This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 350 | ← | Archive 352 | Archive 353 | Archive 354 | Archive 355 | Archive 356 | → | Archive 360 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Insider for its original culture reporting?
Note this is section specific in efforts to try and find some narrow consensus as all previous discussions focusing on the sites as a whole have ended "no consensus".
-- TheSandDoctor Talk 05:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Generally reliable in its areas of expertise—this allows for a certain amount of areas of non-expertise (for instance, The New York Times is not a MEDRS per WP:MEDPOP) and for cases where the source is not going to be reliable even within its areas of expertise. I think it would be consistent to go for either options 1 or 2, but I opted for 1 because I don't think the issues are severe enough to lump it in with much worse "marginally reliable" listings. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
A review by Noah Carl, writing in The Critic (British magazine), is used in the article Russell Warne to help back up a summary of one of Warne's books. I am concerned that the Warne article may fail WP:PROF and WP:GNG, so evaluating whether this source counts as coverage in a reliable, independent source will help me decide whether to launch an AfD. There are only a few other sources which could conceivably be called coverage of this individual.
Carl and Warne are certainly both part of a tight network of fringe racial hereditarians who argue that there is a genetic basis for observed differences in IQ test performance between racial groups (if you're skeptical that this view is fringe, see this recent RfC), but I am unaware of any specific evidence that they are personally close. It's also worth noting that Carl is now an independent researcher since being sacked from his university position for "poor scholarship" and "selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes".
The Critic is described as "conservatively inclined", which certainly wouldn't be a problem if the author were reliable and independent. In this case, however, I'm not sure that is the case.
Thoughts? Generalrelative ( talk) 19:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
neutrally worded, short and simple. Ever since the 2020 RfC on race and intelligence (see [2]) reached a consensus (sustained on appeal) that the claim of genetic differences in intelligence between different races is a fringe POV, a small number of editors have been pressing to relitigate the matter. Ferahgo's malformed RfC was an example. After Ferahgo's abortive RfC, in order to resolve the matter I started a simple, neutrally worded RfC on the R&I talk-page (see [3]). It ended in a snow-close reaffirming the consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. Both RfCs on race and intelligence had extensive participation by many editors -- about 50 in 2020 and 35 in 2021. Ferahgo's claim that the unreliability of sources that promote racial hereditarian theories of intelligence has to be relitigated is without merit. NightHeron ( talk) 15:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Results are live at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1#Race and intelligence controversy. Note that Intelligence Journal really was Intelligence Bulletin, I've cleaned up the articles, but the compilation will reflect the old dump. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the original question: Russell Warne has been deleted at AFD - David Gerard ( talk) 15:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
David Gerard recently made these edits at Intelligence (journal), which I reverted. Per this and this edit summary, this is inappropriate. Not only does it misrepresent at least one of the sources cited, but it is using non-academic sources, two of which have a known political bias, to condemn an academic journal. That is entirely contrary to WP:SOURCETYPES. Aren't journalistic sources banned from race and intelligence? Is it the position of editors fighting pseudoscientific racism that all study of human intelligence is illegitimate? If so, that is an extreme position that is itself WP:FRINGE and completely out of step with cognitive psychology, psychiatry, and so on. If that is what people are fighting for, then it is time for a new RfC. That previous RfC never, ever justified that. This journal overwhelmingly publishes mainstream topics. I fear that some editors have become overzealous. Crossroads -talk- 01:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it the position of editors fighting pseudoscientific racism that all study of human intelligence is illegitimate?I'm not aware of anyone who has made this claim. But in any case, as Headbomb has suggested, if you're concerned about WP:NPOV then WP:NPOVN would be the proper forum to raise your concerns. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure it'll be that helpful, but I guess we'll see. I think the main issue will be that if it includes journals like Intelligence, the signal-to-noise (i.e. crap vs good citations) ratio will be pretty small, since Intelligence does not mainly publish bad scholarship. Do note that all the CiteWatch will do is compile publications involved in the controversy in some way, not only bad papers of dubious scholarly value involved in the controversy.Generalrelative ( talk) 03:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it the position of editors fighting pseudoscientific racism that all study of human intelligence is illegitimate?I don't know about editors specifically making this claim, but it does seem to be a rather common sentiment on the progressive left. This article [4] provides a good overview. Economist William Darity, for example, said: "There will be no reason to pursue these types of research programs at all, and they can be rendered to the same location as Holocaust denial research." Meanwhile, philosopher Peter Singer said: "If you ignore these things that contribute to inequality, or pretend they don’t exist, you make it more difficult to achieve the kind of society that you value....There’s a politically correct left that’s still not open to these things."
