Fredrik deBoer, and Scott Alexander himself. All of this, I think, should settle that the perspective itself has DUE weight. And so, given that the perspective has been most elaborated by Reason, and Reason is generally regarded as RS but with a warning to make sure it's DUE, I feel like there's no good reason not to include this perspective sourced to WaPo and Reason. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This is long, but so is the detail of the discussion.
These two were the survivors of a farrago of blogs, tweets and unreliable sources that were posted in an attempt to impeach the NYT article - see the list at Talk:Slate_Star_Codex#The_New_York_Times_article. The editors in question appear to be of the opinion that a large pile of bad sources make a good source.
The WaPo article is a passing mention; SSC fans are attempting to use it to leverage in the opinions of the three linked blogs. Here is the complete text of the passing mention:
The New York Times also ran a long feature by Cade Metz about a blog called Slate Star Codex that was popular with some Silicon Valley types and has since moved to Substack. There are multiple issues with that story. See the response by that blog’s author, Scott Alexander, as well as commentary from Yglesias and Fredrik deBoer.
There is no meaningful RS opinion to abstract from this. As Grayfell pointed out, "that it "has issues and has been critiqued" is comically, absurdly loaded. Every article of interest has issues, and this one has been critiqued... on blogs and twitter. Gossip isn't encyclopedically significant on its own."
The Reason article is a media opinion piece. Reason is listed at WP:RSP as "generally reliable for news and facts." But even if this is treated as a "news and facts" article, rather than an opinion article, this particular article is sufficiently bad that it's difficult to argue that it's WP:DUE, as the RSP entry cautions for Reason's opinions - as its facts are trivially false.
Reason asserts that Nick Land is primarily known for writing about artificial intelligence. Here's the quote:
he best he can do is point out that SSC linked to the blog of Nick Land, a British philosopher "whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists." But before his neo-reactionary turn, Land was primarily known for writing about A.I., so this is rather thin evidence. If this was the only weird slip up in the article, it might have been forgiven.
The problem is that this is false. Per the article on him, Nick Land was a noted postmodern philosopher in the 1990s, but in this century is best known for naming and lending academic heft to the Dark Enlightenment, an outgrowth of neoreaction, has repeatedly advocated white nationalism, and literally invented something he called "hyper-racism" because the ordinary sort wasn't sufficient for him. Land's words on AI are mostly making fun of Eliezer Yudkowsky over Roko's basilisk. The NYT article is a reasonably accurate quick summary.
Reason's source on Land is a passing comment in a blog post by Scott Aaronson, a physicist, on the NYT article in question. Aaronson is not any sort of expert with regard to Land, and appears not to know much about him himself - the Reason writer seems to have picked this blog post because he broadly agreed with its opinions, but is now using it as a source for facts. This shows both sloppiness at facts and an inadequacy at sourcing facts on the Reason writer's part.
The Reason article claims that the NYT article is wrong about Land, but the Reason article is the one that is obviously, trivially, wrong about Land, and the NYT summary is both factually correct and a reasonable summary.
The NYT article suggests Scott Alexander is a fan of Charles Murray, and agrees with Murray on the (pseudoscientific) link between race and IQ. This is true, but Reason disagrees with the Alexander article that the NYT links:
This juxtaposition leaves readers with the impression that Siskind agrees with Murray on this point, but in fact, Siskind was merely agreeing with Murray that there ought to be some sort of universal basic income guarantee. It's extremely misleading to suggest that Siskind is aligned with Murray on the subject of race and IQ.
But, in the blog post the NYT article links, Siskind himself says:
The only public figure I can think of in the southeast quadrant with me is Charles Murray. Neither he nor I would dare reduce all class differences to heredity, and he in particular has some very sophisticated theories about class and culture
So Siskind only reduces some of them? He is certainly not broadly disagreeing with Murray in any manner whatsoever. And Siskind is himself a supporter of "human biodiversity", the current term for scientific racism.
