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.

For those unfamiliar with the Falun Gong topic area, please read the Freedom House report [ here], for a comprehensive overview.

This discussion is concerning a dispute that took place here. In short, an editor inserted the opinions of James R. Lewis (professor at Wuhan University) and another pro-Chinese government scholar into the background section of article Persecution of Falun Gong, which seek to justify the Chinese government's persecution by saying that "Falun Gong practitioners are told to lie in their teachings". However, this is in direct conflict with findings by scholars such as professor David Ownby, who say that Falun Gong's core moral principles are truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance (included in the Freedom house report) and that Falun Gong's teachings over and over again come back to the notion of being good [1].

Additionally, Wuhan University is under the leadership of Chinese Communist Party committee secretaries [2], and that there is no academic freedom in China under the communist government. Therefore, one cannot rely on such sources. Further, My very best wishes expressed concern that the Wuhan U professor once showed support Aleph (Japanese cult), which makes him more unreliable.

I'm proposing that we delete the pro-Chinese government scholar's opinions cited in Persecution of Falun Gong due to the above reasons. Thomas Meng ( talk) 21:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Should be attributed as opinion and sourced to a WP:RS.

What matters here is three-fold:

A) should we put this in wiki-voice? definitely not.

B) Should we include it at all? Only if it can be sourced to a WP:RS which demonstrates Lewis' opinion is WP:DUE inclusion

C) How should we include it? Only as an attributed opinion, because of the disputed nature of these concepts.

Otherwise, the inclusion breaks WP:NPOV for sure.-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 22:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Can "an opinion ... be stated as a fact?" This is a loaded question, and a wrong one for this noticeboard. Yes, his views can be reliably sourced, and he reasonably qualify as an expert. Only that matters on the RSNB. Should it be included to the page? This is a very different question, and it should be decided on the article talk page. I would be very careful because of his coverage of Aum Shinrikyo, but perhaps his other work was better? I have no idea. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, Right, I think the remaining questions that need to be answered here (or more appropriately on the article talk page or NPOV noticeboard) are:

  • 1) "Is this person's opinion covered by many other independent sources which cover the persecution of the Falun Gong? Or does it constitute a WP:FRINGE perspective?"
  • 2) "Is this a perspective that is already well represented in the article? And thus adding his opinion on top is creating a POV COATRACK that is undue?"

  -- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 23:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that James R. Lewis is a mainstream scholar and not a fringe author. At the page Persecution of Falun Gong his book was used to source only one statement: Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi instructs his followers to deflect from fact when talking to outsiders, contradictory to his teachings about "Truthfulness". Yes, I guess something like that could be said about many cults or religious groups. But I am not an expert, sorry. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I think that could very easily be reworked to be in attribution and therefore more NPOV:

Religious studies scholar James R. Lewis has criticized Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi as providing contradictory teachings, on one hand instructing his followers to deflect from fact when talking to outsiders, and on the other emphasizing "Truthfulness".

Just my first pass as a total outsider to this topic.-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 01:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but Thomas Meng argued that views by James R. Lewis should not be at all included for the reasons he explained at talk page [3]. After loosing the argument on article talk page (I think), he appears here to re-argue this again. I would rather stay away of this subject. Happy editing. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with MVBW, the question is loaded. Professor Lewis is an expert in his field, his articles would normally be considered rs. This is really a matter of weight. You need to determine what the general view of Falon Gong is. David Ownby in fact gives some indication of this: "In my reading of what other people have said about Li Hongzhi [Founder of Falun Gong] they are very quick to single out strange remarks that he has made and to make fun of him." TFD ( talk) 01:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No, he may be an expert, it is still only his opinion, thus would need attribution. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to the presentation of academic/expert opinions we essentially have three scenarios:

1) If the source’s opinion is in line with a clear academic/expert consensus, we can phrase it as being fact (in WP’s voice) - no need for in-text attribution.

2) If the source’s opinion is in line with the views of a significant portion of academics/experts, we should phrase it as being an opinion - with in-text attribution.

3) If the source’s opinion is a fringe viewpoint, we should not mention it at all.

I will leave it to others to determine which scenario applies in this case. Blueboar ( talk) 11:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Blueboar, My very best wishes, Shibbolethink, Slatersteven, The Four Deuces Thank you all for opining here. Before I present some academic sources countering Lewis's view, I want to explain that my primary reason to reject Lewis's credibility was because of his alignment (and employment) with the Chinese Communist Party to brutally suppress a peaceful spiritual group, which has resulted in countless human rights atrocities including severe torture, extrajudicial killings, and state-sanctioned forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong believers. With this in mind, any attempt to justify the widely condemned persecution should be given particular scrunity (see this U.S. House resolution condemning the persecution).

This leads to my second point, which is that Lewis's research conflicts with that of Western scholars. Below are some academic sources elaborating on Falun Gong's teachings regarding truthfulness-compassion-tolerance as well as how they are persecuted by the CCP because of this:

• State and Society in Twenty-first Century China: Crisis, Contention, and Legitimation. (Routledge, 2005) [4]

"The challenge posed by popular religious beliefs and practices like those of Falun Gong cuts right to the heart of the Chinese state’s own logic of legitimation….[Falun Gong’s teachings] stand in the profoundest possible opposition to the present political order. They assail the ethical truths on which the entire political construct is meant to rest. However peacefully they practice their meditation exercises and however much they may regard “politics” as being beneath them, those swept up in the Falun Gong phenomenon never had a chance of remaining “apolitical” in China. With its slogan, “Zhen, Shan, Ren” (真, 善, 忍) – “Truth, Goodness, and Forbearance” – Falun Gong makes almost a perfect counter-hegemony. Truth! – but not the state’s narrow empiricist truths. Goodness! –but not the state’s dubious versions of benevolence. Forbearance! – but not the state’s vulgarly assertive “wealth and power” concept of what it means to attain transcendent glory. Precisely because Falun Gong does represent such an absolute challenge – a challenge to the very foundations of the state’s authority and legitimacy – government officials insist on complete extermination of the threat."

• ("Eric Voegelin’s Asian Political Thought," Lee Trepanier Ed. (Lexington Books 2020) [5]

At the heart of Falun Gong’s moral philosophy are the tenets Zhen, Shan, Ren (truth, compassion, and forbearance), which represent the fundamental nature of the universe—the ultimate manifestation of the Buddha Law, or the Dao. This force represents the divine ground of being: it is the source of order in the universe, animating and giving rise to all things. The cosmos itself, and all that is contained in it, are thought to embody this quality of Zhen Shan Ren. Whereas Voegelin’s gnostic believes that the order of being is corrupt and must be overthrown, Falun Gong holds that it is inherently just and benevolent. Not only that, but the purpose of human life, and the means of salvation, lies in assimilating oneself to this divine nature and relinquishing the self. In Falun Gong’s core text Zhuan Falun, Li writes “This characteristic, Zhen Shan Ren, is the criterion for measuring good and bad in the universe… No matter how the human moral standard changes, this characteristic of the universe remains unchanged, and it is the sole criterion that distinguishes good people from bad people.” In other words, Falun Gong maintains there is an immutable and unchanging truth that exists independent of human experience, society, and culture. The CCP rejects the notion of a moral law standing above mankind. Instead, truth can only be grasped through social practice. As Mao Zedong wrote in 1963, “Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? No. Are they innate in the mind? No. They come from social practice and from it alone. They come from three kinds of social practice: the struggle for production, the class struggle, and scientific experiment.” In this respect, Falun Gong’s teachings are at best irrelevant, if not downright subversive, insofar as they suggest that the party is subject to judgement by a higher authority.

• Penny, Benjamin. The Religion of Falun Gong. The University of Chicago Press. p.124 [6]

In addition, in Falun Gong cultivation adherence to the code of truth, compassion, and forbearance is not just regarded as the right and responsible course of action for practitioners;it is an essential part of the cultivation process. Lapsing from it will render any other efforts in cultivation worthless.

• Ownby, David. Falun Gong and the Future of China. Oxford University Press. p. 93. [7]

Falun Gong is profoundly moral. The very structure of the universe, according to Li Hongzhi, is made up of the moral qualities that cultivators are enjoined to practice in their own lives: truth, compassion, and forbearance. The goal of cultivation, and hence of life itself, is spiritual elevation, achieved through eliminating negative karma—the built-up sins of past and present lives—and accumulating virtue.

I think Lewis's research is WP:UNDUE because of the above two reasons. Look forward to your response. Thanks, Thomas Meng ( talk) 21:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, a classic propaganda drop. Of course, the reality is rather different than the above snippets would have one believe. 10:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• If the source’s opinion is in line with a clear academic/expert consensus, we can phrase it as being fact (in WP’s voice) - no need for in-text attribution. This strikes me as misleading. That situation essentially requires that a non-opinion source for it exists, which makes the opinion source redundant; nothing controversial or exceptional could be cited that way, and even for uncontroversial and unexceptional things it would be better to find the necessary non-opinion source eventually. Even if someone is the greatest scholar on a subject in the entire world, when they're posting on their blog it is still just their opinion on their blog, and should not be cited for facts. -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would agree that when an opinion is in line with academic/expert consensus, there will probably be a better (even MORE reliable) source that could (and even should) be cited. But that does not negate how we treat the opinion source. Blueboar ( talk) 12:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It is probably worth mentioning that Lewis started working at Wuhan University in 2019 and the publication in question was published in 2017, while he was at the University of Tromsø in Norway. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Beware: Read this first

Ignore the resident Falung Gong-aligned adherents, Lewis is clearly an expert who has written about the Falun Gong's attempts at controlling English Wikipedia's coverage of the group. For those of you fortunate enough to be unaware of the nasty situation over at Falun Gong, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, and any of English Wikipedia's article's for the many other ultra right-wing, extreme fringe groups associated with the Falun Gong new religious movement, there's long been a concerted efforted by some, shall we say, groups of very concerned resident watchers of those pages to promote Falun Gong talking points and outright scrub all of Wikipedia's coverage of anything they deem to be criticism. I've witnessed it myself dozens of times. Lewis even writes about this—stating outright that "Falun Gong followers or sympathizers de facto control Wikipedia's FLAG-pages" (p. 30)—in the following peer-reviewed source:

• Lewis, James R. 2018. "Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom". Cambridge University Press. ( Link)

Here's some fairly recent coverage from The New York Times on the recent activities of this particular new religious movement and its growing media empire. These Falun Gong-aligned resident editors regularly lobby to have anything that does not fall in line with Falun Gong's preferred public-facing image removed from these pages. They're relentless, have been doing it for a decade, and won't stop unless blocked. Lewis is an expert who this group of page-watchers regularly attempts to remove from these pages. And he's not alone—Falun Gong adherents regularly harass scholars, particularly any who may have any kind of connection to China. Don't fall for it. :bloodofox: ( talk) 07:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory (1980) by Hasan M. Balyuzi a reliable source on the history of Baha'u'llah?