Per the comments by Headbomb and Ferahgo in the section above, I think we should have a discussion about the broader practice of rejecting otherwise high-quality academic sources in relation to this topic. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence about rejecting In the Know by Russell Warne as a source, which was published by Cambridge University Press. A previous discussion at this noticeboard found Cambridge University Press to be a reliable source with respect to the topic of race and intelligence.
This edit blanked five paragraphs of text cited to mostly high-quality academic sources, including some controversial figures such as Jensen, but mostly material cited to respected figures such as James Flynn (academic), Earl B. Hunt, Ulric Neisser and Donald T. Campbell. The link posted by Ferahgo above contains a few dozen examples of edits like that, but that one was one of the more severe cases. Until now, it has never been possible to have a community-wide discussion about this practice, but maybe we can have that discussion now.
@ Ekpyros: @ Alaexis: Both of you have been involved in the related discussion on the article's talk page, so I think you should be aware of this discussion as well. Gardenofaleph ( talk) 21:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
the [in]admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligencewas made in the context of a discussion of sources for scientific consensus. Sources by Jensen, Rushton, Richard Lynn, and the like, despite their claims of being scientific, are unreliable for describing what mainstream science says. They are, however, reliable for describing what the authors believe and so are cited many times in Race and intelligence, Scientific racism, and related articles in order to give an accurate summary of the fringe POV. NightHeron ( talk) 22:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
misled the community. (By the way, how exactly are you alleging he misled the community? Your argument seems to be premised on the idea that the community is unaware of how WP:FRINGE works, and that NightHeron somehow hid this knowledge from everyone until it was too late. That can't be right, can it?) Now you've piled on by stating that NightHeron's summary above was
simply not consistent with the pattern or removals from the articlesand described it as
revisionism, but failed to provide any reasons why an uninvolved observer might think so. Instead you're just repeating the same allegations over and over. I know this might sound like a radical idea, but perhaps just stop? There is clearly no appetite among the community to relitigate this in your favor. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of these discussions is that...When people go out of their way to be humble or circumspect, the least you can do is acknowledge that. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
There are also serious red flags over David Becker and Thomas R.Coyle publishing history.Becker I understand. But what did you mean about Coyle? Sesquivalent ( talk) 07:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
That gives 90% content which there is no reason to suspectAny other publication discussed on RSN having 10% of its content being pseudoscientific conspiracy theories would be a slam-dunk for complete deprecation. You're not making clear why Intelligence should be any exception - David Gerard ( talk) 12:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
non-Danish ethnicitycorrelates with having a low IQ. In another context, in another journal, I would give this study the benefit of the doubt, but this isn't another journal. Who gets to make the call that this is "definitively" problematic? This is a walled garden and the 'high score' with Scopus shows this. The study is cited multiple times times in Mankind Quarterly, once in OpenPsych, twice in Intelligence itself, and twice in Personality and Individual Differences which has a similar reputation to Intelligence.