The rest of the Reason article makes no strong factual claims - its weight rests on these two factual claims. Reason gets the factual claims completely and trivially wrong, and don't justify the author's opinion based on them. The only substance remaining of the Reason article is that the author doesn't like the NYT article.
This article is a good worked example of why Reason opinion pieces aren't considered RSes, and are unlikely to be of due weight. I appreciate that the SSC fans like it because they agree with it, but its facts are trivially wrong, and it's basing its opinion on the facts it got trivially wrong. Even if most Reason opinion articles were RSes of due weight, this example clearly is not. I submit that the factual sloppiness is pretty good reason not to consider this a significant opinion of due weight for an encyclopedia article - David Gerard ( talk) 00:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what this comment meansIt means that there isn't a robotic yes/no answer dispenser on sources - you have to actually consider them. Grayfell explained this to you at the article talk page as well: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, for a start. If there's good reason to doubt a particular source, that's a matter to go through. So yes, you have to answer the question if you're going to claim to understand how a Wikipedia source dispute works, and you've been on Wikipedia long enough that this is a reasonable expectation - David Gerard ( talk) 02:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
exceptional claims. The proposed content is that the NYT piece has been criticized for inaccuracy. This is not an exceptional claim, so WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not apply. As for WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, this is not a blank check to rely on your political opinions to claim that some commentary is inappropriate. Rather, it's a policy that backs up arguments like "this falls outside their area of expertise" or "in this case they have a conflict of interest" or whatever. But that sort of thing isn't happening here. Rather, they are providing commentary that is DUE per WaPo and the prominent people who have expressed similar commentary, and they are moreover commenting on political issues that are squarely within their wheelhouse. You guys just disagree with them. But that's not a reason to exclude their opinion. Unless of course you can provide some RS--not just your opinion--against some factual claim they've made. But nobody has done that. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 03:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Cybernetics seems to be more or less a superset of AI. Disagree.-- JBchrch ( talk) 03:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
So Siskind only reduces some of them? He is certainly not broadly disagreeing with Murray in any manner whatsoever.The guidelines for WP:PRIMARY instructs editors as follows:
do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions.Are you saying you think the WaPo and Reason pieces together are not RS for this very minimal content I'm proposing? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 16:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positions. If you want to include criticism of what the NYT article says about Alexander's political positions, we cannot do so without saying what the NYT article says about Alexander's political positions. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positionsis making a claim of fact, with only the tiniest of qualifications separating the assertion that the Times was
inaccurate and misleadingfrom being made in straight-up Wiki Voice. Both the Reason and WaPo sources are opinion pieces, and the WaPo item gives this topic barely a passing mention, fobbing off the work of criticism. There have been days when I, too, found the Times doing a frustratingly shallow job, but the cure for shallowness isn't piling on more of it. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
“ | Alexander explained that he has a variety of reasons to prefer that his real name, which can be ascertained with minimal investigation, be left out of the paper of record. | ” |
“ | Alexander explained that he has a variety of reasons to prefer that his real name be left out of the paper of record. | ” |
This piece has been criticized for making inaccurate and misleading statements about Alexander's political positionsis begging the question - what are those purportedly-inaccurate statements? But it appears that there's consensus that it would be UNDUE to explore statements about Alexander's political positions in an article about his blog. If that's the case, then it's also UNDUE to explore criticisms of those statements. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I recently found an article whose best source comes from an article in this website (which seems to be part of the FanSided group). The website claims ( see their about page) to be a 'major' newsource, but this is doubtful. Is this outlet even reliable? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
.Atzmon has said that some family members were Holocaust survivors, and that, although "My great-great-grandfather on my father's side was buried on the Mount of Olives”, his wife’s parents suffered badly.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontel ( talk • contribs)
According to WP:RSP, History is listed as an unreliable source due to its promotion of conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific beliefs (most notably Ancient Aliens). However, the most recent discussion about the channel does not discuss its reliability during its earlier years (including its "Hitler Channel" era), although a discussion from 2009 seems to give mixed opinions. So this discussion is to clarify: was History more reliable in the past? For the purposes of this discussion, the cut-off year I'm giving for "past" is 2010 (the year of Ancient Aliens's premiere), although a year of 2009 (when Pawn Stars started) could also be considered. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 04:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The link you posted leads to a disambiguation page. Are you talking about History (American TV network) or one of its counterparts in other countries? Dimadick ( talk) 08:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Academic source 1: Kashkay, in Ethnologue - SIL International. 2013 (Web-Archiv).