Hasan M. Balyuzi served as a Hand of the Cause, which was one of the most elite positions in the Baha'i administration and seems to have major conflict of interest with the subject. While Balyuzi had studied diplomatic history in LSE, this book has been published by George Ronald, which is a religious/non-academic publisher. The book's title also does not suggest impartiality.

Denis MacEoin (1983) writes about this book:

The only full-length biographies of Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī to date are two emphatically hagiographical works: M. A. Fayḍī Ḥayāt-i Ḥaḍrat-i Bahāʾ Allāh (Tehran, 1969) and the more recent study by Balyuzi referred to above (Bahāʾuʾllāh).

Because this book was one of the earliest full biographies of Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī, it has been cited frequently by tertiary sources such as Iranica.

In his review of the book, Peter Smith (2009) writes:

Mr. Balyuzi makes no secret that his approach to Baha'i history is that of a committed Baha'i for whom the Bab and Baha'u'llah were manifestations of God.

However, he does not consider the book mere hagiography and believes it contains honest account of what actually has happened.

Would you please comment on reliability of this book in Wikipedia? Taha ( talk) 03:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment on the reliability of the work as I have no expertise in the subject. I would say, however, that the status of the author as a believer in Baha'i is irrelevant to reliability, and that sources which follow a particular historiographical perspective are entirely acceptable when cited in the context of conflicting views. There are many citations, for example, to Muslim scholars on relevant pages, and Roman Catholics on those relating to that denomination. Boynamedsue ( talk) 08:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Could RenewEconomy be considered as a reliable source for Australian energy related news — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueButterBeer ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In the "Languages used on the internet" article this site is used " https://www.internetworldstats.com", but after browsing it a bit I don't think it's reliable " https://www.internetworldstats.com/apps.htm" -- Greatder ( talk) 10:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a total novice at Wikipedia. I just thought I would add a historical reference to the article on the Cape Cod Canal and expand the resources for those interested in the topic. Instead, I got a nasty note from some anonymous reviewer who simply removed the piece of historical information that I added. He insists that I have a conflict of interest and demands I go somewhere else (he won't give a link) to tell somebody else about my big conflict. Yes, I wrote a book on the Cape Cod Canal. Yes, I listed it there. Can anyone help me?

Managing a conflict of interest

Information icon Hello, Tim11311. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Cape Cod Canal, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors; propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{ request edit}} template); disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI); avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam); do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, so how do we get a third party to decide if the book Images of America: Cape Cod Canal, can be listed on the Wikipedia page for the Cape Cod Canal? Yes, I wrote it. In the real world, that makes me a scholar, not some kind of fraud. Vet this one question and I promise to never edit another Wikipedia entry again.

First, you need to follow the instructions in the notice above to declare your conflict. Second, you can raise the issue on the Talk page of Cape Cod Canal and/or at WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Conflict of Interest? Hi! I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I have a Ph.D. and teach history at a university. I wrote a book about the Cape Cod Canal. Yesterday I wanted to quickly check a fact, and noticed that the entry was rather vague and doesn't even list my book, which is a standard reference by Arcadia Press. I didn't change anything in the text. I noticed that a paragraph was missing a lot of detail and was marked as needing a reference. So I added detail to the end of the paragraph, and referenced my book, which I also placed in for further reading. This morning I got a note that an editor had removed all of my content because he thought I had a conflict of interest.

Yes, I have a Ph.D. Yes I spent two years researching the topic and wrote a book published by the country's leading publisher of local history. I wrote the book for Historic New England, so I do not get any royalties from it. So if this is a conflict of interest, then I guess I'm wasting my time trying to help improve Wikipedia?Tim11311 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Citing one's own work often comes across as spammy. The proper venue would be to bring the source up on the article's talk page or at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and let users without a connexion to the book judge it on its merits. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Hello, Tim11311. Expert editors are very welcome at Wikipedia; but they often find it frustrating because our policy of verifiability means that a non-expert with a reliably published source generally trumps an expert without one. As for citing your own book: that is regarded as a conflict of interest; but that doesn't mean you cannot help at all: what you need to to is to make an edit request to add material cited to your book, so that an uninvolved editor will make the final editorial decision. Please have a look at expert editors. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC) @Tim11311: Adding your own book to "further reading" will often trigger a closer look at the conflict of interest issue. More generally, if a reference is cited, it is usually not also placed in the "further reading" section. That said, we really do need your help, so please do work through the {{ request edit}} mechanism whenever another editor raises a COI question. Unfortunately, the anonymous crowdsourced nature of our editorial review process leaves us with no other choice for maintaining a neutral point of view, even in a case like this where we clearly benefit from your expertise. -Arch dude (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tim11311: For academic research, it is not necessarily prohibited to cite one's own publication in an edit you make. The policy is at WP:SELFCITE. The main point is that the citation must be relevant and conform to Wikipedia's usual content policies (e.g. regarding neutral point of view). If in doubt, then discussion on the article's Talk Page is the best way forward, as others have stated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim11311 ( talk • contribs)

@ Tim11311: Frustrating indeed. I am writing a few minutes after you've posted it, so obviously I haven't gotten a hold of your book and looked through it or anything, but this whole thing seems like it has been a huge pain in the ass. I will take a look at the discussions in question and see what can be done. jp× g 15:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have looked at the addition in question. I have no idea what the hell happened here (and have re-added it); the citation was relevant, and moreover was attached to a full paragraph of original writing that was very obviously related to the topic. I assume that the interaction you had was borne of fatigue; I have done thousands of reverts on Special:RecentChanges and, while the vast majority of them have been absolute garbage edits or vandalism or spam, I have done a number things which I later realized were unwise (usually due to the reverted editor leaving me a pissed-off talk page message). @ Bbb23: is this simply an error, or must the good doctor go through an intermediary every time he wishes to add something about his field of study? If so, I volunteer to serve this role. jp× g 15:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't intend to take any more action in this.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

https://topinfoguide.com - reliable source, or spam? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am planning to expand the Moog synthesizer page with information about replicas or clones of the original modular synth.

Today, the format of the said synth is known as Moog Unit and it is an important information regarding replicas/clones as most cloned modules follow this format. However what we mean today by Moog Unit is a bit complicated, as there are differences compared to the original synth that were designed more than 50 years ago. For example, while the panel sizes of the modules are the same, you cannot put newly made modules produced by third party vendors into an old Moog synthesizer because of power supply differences. Technically speaking, the Moog Unit format didn't really exist before about the year 2000, as no other company wanted to make modules adhering to the panel formats of the old Moog modular synths till then.

The problem is that the best source I could find about this topic is the website of the Synthesizers.com company, founded by Roger Arrick. He is the one who defined what Moog Unit is today and his company was the first one to produce modules in this format other than Moog. He wrote articles about this format, how and why he changed things compared to the original and why he wanted to create this format in the first place. Examples of such articles: https://shop.synthesizers.com/pages/moog-compare or https://shop.synthesizers.com/pages/moog-modular. Unfortunately I have been unable to find secondary sources of such detail regarding what the Moog Unit is and how it is relevant to clones. The only secondary sources I could find were more like summaries, such as https://www.attackmagazine.com/technique/technique-modular-synthesis/different-flavors-of-modular-synthesizers/ or https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/sos-guide-choosing-modular-synth

The question is, could the articles written by Roger Arrick on his company's website be considered reliable? I agree that it is a kind of WP:SELFPUBLISH and that he wrote these articles at least partly with the intention of marketing his products. However, as I've stated before, no third party sources I could find went this deep into the topic with such clear explanations.

StingR ( talk) 18:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A company writing about their own products falls under WP:ABOUTSELF—they're clearly experts about their own products, though we have to assume that those articles are inherently self-serving. We could maybe use them to fill in uncontroversial details already covered in some detail by reliable, independent sources, but the third-party sources need to come first. Woodroar ( talk) 19:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Woodroar. Just to clear up any potential misunderstandings: Synthesizers.com citations can only be used strictly in combination with third party sources (such as the ones I linked) and on the page, the third party citations must come before the Synthesizers.com citations in the order. In addition, these third party sources also give a decent overview on the topic, which is in this use case, with the aforementioned restrictions, can be supplemented with the Synthesizers.com citations. Is that correct? StingR ( talk) 22:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, by "before" I meant that we first need to write the article based on reliable, independent sources. They tell us what's important enough to cover. And then we can add uncontroversial details from sources like synthesizers.com. I'll give an example that may sound silly and/or ignorant—I own a Moogerfooger MF-102 but that pedal is the extent of my Moog knowledge. Let's say there's a popular song that uses a specific Moog waveform filter, as noted by reliable sources. Normally, we might write something like this: The song's distinctive sound comes from a Moog synthesizer's [specific filter]. But perhaps we can add some technical detail from synthesizers.com, like this: The song's distinctive sound comes from a Moog synthesizer's [frequency range and waveform type] [specific filter]. We're letting third-party sources guide the article, but allowing the synthesizers.com source to enhance those sources with minor details. As long as we're not getting into self-serving marketing, that usage should be fine. Does that make sense? Woodroar ( talk) 23:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to Woodroar's advice: We have to be careful with the WP:ABOUTSELF characterization. WP:ABOUTSELF is only applicable to Roger Arrick writing about what he himself did. What he writes about third parties, including Moog, is subject to him being a subject-matter expert who has published about the topic in reliable sources ( WP:SPS) and I don't think he fits this criteria (?). The thing is if you can't find good sources about something, then it's probably not as encyclopedic as you initially thought. JBchrch talk 23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a great point. Do reliable sources consider Roger Arrick an expert? Is he cited or consulted for claims about synthesizers? We might need to see evidence of that first. Woodroar ( talk) 23:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is cited by third parties as such, here are some examples: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/sos-guide-choosing-modular-synth, https://tylerpaper.com/news/local/sound-of-music-tyler-business-making-analog-synthesizers/article_09358fbf-6314-5102-9baa-390c39c9b6aa.html or https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2015/05/16/introduction-to-modular-synthesizers/.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but what he writes about Moog synths is only interesting when it comes to differences he made compared to the original synth, when he created the modern Moog Unit format. In practice, everything that I would cite from his page in addition to third parties would be about the modern Moog Unit synths and also his company to some extent, to provide a background history on this modular synth format. This is important because there are a bunch of other vendors who follow Roger's technical specifications to create accurate clones of Moog modules both in sound and behavior in order to maintain compatibility with other Moog Unit vendors' modules and systems. For example, these modern modules are compatible with +-15 V power supplies, originally used in Roger's modular synths, but are incompatible with the original Moog synths' +12V -6V power supplies. As a result, despite the same panel size, you can't put them into a Moog system, unless you use converters of some sorts.