Researchers with extreme views on race number relatively few but, having languished on the margins of their fields for many years, they are now managing to push their ideas into the mainstream, including into respectable scientific journals....Both Meisenberg and Lynn also serve on the editorial board of Intelligence, a psychology journal also published by Elsevier.The Guardian (note that since this article Lynn and Meisenberg are no longer on the editorial board - but the author is clearly calling it a respectable scientific journal)
The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field....Journals and universities that allow their reputations to be used to launder or legitimate racist pseudo-science bear responsibility when that pseudo-science is used for political ends.New Statesman
Intelligence, a more respected psychology journal that’s published by the major publishing company Elsevier, also occasionally included papers with pseudoscientific findings about intelligence differences between races.Smithsonian Magazine
The remaining concern was that the views of Rindermann and Hunt may be Fringe. The discussion indicated that there is a lack of sources supporting or opposing the notion that the views in these books are fringe, though when a viewpoint does not have wide support, we do treat it as fringe, and do not give it undue weight. That is, we can give the views of Rindermann and Hunt, sourced to their books published by the Cambridge University Press, but take care not to promote their views as widely accepted unless/until sources can be found which indicate their views are widely accepted.That closing (in February 2020) was superseded by the RfC at WP:FTN on Race and Intelligence that closed in April 2020 (and was reaffirmed by another RfC in 2021) that held unequivocally that the belief that there's evidence of genetic superiority of certain races to other races in intelligence is a fringe viewpoint, rejected by mainstream science. NightHeron ( talk) 23:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Outside of that one area of race-and-intelligence that sources have commented on, I see no reason to treat it as anything other than an ordinary psychology journal, to which Generalrelative replied about that RfC,
that was my understanding of the consensus among editors who discussed the journal at the RfC. Academic publishing doesn't work like the news media - journals sometimes publish ideas or hypotheses that are marginal or fringe to show them to the wider academic community for critique, etc., plus there is academic freedom. This applies to every subject, but this one is particularly hot-button. This isn't like the Daily Mail not being trusted to report events accurately. And frankly, unless you are proposing to gut the anti-racial-hereditarian material at race and intelligence, Flynn effect, etc., much of which is cited to Intelligence, I don't see a reason to keep debating this. We don't do guilt-by-association or over-the-top "purity testing" demands beyond what sources say, nor do we cherry-pick what we want to hear from the sources on the topic. Crossroads -talk- 15:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
To restate my point, the three sources we have for this journal's positive reputation are also sources pointing out its problem with scientific racism. The scientific racism is not incidental to the journal. It is the only reason these three sources are talking about the journal at all. This context is not hidden or arcane, it's specifically provided by these sources. Grayfell ( talk) 19:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anyone who has made this claim.I did not and would not assure you that no one has made the claim because I don't imagine myself to be omniscient. Now some folks have begun arguing that the official journal of the International Society for Intelligence Research is largely unreliable, making claims that go beyond the discussion at the RfC which I linked to above. That may be concerning to you but they are not in so doing necessarily attacking all research into intelligence as illegitimate. Research on intelligence continues to be published in top-tier journals like Nature, Science and the various journals of the American Psychological Association. As I stated below, I'm not willing at this time to stake out a position on how reliable a source Intelligence is beyond the narrow topic of race & intelligence, but those who are arguing for a broad unreliability are not thereby arguing that all research into human intelligence is illegitimate. If someone does want to pop in here and argue that, so be it, but I have not seen such an argument yet. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not at all tricky..." is not supported by these sources. Sometimes it is obvious, but sometimes it isn't, which is exactly why sources are commenting on it. Per sources, the outlet is superficially respectable, so the question sources are asking is why does an otherwise respectable journal keep publishing pseudoscience? You may personally think it's always obvious which are good and which are bad, but I don't accept that. As I've tried to explain, some articles appear reliable but this doesn't always hold up to scrutiny.
Despite careful, scholarly criticism in every era since the early 1900s, scientific racism in psychology has proven remarkably resilient. Although Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton both died in 2012, a small but very active community of researchers continue to pursue questions of race in relation to intelligence, brain size, crime, sexuality, reproduction, and dysgenics, with new work appearing in Personality and Individual Differences, Intelligence, and other journals. This international community is led by Richard Lynn, who for a number of years served simultaneously on the editorial boards of Intelligence and Mankind Quarterly, and as president of the Pioneer Fund. . . . The interlacing of scientific psychology with racial politics has now lasted over 100 years. The community of race scientists had sufficient funding, access to journals, dedication, and shared understanding to carry on a project that most psychologists had considered moribund by the 1960s.Note that the source does not take a position on whether being a vehicle for scientific racism is the primary thing the journal Intelligence is known for, just that this journal is a crucial part of the story of the persistence of scientific racism in psychology through to the present day. I don't see anyone disagreeing with this assessment here but I wanted to make sure that with the discussion of sources this one too was given consideration. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The question is loaded with tendentious uncited material that is probably false.
Carl and Warne are certainly both part of a tight network of fringe racial hereditarians-- almost certainly false.
There is no indication Carl is a hereditarian at all. He is a quantitative social scientist, not a psychometrician, behavior geneticist, psychologist or geneticist. So not from any of the fields involved in research on intelligence, its possible genetic correlates, or genetic differences by race. He has no papers on anything genetic.