Academic source 2: Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History, and Threats to Survival. ABC-Clio. 2020
Both sources are specialized in social sciences, languages and peoples, but were rejected by user Qahramani44. Is this rejection justified? I don't think so. I need a third authoritative and independent opinion. -- Zulkhadeer ( talk) 10:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Hijiri: Here is the original source of 2016 of James B. Minahan with the latest estimate as of 2015: [45]
What can we do with these kind of racist comments btw? [46] So, if you tell me I am tendentious, understand why I have to be. Because this mindset we are dealing with is deeply racist. — Zulkhadeer ( talk) 17:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Canterbury Tail: This was so predictable. No, it makes no sense with you guys. I'm quitting. I thought, this place was for serious talk. -- Zulkhadeer ( talk) 06:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC) @ Hijiri88: I could also have linked other edits, just look at his first contributions. But it's ok. I am not wished here, I understand. -- Zulkhadeer ( talk) 06:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
In a discussion on the Cusper generation page, WGSN is thought to be a "self-published" source. WGSN is a trend forecasting company and its parent company, Ascential, is a business-to-business media business specialising in exhibitions & festivals and information services. If not reliable as a primary source would it be reliable as a supplementary source for cusp generations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cusper#Recent_additions https://www.wgsn.com/insight/p/article/88103?lang=en Examining ( talk) 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I see that this source has yet to be deliberated. I’m working with Examining on the cusper page. We already have a reliable published source up that uses a cusper range of 1992-1998, and WGSN appears to use the same range for the Millennial/Gen Z cusp group. We were hoping that it could be used as a supplemental source to the main source.
Maybe to help clarify, it looks like they did a case study to research their 1992-1998 cusp group. Are marketing case studies reliable enough to use? Examining linked the case study above. From what I could find, case studies appear to be a valuable tool for marketing, but wasn’t sure how reliable Wikipedia considers them. https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/case-studies-marketing Centennial357 ( talk) 23:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Especially for "She was listed number three on the "50 Most Powerful 2017: Philanthropy & Community Voices" list in the Orlando Magazine July 2017 issue." [47] which is in the lead and might make the reader think that the list is a national one, not just an Orlando one which is what it is. The magazine is basically a lifestyle magazine for "an educated, urban-oriented audience which poses both the income and the inclination to indulge in a diverse range of pursuits." I doubt that it's a reliable source for anything. It's used 4 times.
I doubt that Precious Christian Devotionals [48] is an RS either.
The lead is a clear NPOV violation but that's another issue. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Are books through Printed Matter, Inc. generally usable for the purpose of establishing notability of subject discussed within their book? They're a publisher that accepts books by artists for submission and distribute the books that they like. https://www.printedmatter.org/services/submit-your-book Do their books pass criteria for "reliably published", especially for notability purposes? It doesn't seem like they're involved in content editing. Graywalls ( talk) 16:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
By the way, if the executive director of publishing organization whose purpose is "Welcome to Printed Matter, Inc., the world’s leading non-profit organization dedicated to the dissemination and appreciation of artists’ books." does his own book about something and publish it through his own organization rather than through a different publisher independent of him, that would be WP:SPS, right? Graywalls ( talk) 17:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Is Lucien Merlet's, Biographie de Jean de Montagu, grand maître de France (1350-1409) a reliable source for Jean de Montagu and his mother Biette de Cassinel?
The article
can be found in the peer-reviewed journal, "
Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes".--This particular journal has over 60 citations on Wikipedia.