As an interesting fact, basically none of the modules made by Roger's company, Synthesizers.com are actual replicas, instead, they are modern designs with the same panel format and feel as the original. So his products are of little interest when it comes to the Moog synthesizer page. The only exception being the Q960 Sequencer module that he produces, because it is a replica of the Moog 960 Sequencer module. I plan to "name-drop" other vendors whose product line includes the actual replicas, but that would be weird without providing the historical and technical context that I mentioned above. For these vendors, I happen to have found good third party sources. StingR ( talk) 09:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Currently we have a consensus that Newsweek pre-2013 is WP:RS and Newsweek 2013 to present should be used with caution. Is Newsweek 2021 to Present RS? This is not an RfC but I'm hoping it can be a bit more structured than a sentiment check. Chetsford ( talk) 05:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable In 2018, IBT Media - which acquired Newsweek in 2013 - divested itself. While there were a smattering of issues post-2018, these generally involved employment disputes (e.g. this issue involving reporter pay structure [8]) versus editorial issues. Our only standard to evaluate the reliability of media is if other, known RS, consider that media reliable and Wikipedia cannot establish higher standards for reliability than RS themselves have established.

1. Reliable sources don't cite unreliable sources. In just the last 60 days, original reporting by Newsweek has been sourced by nj.com [9], The Hill [10], Black Enterprise [11], KXTV-TV [12], the Atlanta Journal Constitution [13], the Jerusalem Post [14], the Washington Post [15], the Kaiser Family Foundation [16], and others.
2. Since the start of the year, it has been subjected to two fact checks (that I've been able to find), from Reuters, which it passed [17], and from Snopes which it also passed [18].

It also bears noting that the current Editor-in-Chief, Nancy Cooper, is from the pre-IBT days and the Deputy Editor, Dianne Harris, spent 14 years at the helm of Money. They have a gatekeeping process, the personnel capacity to conduct reporting [19], and a physical presence by which they can be held liable for what they publish. While this is obviously not the Newsweek of 1995, it's also not the Newsweek of 2015. Chetsford ( talk) 05:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not yet. Your Reuters fact check doesn't actually fact-check a Newsweek story; rather it fact checks a falsehood that Newsweek ran a cover that declared Clinton the victor in 2016 (it didn't, though a company it subcontracts for its graphic arts did develop mock-ups of both possible covers well in advance of the election, a common industry practice). The Snopes fact check is a rather unimportant story about a crashed truck carrying ramen noodles. Hardly the sort of thing we'd even write about at Wikipedia. Among your other citations are similarly minor stories about things like viral mukbang videos. The AJC citation is on the right track, as it is a citation of for a serious (though minor) news story about a diverted plane, I'd still chalk that one up under the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" type of thing. I don't see where you've presented any convincing evidence that Newsweek's editorial practices have changed since the start of the year. In August 2020, The New Republic was still calling it a Zombie Magazine, and notes serious issues at the publication which were rampant only a short time before it published its analysis. Cherry picking a few times that a Newsweek story has been occasionally cited isn't enough. I see no evidence that its general reputation has improved at all. -- Jayron 32 19:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of the reliability of TheBlot? -- DrIlyaTsyrlov ( talk) 23:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

TheBlot website (launched in 2013 by the businessman Benjamin Wey is a tabloid magazine based in the US. https://www.theblot.com /info/en/?search=Benjamin_Wey

(Website link)

I submit that theBlot should not be considered a reliable source for the following reasons:

1) According to the above Wikipedia page about Benjamin Way (in Summary and Career Sections):

“Since 2016 he has been facing a defamation suit stemming from statements in his website The Blot,[12][13] which he has used to attack journalists.”

The links: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/12/court-orders-online-tabloid-not-to-post-any-articles-about-former-obama-nominee-to-the-federal-cftc/ * https://www.reuters.com/article/lawprof-defamation-case/judge-lets-georgetown-law-professors-defamation-case-against-online-magazine-proceed-idUSL2N16B2BR * https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/

2) The website is proved to be used by Benjamin Wey as his personal retaliation and defamation tool (see the above sources from The Washington Post, Reuters and Bloomberg) and there cannot be considered as “reliable source” of information.

Here is the list of the people attacked by theBlot (journalist and politicians)

• Chris Brummer, a banking expert and Obama nominee for a governmental position

(See Reuters and Washington Post above)

• Here is one about Roddy Boyd, a former journalist for The New York Post. The journalist exposed Wey’s dubious activity and was attacked by theBlot tabloid https://web.archive.org/web/20160620135300/https://www.cjr.org/analysis/shadowy_war.php

Source: Columbia Journalism Review

• John Carnes and Francine McKenna /info/en/?search=John_Carney_(politician) /info/en/?search=Francine_McKenna

https://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2014/04/benjamin-wey-threatens-investigative-reporter-francine-mckenna/

• Here is more information from the Wikipedia article about Benjamin Wey with all the sources verified in his Career Section:

Wey also publishes and writes extensively for the digital publication TheBlot (launched in 2013), where he describes himself as an "investigative reporter."[31][32] In 2015, he was named as defendant in a defamation suit stemming from his attacks on a FINRA regulator and Georgetown University law professor Christopher Brummer in the magazine. An injunction was issued preventing The Blot from writing about Brummer while the suit was pending.[33][34] In September 2017, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called on New York Court to vacate unconstitutional injunction against offensive speech.[35] On November 15, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals, First Division ruled in favor of The Blot magazine against Brummer “on the law and the facts.”[36][37] In 2016, Bloomberg Businessweek and the Columbia Journalism Review, reported that Wey used The Blot magazine to defame and threaten investigative journalists Dune Lawrence (Bloomberg Businessweek) and Roddy Boyd, who used to work for The New York Post and later founded the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation. Wey falsely accused Boyd of ties to organized crime

• Hanna Bouveng (won defamation and sexual harrassment lawsuit). She is a former employee of Wey and was personally attacked by his tabloid (later the post was removed by the court’s order) after filing a lawsuit for sexual harassment: https://nypost.com/2016/04/08/intern-accepts-reduced-5-6m-payout-from-horndog-ceo/ https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2016/04/01/403993.htm https://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/a44618/hanna-bouveng/

The case of Hanna Bouveng is in particular worrying, to tell the least.

3) Furthermore, the source is a yellow press tabloid in character, similar to Daily Mail or The Sun but much worse as it covers the topics related to spam websites border-lining with indecent topics and sensationalism just to catch any reader’s attention.

I'd be glad to hear any opinion from the experienced editors here. -- DrIlyaTsyrlov ( talk) 23:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@ DrIlyaTsyrlov:, can you provide a link to the article or articles which are using The Blot as a source, in a way you object to? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Mathglot:, sorry for the delayed respnse. Here are the Wikipedia articles where TheBlot has been used:

1) /info/en/?search=Christopher_Walken

2) /info/en/?search=Cozy_mystery

3) /info/en/?search=Dikran_Tulaine

4) /info/en/?search=Rebecca_Da_Costa

5) /info/en/?search=China_City_of_America

6) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%26_Mercy_(film)

7) https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diona_Reasonover

8) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel

9) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_mystery

I believe there are more.-- DrIlyaTsyrlov ( talk) 23:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• @ DrIlyaTsyrlov: What is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4000 bytes, this RfC is far too big for Legobot to handle; the resulting entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals consists of a heading only and the RfC will not be publicized via WP:FRS. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  @ Mikehawk10: Good point, but easily fixed because it was already there, just not signed. I normally only post messages like that when no brief statement can be discerned at all - such as if that nine-word sentence had not been present. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 07:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not Reliable' TheBlot is an obvious mouthpiece for Wey dressed up with some churnalistic content. It is not used in many articles ( en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3Atheblot.com&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1) and sometimes it is not used poorly ( example play review) but it is not a reliable source and anything where it is the only possible source is probably not NPOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Just another political "influencer" personal opinion vector, with a clear agenda of going after mainstream journalists. It's part of the "the mainstream media are a leftist conspiracy" theory. So also WP:FRINGE.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable Most of the post are not from a reliable source and are poorly written. Sea Ane ( talk) 21:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The about page notes that The feature that sets us apart from other online publications is that you the readers can have your own voices heard, in any way or style that you would like. We welcome sensational and opinionated articles from you – the readers. You write, we publish, as long as the articles are in compliance with our Terms of Use. The Terms of Use notes that TheBlot does not edit their [user-submitted] content, therefore is protected under the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. All of this indicates that it is no more reliable than an WP:SPS and it reflects poorly upon the site's editorial standards, as there are zero editorial standards. The terms of use seem to imply that the site doesn't issue retractions under legal threats, and will keep content—even false or fabricated content—on its website, stating that for any reason if anyone is threatened with legal actions, you should know TheBlot Magazine does not settle any claims, we fight them, expose them till you the bully types drop dead. This sort of material appears to be never due, and indicative of worse editorial standards than The Daily Mail. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 16:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Probably not reliable, but given the limited usage and apparent lack of previous disputes in Wikipedia, I see no reason to deprecate it or list it at WP:RSP ([WP:RSP] is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed.). MarioGom ( talk) 10:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• While I would usually agree, I should point out that the specific issue with this source is highly BLP-sensitive, and at a glance, while it is only used in 14 places, several of those are BLPs. That is a problem; for a plainly-unusable source whose issues touch so directly on BLP, it's probably better to just depreciate and decrease the risk that it will cause problems in the future. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

https://openmedicinejournal.com/index.php

Is this a reliable source? I came accross some bizzare articles. 46.154.192.231 ( talk) 17:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It is or was a Bentham predatory open access journal, and is on this spam list for what it's worth. I can't find a lot about it. But this suggests it's the opposite of an RS, and if it's being used in Wikipedia should probably go on WP:CITEWATCH. edit: yeah, it's on WP:CITEWATCH under Bentham already, so don't use it! - David Gerard ( talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this was our discussion from the Administrators' noticeboard about an article (I was sent here) - I do think the material must be removed:

"Not sure what's going on here, but an IP has added this International Judo Federation#Controversies. The full Controversies section belongs to it. The question is if this material is worthy of an encyclopedia? Please read everything! I am not going to remove anything because I don't know what action I should take. I feel this should not be on Wikipedia. Regards, Karel .karellian-24 ( talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@ .karellian-24: The IP is clearly on a mission but the issue needs to be discussed at Talk:International Judo Federation. It looks like the "Controversies" section was inserted a long time ago and a January 2018 edit removed it, with the IP reverting that removal on 24 July 2021. You might get assistance from a noticeboard such as WP:NPOVN. WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK apply. Try WP:RSN for assistance with whether ref 5 supports the "controversies" idea (it doesn't—the addition is original research). Johnuniq ( talk) 03:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)"

.karellian-24 ( talk) 07:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Johnuniq and .karellian-24: I've trimmed away the whole of the section (some of the controversies are not about any actions by the IJF, but just happen to involve international judo athletes). Johnuniq's concerns seem to be correct, and spending nearly the whole of an article on controversies is just a very, very bad idea... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@ RandomCanadian: Thank you, I appreciate! I felt it wasn't right but I was looking for another opinion. .karellian-24 ( talk) 15:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Some time ago I found this news on Italian first-class RS where this man is labeled as "Neo-Nazi", [23] an important member of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, who had been dismissed after photos had circulated of him giving the Nazi salute. Other sources in English have also talked about this case, like Jspost, Seattle Times, Times of Israel, Telegraph and Haaretz ( DW in Polish). So, I promptly searched in Wikipedia for any sources of this historian, and having found them I removed them. [24] A few days ago a user suggested that my edit summary (while removing the source of Greniuch) was a BLP vio, [25] and at this point I am wondering if my removal is also legitimate or not. Can I have your opinion?-- Mhorg ( talk) 10:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg, I'm not sure that removing the sources was the correct course of action. I know nothing about this person, or how his scholarship has been received in academic circles. Those articles (or the ones I reviewed at least) do not label him a neo-Nazi, they say that he used to be involved in a far-right group, and they show photographs of him in his youth giving a fascist salute. I guess it's possible that he did some really stupid stuff in his youth, and reformed: the question we should be asking is whether his more recent scholarship has been reviewed favorably by his peers. That's where we should be looking to establish whether we can use him as a source. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that labelling him a neo-Nazi now probably is a BLP violation, unless there are sources that say he is one, not that he once was one. The ones I looked at were very decidely writing in the past tense, none of them were saying, or even insinuating, that he still holds those views. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Girth Summit: Thank you very much for your opinion. Our first-class newspapers in Italy label him in this way "Poland, the reverse of the neo-Nazi: the director of the Institute of Memory resigns",[ [26]] so I took it for granted that he could be called neo-Nazis. But, as other colleagues have pointed out to me, maybe that's not the position of all RS. About his political positions, it is said here: "[Zaryn] He also reviewed Tomasz Greniuch's doctoral thesis, which demonstrates just how close relations are between nationalist circles and state institutions in Poland, and how blurred the line separating them." [27] "The nationalist Greniuch is to be promoted thanks to the protection of prof. Jan Żaryn." [28] And again: "One of the reviewers of Tomasz Greniuch's work was prof. Jan Żaryn, former PiS senator, today director of the newly established Institute of National Remembrance [...] In his extremely positive review, Żaryn wrote: “The author is a young historian, but already recognizable among researchers who have been dealing with the national movement for years. His interest in this - mainly due to ideological reasons - a once neglected research area is combined with the simultaneous passion of a regional historian, publicist and social activist ”. This belies the alleged unawareness of the political involvement of Greniuch, who was one of the main ideologists of the ONR ( National Radical Camp) during his doctoral thesis." [29] Based on what I read, the person would appear to be identified by several sources as a right-wing nationalist in the present day. If so, I am convinced that any work by him should be excluded from Wikipedia.-- Mhorg ( talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg, have you read WP:BIASED? We don't generally blanket-prohibit the use of sources because the author is biased, instead we use them with caution, careful to differentiate between assertions of fact and opinion, considering due weight, and making attribution where necessary. Just removing him as a source on sight does not seem like the right way forward, no matter what we think of his politics. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It is worth looking at the publication where the cited article by Greniuch was published, „ Niezależna Gazeta Obywatelska”. Its about page says something like this: "We inform about local matters, present our own comments and opinions, often going against the tide of common courts. We write about what is important for our city, region, Poland and the Church. We support and initiate social and patriotic initiatives as well as all actions promoting the protection of life, we care for the preservation of national memory and identity, we are not ashamed of Jesus and we say stop corruption. We have a clearly declared conservative-liberal, national-Catholic and independence profile." That doesn't feel like a reliable source so much as as a biased group blog, but I'm not sure. I think questions about the author and the publication combined would justify at least adding a "better source" tag. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Dubious publication. Greniuch is known as a "fascist sympathiser" and has defended his Nazi salute saying "it is still considered to be a Roman salute that has purely national roots" ( [30]) which is 100% false. Many other far-right connections documented in [31]. NONAZI applies.-- Astral Leap ( talk) 14:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC) sock puppet Icewhiz

1. That source is not reliable.
2. That was a BLP violation in the edit summary.

Volunteer Marek 18:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Volunteer Marek - Why is he not reliable? Because of his possible far-right past in his young years or lack of credentials? He apologized for the Nazi salut and declares that he was never a Nazi. see - [32] - "I've never been a Nazi." The hailing director of the Institute of National Remembrance apologizes and refers to his ancestors. ... I have never been a Nazi, I apologize once again for the irresponsible gesture from several years ago and I consider it a mistake - emphasizes Tomasz Greniuch in a release published by the Institute of National Remembrance. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, The problem is the publication. Greniuch is a historian, albeit controversial. If he published something in a peer-reviewed outlet, I'd say it is probably reliable. But a piece in a niche magazine that almost certainly has no editorial oversight, not to mention peer review? Much less so. Now, the interesting aspect is the content of the article ( [33]); it actually seems like an interesting piece of research about some local history, and it was used in our article for a non-controversial claim about it. But seriously, such research should be written up in scholarly, peer-reviewed sources, not niche/fringe local newspapers. Also, setting reliability aside, it seems that the claim in question (about the existence of the local anti-communist resistance group called "Podziemny Orzeł Wolności") has not been confirmed by anyone else outside Greniuch in this publication, so it seems such a niche finding that it may simply be undue to even mention it. Bottom line, a minor and somewhat controversial historian found out something about local history and wrote about in a niche website of dubious reliability. We need better sources. Once he or someone else publishes about this in a peer-review outlet I'd support restoring this fact, for now - I am not objecting to removal, due to a combination of RS and UNDUE.

That said, this edit summary is an obvious BLP vio, needs oversight and Mhorg should be warned not to violate BLP. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are right.. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think its reliable also but use them with caution per @ Girth Summit: - GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Described as "pro-fascist". Was active in far-right until at least 2018 according to this report. His work in history was to glorify Nazi collaborator Léon Degrelle in a book he wrote in 2013 ( [34]). He then went on to work in Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), a state propaganda institute that glorifies war criminals who killed Ukrainian and other minorities in Poland. The IPN and anyone it employs is not reliable. JoeZ451 ( talk) 18:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC) sock puppet Icewhiz
• Not reliable. The association with the unreliable IPN casts a shadow here, as does their work on Degrelle. Searching for the name only shows controversy, In this source (page 153), predating the 2021 controversy, his previous 2019 appointment is given as an example of an appointment of a right wing extremist. Vici Vidi ( talk) 07:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This person is mostly known for scandal on Neo-fascism in government. All of the clowns employed by The Institute of National Remembrance are not reliable, they just broadcast what their political masters from government tell them.-- 157.158.137.123 ( talk) 15:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This particular source is unreliable but please don’t try to hijack the discussion account with three edits. Volunteer Marek 18:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Use with caution. As I wrote above, it depends mostly on where he published. The fact that in his youth he said something stupid shouldn't reflect on what he wrote as a scholar later (but in this time and age, it sadly does for some, for better or worse). Anyway, his articles in peer-reviewed journals or academic books should be ok. For his works in less academic media, this needs to be discussed on case by case basis. And of course, any of his works from before he became an academic is likely to be problematic. PS. Also, involvement of socks in this topic area is worrisome; werene't the last few RSNs on Polish topics started by an sock of indef banned editor? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The IPN is all about a chauvinist version of history, people employed by it are not reliable. T. Greniuch was a National Radical Camp leader, he was pictured making a Nazi salute in the past, but this is not just past. In 2021 he defended this saying "it is still considered to be a Roman salute that has purely national roots". In his published book about Degrelle he "used similar rhetoric to defend the so-called "Roman salute"" and also "nationalism is the guardian of Christian tradition and the sole defender of God's natural law", this from [35]. A review by expert Dr. Przemysław Witkowski is here: [36] [37]. 211.27.76.176 ( talk) 06:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the arguments above. Greniuch who is known for the Nazi salute and trying to justify it as an ancient Roman practice is not reliable. The Institute of National Remembrance who employs him is questionable and not reliable.-- HQGG ( talk) 14:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Two things are true. The Greniuch source mentioned above is NOT reliable. And this thread has been hijacked by SPA accounts with few edits. There's really nothing to discuss here left. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:GLOBALTIMES was deprecated in 2020, OK, reasonable, it publishes pro-Chinese government propaganda. But, is it bizarre that a Global Times article (Zhang Lei (5 February 2010). "Invisible footprints of online commentators". Global Times English version.) that appears to be critical of Chinese government's Internet commentator (aka. 50 Cent Party) system and reveals many things and (dark) history about "50 Cent Party", was also removed? Before its removing, the Global Times article was cited five times as source to support the article. Even the editor (@ Mikehawk10:) who tagged the GT article as deprecated, wrote in the edit summary: "Not sure if it should be removed, but the source is deprecated. The article needs a hefty rewrite if the deprecated source stays, since a LOT of its content is sourced to it." To me the GT article is a good / acceptable one, apparently not propaganda, and it was written in 2010, today they may not be able to publish such criticism. Is it funny, unreasonable and bureaucratic to remove such sources? I think WP:GLOBALTIMES and other similar entries should clarify that even they are deprecated, the old articles from these media outlets that are clearly not propaganda and even look critial of the entity they are said to support, can still be used. -- Tomchen1989 ( talk) 22:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not familiar enough with Global Times to have a sense of how reliable it used to be, but will note that this is not without precedent, e.g. Newsweek. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Just on a technical note, everything they publish is propaganda of some kind and always has been. There is no such thing as “clearly not propaganda” piece published by GT regardless of time period. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, Mikehawk10 who I mentioned just added the deprecated source tags. Horse Eye's Back is the one who ultimately removed the GT article references and all the sentences sourced to it. The diff shows many information that looks informative was removed, including:

• Things revealed by a former Internet commentator and now dissident living oversea, Wen Yunchao ( 温云超, pen named Beifeng 北风) (Global Times interviewing a dissident is unthinkable today),
• comment made by Peking University professor Hu Yong ( 胡泳, Google Scholar), a known liberal media scholar who appeared to be attacked online in 2020 by pro-CCP users (Global Times wouldn't interview him today either),
• and, perhaps the most informative one, the origin of the term "50 Cent Party" - the GT journalist believed the term could be traced back to the Internet commentators in Changsha who were paid 0.5 yuan per post (I quote GT article: "An official document revealed that in 2004, the CPC Changsha Municipal Committee began to hire a group of Internet commentators who were paid a basic salary of 600 yuan ($88) a month, plus 50 cents ($7 cents) for each post. Many believe that's where the "5 mao" came from."). And in today's 50 Cent Party Wikipedia article, this important information, the origin of the term, is lost. Those commentators were paid so little per post, this effectively made them a laughing stock, I think the GT article is de facto critial of the government's Internet commentator system. While I may use "propaganda" to describe many other pieces by GT, I wouldn't say so for this single article in 2010.

The thing is, it's not easy to source these China-related article that the Chinese government does not like, the 50 Cent Party article appears to be full of primary sources. We used to have a seemingly good secondary source - the GT article in 2010 - which feels so precious you know, but now it's gone. -- Tomchen1989 ( talk) 00:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel your pain, but we can’t just go with our gut in determining what is and is not propaganda. If the article is that important a reliable source (most likely academic) will undoubtably talk about it and if one hasn’t now then one is in the future. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Although a number of editors here have indicated that it is not reliable, especially for biographical information, specifically in 2011 and in 2015, I've recently learned that BoxRec is used by editors on WikiProject Boxing as a source. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines, it states, "BoxRec is usually a sufficient source, but a tale of the tape from recent fights (always specify the network) may be better." And on Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing, one user, PollShark, said that they use it as a source.

I recently had a conflict with an editor who persistently kept adding entire tables of statistics to the Joe Jeanette article without any citation ( [38], [39]), as well as biographical information to the Infobox. I don't generally edit boxing articles, but do edit articles pertaining to Union City, New Jersey, where Joe Jeanette lived, so being unfamiliar with BoxRec, which he insisted was his source, I asked if it was a wiki, which at first glance it appeared to be. He replied, "No. Boxrec is not a 'wiki'." He eventually placed citations in the article, but today, looking through that site, I found this General disclaimer: "This is an extremely dynamic Wiki-based website--meaning that any BoxRec Boxing Encyclopedia page can be edited at any time."

I didn't understand why the Project would use such a site under these circumstances, so I began a discussion on that Project's talk page. I wasn't sure if I should linke that here, or start the discussion here and link it back there, so I apologize if I didn't follow the right etiquette. Could editors here interested in restricting Wikipedia to reliable sources please participate, and let me know if the discussion needs to be moved somewhere? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 13:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that this conversation is most appropriately held here at RSN, if a local wiki project consensus is potentially going to overturned by a larger community consensus (which seems highly likely in this case) the discussion should happen in the broadest appropriate forum. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I was looking for a source for an article and came across [ Menabytes], covering the Middle East and Northern Africa. It looks like it's only used in about 20 articles, but the ones I read seem reasonably journalistic. menabytes.com    . Anyone come across any instances where it's been unreliable? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I could be mistaken and only looked at the about page and a few articles, but my first impression is that it's by one person and that they aren't hiring journalists or using an editorial team. Is there a particular use on WP that you've noticed and appears controversial? — Paleo Neonate – 18:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing that’s currently on Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

See this edit. Halfway through the edit I was trying to make, I noticed (by reading our Financial Times article) that it's apparently slightly anachronistic to list Nikkei as the publisher of the article in question. I guess they own the website now, and we link said website, but... How do we normally deal with this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur that it may not be a useful thing to list at all if it's blatantly ahistorical. It's like the Evening Standard when it was owned by the Daily Mail and shared articles with them, as compared to when it wasn't and didn't - David Gerard ( talk) 09:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's not very useful to list this. I don't see why listing the publisher is ever useful for newspapers. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 09:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We list the publishers for books, because the publishers have editorial oversight. Even then we use the imprint instead when there is one. The Times and The Sun share the same publisher, but are at opposite ends of the spectrum in Wikipedia reliability ratings. TFD ( talk) 11:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think news org conglomerates operate on the imprint model, like some book publishers -- they operate on the limited liability corporation model, which suggests The Times, and The Sun would not have the same publisher. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, you might want to check whether the parent company is (or ever was) the publisher -- in news conglomerates it is, I think, regular that the publisher is in the subsidiary (not in the parent), so that suggests the publisher is Financial Times Ltd, not the parent (which would make sense because the parent wants to keep liability limited to one property, to take advantage of limited liability corporate ownership). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It depends, if we’re talking about a corporate acquisition that leaves the organization largely intact I would say no... But if we’re talking for example about X regional paper which went our of business and whose archives are now maintained by Y regional paper I would say for our purposes that Y is the publisher even though the material originated with X. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Virtually every single pro-argument for debt trap diplomacy is an opinion piece WITHOUT hard research and yet none of them are deleted or disputed. (There are no shortage of sources that actually outright contradict them with hard research). I have given sources that are different and have actual hard research written by a reputed scholar that do contradict them.

Yet one guy @Amigao keeps making arbitrary rules to delete such hard facts and research findings and calling them as opinions. And he tells me to go to the talk page to discuss why the info should be added or removed. So I gave a full resaasoning but he replied back with a superifical reply. He does't even address the topic at all but uses the same pretexts phrase to delete info that he doesn't like. (He can't even expalin why that info is wrong just implying them as non-facts or fake news)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debt-trap_diplomacy#Add_in_the_full_proper_counterargument_by_Moore

Can you tell me if the source below is actually reliable or lying and fake news??

In a study conducted by scholars at Boston University and Johns Hopkins University. They found that China had lent at least $95.5 billion to African countries between 2000 and 2015

They noted that a continent where over 600 million Africans have no access to electricity. About 40 percent of the Chinese loans were used to pay for power generation and transmission. Another 30 percent went to "modernizing Africa’s crumbling transport infrastructure".
[1]

The study was by Deborah Bräutigam. the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and director of the China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. She is a real expert in these matters and her research was not opinion but professionally conducted and objective study that found those facts. And now for editors to call the study as an unrelaible source despite how absurd that reasoning is. That is going too far with arbitrary excuses to remove info. Can you please help tell me whether or not the source is unreliable or not, to back the info above?

Nvtuil ( talk) 23:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Every piece of research is opinion, which may or may not be based on data and observations. In the case of peer-reviewed studies, we assume it is.

2. Any opinion piece should be attributed, and in the case of research, it's better to link to the research rather than to an opinion piece that discusses it (acknowledging the authorship, of course). So if the research paper says the thing she wrote in the opinion piece for WaPo, you may introduce it, BUT

3. Ms Bräutigam is already sufficiently represented in the text. It would be better to summarise the main points of her research so as not to give excessive weight to her arguments. So, answering strictly your question, yes, she is an established researcher and that paper, if peer-reviewed, is OK for the text, but it doesn't really warrant making her paragraph larger than others. We shouldn't rely on opinions of one researcher too much.

Which leads to the following concern about the article: IMHO there seems to be POV-pushing (which is seen by the edit-warring in the article) in the article to show the debt-trap theory as debunked. A cursory look at Google Scholar yields me i.a. the following articles:

• Pádraig Carmody, Ian Taylor, Tim Zajontz. (2021) China’s spatial fix and ‘debt diplomacy’ in Africa: constraining belt or road to economic transformation?. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines.
• Zajontz, T. (2020). The Chinese infrastructural fix in Africa: lessons from the sino-zambian “road bonanza.” Oxford Development Studies, 1–16. doi:10.1080/13600818.2020.1861230
• Addis, A. K., Asongu, S., Zuping, Z., Addis, H. K., & Shifaw, E. (2020). Chinese and Indian investment in Ethiopia: infrastructure for “debt-trap diplomacy” exchange and the land grabbing approach. International Journal of Emerging Markets
• Ashok K. Behuria (2018) How Sri Lanka Walked into a Debt Trap, and the Way Out, Strategic Analysis
• Anzetse Were (2019). Debt Trap? Chinese Loans and Africa's Development Options. S. Afr. Institute of Int'l Affairs.
• Steven Rolf (2021). China’s Uneven and Combined Development. Palgrave Macmillan p. 244-6

which substantiate or at least partially confirm the notion (the articles are either accessible as open-access or via shadow libraries); even if some of them say that "debt-trap" is not an appropriate metaphor or an exaggeration, they seem to agree that the mechanism is to some extent present there.

To be clear, the sources dismissing that theory are not used to the full, either, but the article is obviously unbalanced at this moment as overrepresenting the counterarguments. Editors' attention (particularly if someone is an economist or an armchair expert in geopolitics) to the article is badly needed. For now, an NPOV template seems warranted. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 04:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the topic brings alot of denial. There is a real difference between opinion and hard facts. The hard facts is where it's either correct or false. If someone analysed all the debts from China to Africa and found there was not a single case of asset seizure. That is not an opinion. It seems more like an excuse to remove info by calling it an opinion.