This article has been cited in numerous academic articles and numerous academic books. Aside from age, are there any real concerns for this source? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, is
a reliable source for Biette Cassinel, possible mistress of Charles V, and her son Jean de Montagu? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Are things that are published by the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews-website; https://www.ifcj.org WP:RS for historical facts?
I came across this source on the Eli Cohen-article, as a source for "In January 1947, Eli enlisted in the Egyptian Army as an alternative to paying the prescribed sum that all young Jews were obliged to pay, but he was declared ineligible on grounds of questionable loyalty. Later that year, he left university and began studying at home after facing harassment by the Muslim Brotherhood".
https://www.ifcj.org-links are used on these pages; I'm fine with using it as a source on the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews-article, but what about the others? Huldra ( talk) 21:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Are letters to the editor published in otherwise reliable sources, reliable. Are they considered subject to normal editorial controls just because the editor has allowed their publication? Nigel Ish ( talk) 09:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Are letters to the editor published in otherwise reliable sources, reliable&
Would letters from authors of articles previously published in the source offering corrections further information to their original article be usable as a source?, I would say "no". I would, however, say that they would cast significant doubt, to the extent of being dispositive, on the reliability of the source for the aspects of that source that they are correcting or clarifying. Too often we treat publisher, publication or article as the granularity of reliability - it ought be the statement. - Ryk72 talk 10:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
How's LifeHacker nowadays? In 2020, there was a small RSN discussion with a 2-1 consensus that it was unreliable. Sounds like they were concerned about it being a blog, and a lack of editorial oversight. Today I tried to take a LifeHacker source out of an article and got reverted. Is it more reliable nowadays? Here's an example article: [51] Here's a link to their About page. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 14:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
What makes you think LifeHacker is not a WP:RS? Checking up on it, it has editorial oversight and uses professional writers: see https://lifehacker.com/about– Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Bellingcat became an RS in September 2019 and I believe this is an inconsistent application of Wikipedia source standards as compared to similar sources. Either Bellingcat should be downgraded or similar sites such as Buzzfeed should be upgraded to match for the following reasons:
The allegations contained in The Greyzone [ sic] report are false and a complete misrepresentation of our work.CowHouse ( talk) 04:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Bellingcat has been in operation for less than 10 years and during that time, has gone through quite an arc of changes in their reporting methodology ... Bellingcat did not dramatically restructure it's operations prior to this change in status to RS, in fact quite the opposite.CowHouse ( talk) 03:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no balancing mention of "the rise of far-left movements", see WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
"environmental degredation" and "the rise of far-right movements" are top investigative concerns. There is no balancing mention of "the rise of far-left movements" or extremism in generalis WP:FALSEBALANCE. Sources are expected to cover things accurately; a source that artificially weighed everything along a left-right axis in order to create the appearance of balance would in fact be a more biased source than one that simply covers the most important stories, since they'd be overtly using their own editorial position to bias coverage. If we allowed this sort of argument to cast a source as biased, editors could frame any source they please as biased simply by disagreeing with its conclusions. Thegreyzone is not a WP:RS and nothing they say has any weight. And, finally, the link to their editorial standards seems to work just fine. None of this changes the fundimentals identified in the previous RFC - they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and no reputable source seriously questions that. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm posting here in response to a discussion taking place at the AfD for the book series Blood of Ra. (Article itself is here.) There has been some question as to whether Kirkus Indie would be usable as a reliable source that can establish notability.
Now here is the main issue: does the fee make Kirkus Indie automatically unreliable? My concern is that it poses a conflict of interest since it's not strictly independent. Arguments for the usability of the site from the AfD typically center upon the disclaimer that not all reviews will be positive and that Kirkus is a notable review institution.
This doesn't seem to have had a recent-ish discussion, as the prior discussions were in December/January 2014/5 and May 2015. I personally am uncomfortable seeing a fee review service as reliable, but I think it's worth discussing Kirkus Indie in specific. They're not as bad as say, Reader's Favorite, for example. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 12:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree based on this that Kirkus indie doesn't indicate notability, the fact that the author has to pay for it and can decline the submission means that it's not independent. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)