If for example someone claimed that Sri Lanka deafulted after being overwhelmed by chinese loans. And then gave up control of the port to the chinese. That's an opinion from Chellaney and is also VERIFIED misinformation without dispute. Because researchers like Chatham House and Deborah was able to find out that Sir lanka debt crisis was more due to IMF loans rather than chinese loans (which makes up a small percent). And that Sri Lanka never even defaulted on any loans as claimed. Those are not OPINIONS but experts being able to fact check chellaneys claims and say which facts are wrong or right.(WHICH many western scholars were able to say it's 100 percent wrong without any ambuigity about it)

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/06/05/questioning-the-debt-trap-diplomacy-rhetoric-surrounding-hambantota-port/

And even if they were opinions for argument sake. Why is Chellany allowed to loudly make claims in the article that China gave Sri Lanka tremendous amount of debt to overwhelm the country. And providing zero evidence? By that logic, every single claim he made, needs to be removed from the article as he is proven to be both a discredited liar who claimed false facts. A liar is someone who claimed that sri lank debt distress was caused by china when research shows that is not even true at all. Hence why is his opinions still allowed on wiki. The correct policy would be to give precedence to research and not to discredited liars. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953

And back to the topic, if someone like deborah does research and finds that there is not a single asset seizure in africa from Chinese loans. And most of the loans addressed Africa's infrastructure gap. Calling it an opinion is just bs. Because by that logic, you can call every single research in the world as just opinion simply becasue you don't like the conclusion. Nvtuil ( talk) 04:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, did you come here to ask for help or to assert that the other scholars/fellow editors are wrong? If the latter is the case, I'm of no use here.

Re: Those are not OPINIONS but experts being able to fact check chellaneys claims and say which facts are wrong or right and Because by that logic, you can call every single research in the world as just opinion simply becasue you don't like the conclusion. Let's start with one observation. We are not here on Wikipedia to promote The Truth©, as presented by a few sources supporting the notion (unless the support is near-unanimous or the other side promotes obviously bad research/pseudoscience, which is not the case here). We are here to summarise sources. Every scholar tries to assemble facts and make interpretations based on them - these interpretations are opinions, but we give preference to their findings. Now there is a variety of scholars publishing in a variety of outlets and having a variety of opinions, Ms Bräutigam is one of them (and that was the one you explicitly asked for, not Chatham House (which I'd allow), not any other source).

The Atlantic piece is written by Ms Bräutigam, whose opinion is already well-represented and well-heard. That one paragraph can summarise her opinions published everywhere (including WaPo, The Atlantic etc.) as well as research papers on the topic. But we should not give more weight than is WP:DUE to her.

Exactly the same concern applies to the Georgetown piece, which is OK as it is an academic article in a university press publication. However, the problem is that overall, the balance of opinions must reflect the predominance of views on the subject, which the article fails to do.

If you have any specific questions concerning reliability of specific sources used, you can ask them here; otherwise I suggest that the discussion be moved to WP:NPOVN

PS. Please indent every paragraph of your answer, not just the first one. You may also want to turn on Enable quick replying in your preferences ("Editing" section) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 06:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think the title of the source says it all: "U.S. Politicians get China in Africa all wrong". We are not "U.S. Politicians" and neither do we treat them as reliable sources. Why are we being lumbered with all this WP:SOAPBOXing? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• I’ve seen Amigao make a lot of edits (sometimes ones I didn’t agree with), I’ve never seen them invent an arbitrary rule and that doesn’t appear to have happened here either... OP would appear to be engaging in a pattern of making mountains out of mole hills and straw men out of dust bunnies. Other than that I don’t have much to add to what Szmenderowiecki has already said. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I recenty encountered this book Community Warriors: State, Peasants and Caste Armies in Bihar wrriten by Kumar, Ashwani (2008) in the reference list of bhumihar and has some controversial things without any reference and these things have been called rumors by other authors of raj era so my question is would it be considered ?? because there is no book which has these things Gaurav 3894 ( talk) 03:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Its Amazon listing is sparse and does not give much indication that it is a notable publication. Zaathras ( talk) 04:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• It's published by Anthem Press which is a good sign, and has been reviewed in the bulletin of the Indian Sociological Society which is a also good sign, though unfortunately I can only see the first page of this review at the moment. It is a republished and revised form of Kumar's doctoral thesis.-- Eostrix  ( ^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have access to JSTOR, the full review seems positive. The final paragraph starts: "The book makes significant contribution [ sic] in terms of conceptualising operational aspects of caste-class dynamics within the broader framework of democratic institutions". Jr8825 • Talk 10:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Source: The anonymous Twitter account @Suriyak

2. Article: Syrian civil war

3. Content: The Civil War situation map used in the above article, which is hosted on commons here. This map is generated using the module Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Roughly 2/3rds of the edits to this map appear to be based on Twitter accounts ( see here), most anonymous, of which @Suriyak is the most common. FOARP ( talk) 15:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely not a reliable source. Even if everything on it is 100% accurate, it gives no account of its sources or methodology and is just an anonymous Twitter account. Our Syria war articles already rely too much on sources like this. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Completely unreliable. I'm already tracking direct cites to the Twitter account responsible, to prevent things like this. FDW777 ( talk) 16:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hoping to get a second opinion here regarding the acceptability of using GitHub, a forum post, several blogs, etc. for an “Issues” section. Any input is appreciated. Alisafetic ( talk) 16:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:LTE frequency bands#800MHz ESMR as to whether the Federal Communications Commission's website (fcc.gov) is a reliable source when it comes to the naming of wireless frequency bands. The FCC describes band 26 as "800MHz SMR", but other editors disagree that the FCC is a reliable source. The FCC is the government agency responsible for licensing this wireless spectrum to the wireless providers. Is the FCC's website considered a reliable source? Dv42202 ( talk) 16:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are we talking about the *name* of the band, or the frequencies it covers? Because the name does not necessarily indicate the latter (as on a practical basis, bands can cover a range that is not strictly listed by the name). There should be no issue with the FCC as a source for the name/description, but the actual specification would need a source that explicitly covers the technical aspects. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The name of the band is the disagreement. Currently, the article lists band 26 as "850MHz Extended CLR", but no source or citation was provided for that name. Another user provided sources (including from the FCC), which lists this band as "800MHz SMR", but 3 other editors feel that the FCC is not a reliable source. Dv42202 ( talk) 17:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The FCC is perfectly fine to source the name. Since the eCFR also legally defines what the ESMR is I dont have any problem with the FCC as a source. I've done a brief search and I cant find anything reliable for extended cellular - which sounds more like a branding thing than an actual technical name. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. No one has been able to find a reliable source for Extended CLR. If the FCC is considered a reliable source, my feeling is the name should be changed unless a reliable source for E-CLR can be found. So far, none can be found. It appears that the person who originally created the article made up that name, since there are no citations for it anywhere. Dv42202 ( talk) 17:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, The FCC is a reliable source for what they might name something, but they are not a source for the idea that no one else uses a given name. For example, 'Extended CLR' appears as a name for that band in "The LTE-Advanced Deployment Handbook: The Planning Guidelines for the Fourth Generation Networks", ISBN 9781118484807, page 115. MrOllie ( talk) 17:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, On what basis is that book a reliable source? I've seen websites that got their information from the incorrect Wikipedia article. It wouldn't surprise me if books were also sourcing that information from the Wikipedia chart. No one has been able to find any reference to "E-CLR" from the FCC, or any wireless carrier. Nor do any of them refer to the band as "850MHz". Dv42202 ( talk) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, It is published by Wiley, who are a fairly well respected publisher so far as I know. If you aren't familiar with what makes for a reliable source, you can read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or given the noticeboard we're on I'm sure someone will be along to explain it to you soon. MrOllie ( talk) 18:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, No, I fully understand it. You don't appear to understand that we have already determined that the FCC is a reliable source. Dv42202 ( talk) 21:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, So? It is certainly possible for more than one reliable source to exist. MrOllie ( talk) 21:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie - And they contradict each other, so which is actually correct? You alone get to decide that? Dv42202 ( talk) 21:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, No, you get to go back to the article talk page and work it out with other editors to form a consensus. (P.S., don't write things like 'the name should be changed unless a reliable source for E-CLR can be found' if you don't really want somebody to go look for a source). MrOllie ( talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie - I am actually not able to read the source you provided without purchasing the book. Maybe it's a reliable source. But no one here will be able to determine that unless they own the book. Dv42202 ( talk) 21:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL is applicable here. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie - You purchased the book? I doubt it. Dv42202 ( talk) 21:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, I happen to have access to a good library. At this moment I am looking at table 5.1 'FDD frequency bands for LTE', which lists '26 Extended CLR (850)' MrOllie ( talk) 21:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie - What you're telling me is that the FCC, Sprint, Dish, and all media organizations who refer to this spectrum as 800MHz ESMR are all incorrect? Sprint has been incorrectly referring to their own spectrum for decades? You don't see why that's incredulous? Dv42202 ( talk) 21:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dv42202, I think we can stop duplicating comments from the article talk page here, don't you? MrOllie ( talk) 21:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• conservativewoman.co.uk   

I've come across this publication several times, it seems to be a fringe British right-wing opinion publiciation/glorified group blog that promotes anti-vaxx and anti-lockdown rhetoric. Checking the duses we have about 20 citations to it, mostly in BLPs. Does anybody object to me removing all of them? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's definitely a source worth deprecation (for the news, facts etc.), but the refs generally lead to opinion pieces published by the subjects of these articles, so I believe you shouldn't delete these; there is one mention in the article which mentions the publication's endorsement for Brexit - I'd have it stay, as the editor-in-chief was apparently among BBC's 100 Women so seemingly notable. For all other uses, I'd delete on sight. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, having a look again most of these look ok under WP:ABOUTSELF, I've gone ahead and removed those where I think it were undue. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly support deprecation as this is a totally fringe conspiracy theory group blog masquerading as a mainstream Tory site, but it shows up in Google News so might be used as a source inadvertently. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It's had a number of opinion pieces from some quite prominent Tory politicans, at least historically, but I agree that its editorial direction has gone off the deep end since COVID, including classy comparsions of vaccine passports to "apartheid". [40] Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support deprecation. Yikes, just had a look at the website – vaccines are poison, on the front page. Existing refs should be scrutinised at the very least, although I fully support complete deprecation and removal of the small number of existing uses. While some look acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, I'm aware that Hemiauchenia has already removed the worst uses and yet I can still quickly see problematic uses, such as MigrationWatch UK, where it's used to report non-notable, non peer-reviewed politicised research without, presumably, any kind of editorial scrutiny: e.g. "the group has claimed that current migration rates require the construction of one new house every six minutes,[66]". Jr8825 • Talk 19:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• I also support its deprecation, or at least add the unreliable assertion here for archives if it doesn't pass. I've seen this before and ensured that extant usage was only for ABOUTSELF. Still, the latter only allows minimal uncontroversial use. It's unfortunate that once again conservative must mean ridiculous and unreliable, and that these happen to be women, but this definitely is it. The last possible use would be if a very notable person writes in it and that for some reason that is considered a due attributed opinion somewhere. — Paleo Neonate – 20:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  @ PaleoNeonate: How may uses did you end up removing? If there were a large number of uses for factual information then there is likely a serious case for deprecation. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 07:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  If I recall correctly it was mostly used for ABOUTSELF already, — Paleo Neonate – 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, this is trash. Deprecate for dangerous conspiracy crankery. We used to have an article on it, but it thankfully died at AFD. (Though if its crankery achieves note, it might get an article again for that.) There is no reason to treat this as any more reliable than a Facebook post by a subject, and it's absolutely unusable for factual claims in general; even under WP:ABOUTSELF, it should be avoided - David Gerard ( talk) 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• I’m just not seeing it as at all usable, they don’t appear to be taken seriously at all by even conservative media in the UK and I’m not seeing any of the other hallmarks of a reliable source. It also appears that they cross the line from punditry to misinformation hence deprecation may be in order. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Not a source we should be touching. Deprecate. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Why use deprecation, RfCs, and waste a row on RSP for small sources like this? Can't it just be added to the spam blacklist along with other similar sources? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Jewish Virtual Library a reliable source? https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 06:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

From a quick look, it isn't really a 'source' at all, any more than libraries in general are. It's contents seem to consist of articles etc already published elsewhere, which would have to be assessed individually, in the context of what they were being cited for. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Per this RFC, no. It has an entry at WP:RSP. Selfstudier ( talk) 07:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this article reliable? I read in the rfc that some articles are reliable sources. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hasidim-and-mitnagdim 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 07:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Idk. It also says if the article cites sources, those should be used instead. At any rate, I think you need to make the case that it is reliable, most people are just going to assume it isn't unless it is backed up by third party rs. Selfstudier ( talk) 07:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks! 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 07:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

sighs. Questions about these edits:

• diff: Don't see why this is particularly noteworthy. We shouldn't be citing a conspiracy-theory article here anyways.
• diff: Vanity Fair is not a reliable source for scientific information, and we should not be linking to popular magazine articles by non-experts that push fringe scientific views. As for when popular magazines started promoting fringe scientific ideas, this has happened often during the pandemic. Don't add again without consensus.

WP:RSP says: Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, including for popular culture topics. This RSN discussion established that it's generally reliable for news in general, not just popular culture.

Questions:

1. Since when is a respected investigative journalist of Vanity Fair writing a long investigative piece (which academics find no issue with [41]) a "conspiracy theory article"? Is it a BLP issue to say someone is writing conspiracy theory articles with zero evidence and zero reliable sources cited to support such a statement?
2. Since when is MEDRS required for saying how much funding a person receives from grant-making organisations?
3. Since when is it a bad thing to receive NIH funding? I'd be pretty proud if I had millions in grants from NIH. In fact, the subject lists it in their CV, according to the source: Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae. It's not presented as a negative thing in the source at all, because it isn't a negative thing...

ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I would agree you do not need MEDRS sources for the amount of grant money received by a person or group. But you also need to have care what you infer. The source says "Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae: $665,000 from the NIH between 2014 and 2019; and $559,500 over the same period from USAID.", it does not say what it was for. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Does it matter what it's for? In our article someone just added it to the career section, and in the full context all it said was: Shi is the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located in Jiangxia District, Wuhan. In support of her research there, she has received grant funding from U.S. government sources totaling more than US$1.2 million, including $665,000 from the National Institutes of Health from 2014 to 2019, as well as US$559,500 over the same period from USAID. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if we say it was used to fund her research at X (or into X) the source must support that (see wp:v). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's true. If we remove the In support of her research there then it should be okay? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be reliable for the fact she received the money, its inclusion is not a matter for this forum. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Grant information is nothing close to biomedical, and as long as its stating details limited to when, how much, and the broad purpose of that funding, any RS can be used for it. (There are multiple ways to identify grants given out by the US gov't available to the public, it is not like interpretation of biomedical information.

That said, while the facet of receiving grants from gov't sources for funding is its fair to include, looooots of people get grants, and at least how that statement is written does feel a bit promo-ish, given that's its not specifically talking about what those grants were being used for. At least to me, that's a tone issue. But you could write the statement that is in debate "Zhengli's research has included backing from NIH and USAID.", still using VF for the source, without any problem. -- Masem ( t) 13:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

And separately, just to add on to this, here's a Nature source that is more description to this point [42] [43] and points out a few things are missing in addition: her grants need to be tied to the EcoHealth Alliance as WIV was a subrecipient to them (it comes up later but needs to be mentioned there), and it should be pointed out how these grants were pulled by Trump when the connection was made. So let's put it this way: its not true she received grants *directly* from NIH/USAID, but through EcoHealth Alliance (which I would understand as a researcher on a CV to assert receiving the subaward grants as appearing as direct funding). And the mess around Nov 2020 appears to have more that can be pulled in about Zhengli and her research that may appear in RSes due to the political mess around the funding. -- Masem ( t) 14:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Funding and politics would not be covered by MEDRS, thats a good use for that source although we should be careful to use a wide variety of sources. Whoever told you that was mistaken, the characterization of it as a "conspiracy-theory article” also appears to be without merit. I think we may have more of an editor conduct issue here than a reliability one. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I've found some sources that I would like to use to improve the article Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas. One of these is an interview with several crew members by Decider, which is run by the New York Post ( link to article). I understand that the Post is considered generally unreliable by WP:RSP, but I've haven't been able to find any indication of the reliability of Decider specifically. Normally, I would just assume I should stay away, but since this is an interview with the involved parties about an uncontroversial topic (the production of the episode), it seems like this article might be reliable enough to warrant inclusion so long as the Wikipedia article only cites information from the interviewees. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 ( talk) 03:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say decider.com falls under WP:TABLOID, I wouldn't use it, it's not listed at WP:RSP. I would of thought it should be listed know, under it's own listing or NY Post. Govvy ( talk) 14:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how WP:TABLOID applies; that policy discusses how "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", which pertains more to notability. The topic is notable even without this source. My question pertains to the source's reliability since it quotes the crew members without offering much commentary of its own. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 16:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I am saying that I feel decider.com runs rather like a tabloid newspaper. Govvy ( talk) 18:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I was checking one page then I found out that IP 59.103.96.130 (now blocked) was adding hipinpakistan.com as a ref to several pages. Is it considered reliable source? Thanks Hasan ( talk) 04:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Ulubatli Hasan: They certainly claimed so that they are one of the most reliable sources at the minute but that was more of a POV blog. Wait out for more responses. DBigUVrays ( talk) 02:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It depends on how it's being used. Because their 'about' page says they're a source of (among other things) gossip, then I'd like to see corroboration in other sources before using it. Or make sure that the Wikipedia article citing it attributes the claim properly, so it isn't Wikipedia's voice making the claim. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? I tried the link it did not work. 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 19:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

When I try to go there, my browser gives me a message that the site cannot be reached. There isn't anything there. So the answer is: no it isn't a reliable source, at least the way you spelled the domain name. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I found it spelled that way and it was used as a source in wikipedia. I removed it. 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 20:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a long term doubt over whether this qualifies as RS. I feel it does. This has been discussed before here and here. Ab207 and Bovineboy2008‎‎, you are welcome to share your opinion. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd start by saying that Idlebrain is a farily comprehensive source when it comes to Telugu cinema, espcially for the films that released between 1999 and 2010, where no other comparative source is available online. It is repository of uncontroversial information related to release dates, runtimes, cast and credits, awards and nominations, exclusive interviews etc. that would satisfy our requirements. -- Ab207 ( talk) 05:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I truly don't know enough about the source to provide an informed opinion. From what I've seen, the source was discussed first here, citing it an SPS, which does seem to line up with what is written on the website's Wiki article. It was then listed here as a potentially unreliable source but with no justification or discussion. I think the concern is that since the website is basically run by a single person, it does not have editorial oversight and thus no one is determining whether or not the content is accurate or independent from promotion. Per this source, he was informed that his content sway box office figures, making it a major source, but not necessarily reliable. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Idlebrain is good source for the information which I've listed above which is more or less WP:PRIMARY and I don't think there are any instances of the website publishing fake information in over two decades of its operation. Because every film review is a statement of opinion, I believe Idlebrain can be mentioned per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- Ab207 ( talk) 15:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I recently added info to this Wikipedia page: Electric guitar . There's a section about construction and there's a statement Cheaper guitars are often made of cheaper woods, such as plywood, pine, or agathis—not true hardwoods—which can affect durability and tone. That statement is absolutely true. No question about it. But electronics are the heart of electric guitars, so I wanted to add a bit of info about the electronics of cheap electric guitars.

I wrote the following to share what I have found out during my 12 years playing the guitar: Electronics of cheap electric guitars are usually durable and solderings are done correctly, but the material and tone quality is lower than with more expensive models.

I backed that info up with a test I made: I bought 5 cheap electric guitars and tested them for a month. I linked to the content I wrote about that test, on the part where electronics are torn down.

Source: https://guitaristnextdoor.com/best-electric-guitar-under-200/#quality-of-the-electronics

I wanted to back up my statement.

All this content has been fact-checked by Tommy Tompkins, an experienced guitar player who has been working with me.

I'm an electrician by vocation and performed test measurements with my professional FLUKE-multimeter. I also checked solderings and took photos to prove that everything is fine. I thought that this would work as a source for Wikipedia too.

And yes, I know that Wikipedia links are Nofollow and don't affect the SEO rankings at all. But that Wikipedia article lacked crucial info, that's why I added it.

Reasons why I think this kind of source is valid and why I added the link to my content in the first place.

1. I checked references for that page (Electric guitar): those included sites like: musicradar.com (self-published blog with ads and affiliate links), lespaulforum.com (well it's a forum), StewMac (content there is self-published by SteweMac which's main goal is to sell guitars and gear). I personally have nothing against these sources (well the forum source is a bit unreliable, but the link is broken anyway). But after looking at these I thought that maybe I'll add something based on my heavy focus on cheap electric guitar this year.

2. I have really performed a test, using legitimate methods. Measuring resistance gives us valuable info about how much copper wire is around magnetic pole pieces. More resistance there is, hotter tones the pickup provides. I checked solderings to see if everything is well-attached and that there are no cold solderings.

But to my amazement, not only the link was removed, but also the statement too. At the same time, the tonewood statement remained(without proof).

I chatted with a moderator of yours. He first stated that all self-published sources are forbidden. I didn't found anything stating that and the actual Electric guitar Wikipedia page and its References speak against this.

After letting him know all this he stated that my site and page has Affiliate links to the products I test. I didn't know that's forbidden. And because you are linking to musicradar.com, I assumed it to be OK.

I performed a legitimate test. I can send a photo of my graduation diploma as an electrician. I know how to use a multimeter. I know how to measure resistance. I know how to check solderings. My content was fact-checked by others. Any book Wikipedia articles refer can be way more inaccurate.

So is there a rule (that's broken a lot) that a blog while it's a legitimate business is not a valid source?

Or is it the affiliate links on the page? I can make a new page without those links to act as a source for my statement.

Or is it the fact that I have affiliate links on my site overall? MusicRadar has these. SteveMaw actually sells guitars. There is a disconnection here.

And I didn't feel that my addition was spam. I did it once on to a page that I have gone through carefully. I'm professional about that subject. I'm professional when it comes to electronics too.

Hopefully, you can clarify the matter.

I want to thank you for your time and for the work you are doing! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnD2020 ( talk • contribs)

We need RS to say it, this site does not look like an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

but can't clarify why you think that similar sites that don't even buy and test guitars and forums are? or why my statement was removed?

Without knowing what sites you refer to I can't say. What I can say is wp:sps is clear blogs can only be used if they are by acknowledged experts in that field. I am unsure whoever Tommy Tompkins is counts as such an acknowledgment. Nor does the use of bad sources justify the use of another bad source, it just means we should remove the other bad sources. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Read the message above...well I can make things easier for you :) here's a quote about those other sources: musicradar.com (self-published blog with ads and affiliate links), lespaulforum.com (well it's a forum). Here's a definition of expert for you (webster): one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject I'm the expert. I open up electric guitars. I measure resistances and check electronics based on the knowledge I've gained when I studied my vocation and during my 12 years with guitars. My site has combined 82 years of guitar experience behind it. https://guitaristnextdoor.com/should-you-even-trust-us-guitaristnextdoor-com-testimonials/

1 of those experts is David Slavkovic, he mainly works as senior editor at https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/ a page that gets over 50million visits each month. He also works with me because experts hangs out with experts. He performs with his own name because he trusts my site. Another expert has taught guitar since high School: DL Shepherd. I have spent this year studying budget electric guitars. And you say that this is not enough? We have the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject, in this case about guitars and all gear related to guitars.

We need RS saying they are an expert, and treating them as such. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Now I doubt musicradar.com is an RS either. lespaulforum.com might be, it would depend on who posts on it (for example if Eric Clapton posts there that would be an RS). Slatersteven ( talk) 13:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, MusicRadar may or may not be reliable, but at least it is not self published, it is a product of magazine publisher Future plc. The specific cite that GnD2020 appears to be concerned about looks to be a repost from sister publication/print magazine Total Guitar. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Well (OP) there is your answer, it's not an SPS. It's more of a wp:newsblog, which can be RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note that I have over 25 years of experience playing, maintaining, repairing and even building guitars, though I'd never consider myself an expert on the subject. I find the OP's claim of 12 years of experience qualifying them as an expert to be rather dubious, and am rather surprised that no-one has yet mentioned that the WP:OR which they have self-published will never be acceptable without being picked up and vetted by an authoritative re-publisher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Over at Christian Rosa, a SPA is repeatedly removing an artnet news article which alleges that the artist partially forged a painting by another artist, saying that it is "defamatory" and "libellous". ArtNet news has always seemed fine to me for art-world related news, but I would like a second opinion. There is also a follow up story in the same publication. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

ArtNet is pretty respected in the space. Absolutely an RS in its area - David Gerard ( talk) 19:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. With a paid staff of editors and reporters to ensure journalistic integrity, this isn't just some self-published vanity-press source. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty explosive story, of course, but on the face of it it looks like what a well-backed story they wrote with caution would look like - David Gerard ( talk) 20:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Artnet, despite the silly name, is highly respected and their reporting standards are rigorous. Niche source but generally reliable within that niche. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 03:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Are citypopulation.de and worldpopulationreview.com reliable sources? Catchpoke ( talk) 03:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Could Glamour be considered a reliable source in this industry?

• I would hope so, but fashion magazines live their lives on a lack of space between editorial and advertising - David Gerard ( talk) 20:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• It should be. Glamour is one of the oldest fashion magazines in the US, and it's backed by a reputable publisher ( Condé Nast). And it has strong editorial control too. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 13:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Previously mentioned at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#Otokonoko and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#Yomedan-chii.jp_blog_in_Otokonoko.

At Talk:Otokonoko#Trap_section, it is suggested that the inclusion of 男の娘 (Otokonoko) in the results when searching for "trap" [44] at Jisho.org, an online Japanese to English dictionary, is supportive of inclusion of article text Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps". Jisho sources definitions from "JMdict". [45] [46]

A review of all used sources at Otokonoko would be appreciated; particularly the Vice source [47] (text & video), which is referenced for the article text Otokonoko (男の娘, "male daughter" or "male girl", also pronounced as otoko no musume) is a Japanese term for men who adopt a culturally feminine gender expression, (one of 3 sources here) and The term <Otokonoko> originated in Japanese manga.

Thanks. - Ryk72 ^talk 11:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the other user in the past linked Otokonoko post. "The appellation 'trap' is WP:BLUE in the anime pop culture sphere and does not require a citation." As any citation is going to be user generated because translation of slang terms is just that. None of the links actually hold up to reliability standard of Wikipedia. This is not a historical event. This is translation of a slang term in another language. SlySneakyFox ( talk) 04:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Slang terms are often documented in reliable sources (See: Fuck). But, in cases where no reliable sources can be found for a topic, we don't then use non-reliable sources. And we don't use sources for content which they don't directly support. If no sources used in the article are reliable, and none can be found, the article should not exist & should be sent to AfD.

Editors are welcome to challenge the other sources used; or to nominate the article for deletion; but not to include poorly sourced content.

BLUE is a nice essay; with the contrasting viewpoint at WP:NOTBLUE. But, while BLUE outlines a rationale for unsourced content, it is not an excuse to use non-reliable sources.

At the policy level, WP:V requires that content which has been challenged be verified with reliable sources; the material has been challenged, and therefore requires sources. WP:NPOV requires that the article include aspects of the topic which appear in reliable sources; if this aspect does not appear in reliable sources, it should not appear in the article.

Neither of those policies are optional. But sometimes the sky is grey. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Longer list of proposed sources:

"Japanese with Anime". Japanese with Anime. Retrieved 2021-08-02.{{ cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status ( link)

"業界用語集 ｜ニューハーフ、女装・男の娘の求人情報で充実の掲載件数のnewmo「ニューモ」". www.new-mo.jp. Retrieved 2021-08-02.

"Japanese Fans Rank Top 5 Anime Traps, "Otokonoko"!". Japanese kawaii idol music culture news | Tokyo Girls Update. Retrieved 2021-08-02.

"19 Best Anime Trap Series That Aren't Hentai - Cinemaholic". The Cinemaholic. 2021-01-03. Retrieved 2021-08-02.

"26 Best Anime Traps Characters". My Otaku World. 2020-02-03. Retrieved 2021-08-02.

Most were previously listed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#Otokonoko; there was only one response on the sources, which did not consider them reliable.

Are any of these reliable? If so, do they verify the proposed article content - Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps"? - Ryk72 ^talk 14:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

They're as reliable as the rest of the sources in the article. Also, "Fuck" is listed as a profane English word. Reminder that slang at least in the way for trap is the informal version of a formal word. Fuck is not formal to begin with. SlySneakyFox ( talk) 23:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The rest of the sources:

Ashcraft, Brian (26 May 2011). "What Is Japan's Fetish This Week? Male Daughters". Kotaku. Retrieved 5 January 2014.

Clegg, Cara (7 June 2014). "Japan slowly begins to openly discuss crossdressing men in heterosexual relationships". SoraNews24. Retrieved 14 March 2018.

"OTOKONOKO : DES GARÇONS TROP MIGNONNES". Vice. 8 August 2013. Retrieved 5 January 2014.

森友, ひい子 (2 June 2014). "「男の娘」「女装子」と呼ばれる人々 "中性化受け入れ"円満な夫婦の鍵 〈週刊朝日〉". AERA dot. (アエラドット) (in Japanese). Retrieved 14 March 2018.

These included. Let's have others get a chance to speak shell we. SlySneakyFox ( talk) 00:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Of the first five proposed sources, the first, "Japanese with Anime" is a user-generated content blog, and therefore unreliable. The third, fourth, and fifth are all listicles - #3 sources itself from goo.ne.jp (user votes; unreliable), #4 is a very fancy Wordpess site (blog; unreliable), and #5 is explicitly "My Otaku World is one of the best anime blog for the anime fans Build by an anime fan lets have fun together & lets build the best Anime blog on the internet" (blog; unreliable). #2 is trickier as my Japanese is very rusty, but I don't see any sourcing information for their definitions, and can confirm that some of them are just plain incorrect. Reviewing the rest of the site, I wouldn't call it a reliable source.

Regarding the remaining four sources, #1 is Kotaku, "quite a reputable gaming media source" - this isn't about gaming, but I see no reason not to include it, so long as the content is backed up by other, more reliable sources. #2, SoraNews, is a blog (unreliable). #3, Vice, currently has no consensus as to its reliability (per the perennial sources listing on Wiki). #4 states that it's an excerpt from a Weekly Asahi article, which is itself tied to Asahi Shimbun, which I would call reliable - certainly the most reliable of the bunch thus far.

With the proposed text in mind (Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps"), there are no reliable sources given here that link "otokonoko" and "trap", and especially nothing that supports the "commonly referred to" detail. I would also add that "trap" is considered a pejorative, the implication being that a person presenting as one gender 'traps' an unsuspecting other party into sex with them, and we should be very careful of using it in Wikipedia's voice or normalizing it in any way. NekoKatsun ( nyaa) 15:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Is ScienceDaily a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averroes 22 ( talk • contribs)

It's a press release aggregator, so no. Press releases are self-published and tend to exaggerate the claims made in papers and are designed to promote the work. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia just said what I was about to. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)