I looked into him a while ago during, you guessed it, Wikipedia talk page controversies on these matters and did not see any place where he takes any position on race-and-intelligence hereditarianism except the standard academic freedom arguments that it's an open question and legitimate area of research and (even if those statements were not true) that it should not lead to vilification campaigns against those who publish about it. Well-known non- or anti-hereditarians such as Stephen Pinker, James Flynn, Stephen Ceci say much the same thing and are not classified as "fringe racial hereditarians" for it.
Carl was an editor or reviewer of one of Kirkegaard's OpenPsych journals. Must be hereditarian, right? Actually there were 3-4 such journals, and Carl was connected to the one for quantitative social science (no apparent connection to hereditarianism) and as of the time I checked his publications and (I think) reviews were not hereditarian-related. He cosigned an article with most of the OpenPsych affiliates defending the aforementioned freedom-of-research position, but there was no place online where one can discover what, if anything, he believes about race differences in intelligence.
Ah, but Carl published in MANKIND QUARTERLY! Case closed! Yeah, but just like James Flynn in the same journal, it was an anti-hereditarian paper. Carl found some data disconfirming a pet hereditarian idea that regional IQ increases with distance from the equator.
Yes, but he wrote a paper with EMIL KIRKEGAARD!!! Not on hereditarianism, though. It was a social science paper on stereotype accuracy in Denmark.
It might be fair to class Carl with people like Cofnas, Anomaly, and Winegard; social scientists who defend a similar (in fact considerably stronger) position on freedom to research hereditarianism. Some of them may have put forth an opinion on the likelihood of race differences but Carl has not.
Carl is now an independent researcher since being sacked from his university position
Carl received a large settlement when he sued the university for illegally firing him, and his independence may reflect financial independence resulting from that, not an inability to get another position. The university fired him as a virtue signal under political pressure and literally paid the price.
for "poor scholarship" and "selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes"
These sound bites are conveniently quoted without a reference to any source where they can be checked. There is a long report from the university committee that investigated Carl. Having read it, my recollection is that they did not deign to name any specific problem with Carl's research (data, methods, conclusions). The sound bites may come from a shorter press release which contains general unverifiable denunciations for media (and student protestor) consumption. The papers by Carl that I looked at seemed to be standard social science. No apparent problem of poor scholarship, and in any case the papers being nebulously associated with racism had nothing to do with hereditarianism. Sesquivalent ( talk) 08:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll respond to a few of the above points now and if necessary will continue later. A few gross errors in the above:
1) These sound bites are conveniently quoted without a reference to any source where they can be checked.
It's actually pretty easy to check by clicking through
Noah Carl. You will see there that it is a quotation from the Master of St Edmund's College, i.e. Carl's former employer. I suppose this counts as a shorter press release which contains general unverifiable denunciations for media (and student protestor) consumption
, but so what? It's certainly a reliable source for the position of St Edmund's College on Carl's termination.
2) Carl received a large settlement when he sued the university for illegally firing him, and his independence may reflect financial independence resulting from that, not an inability to get another position.
Citation needed. The article states that Carl withdrew his claim; the case was settled by a confidential agreement between both parties.
[17] Instead, it appears that Carl raised $100,000 online through cultural grievance publicity.
[18] Do you have a citation for your claim otherwise? Or were you simply wrong to make this assumption?
3) Update: Sesquivalent's original heading read "Citation needed. Noah Carl is not a hereditarian." David Gerard has kindly reworded it for neutrality.
Generalrelative (
talk) 18:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Per
WP:TALKHEADPOV, A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
Presumably this applies to noticeboards too, no? If so, Sesquivalent's heading here is a clear violation on the guideline and should be changed, either by herself or another editor.
4) Anyone familiar with Sesquivalent's editing behavior will recognize her charge of wikilawyering as projection. Edit warring has been used disproportionately by opponents of the existing consensus on race and intelligence, not those of us who support it. No one who looks at the history of these pages could possibly come away with any other conclusion. And the charge of OWNership falls flat given the overwhelming nature of the consensus that supports what we do.
For my part, I'll admit that I may have been in error to assert that Carl is specifically a "hereditarian" and will be happy to substitute "advocate for scientific racism" if that is amenable to Sesquivalent. We will have no trouble providing ample sources to support that. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
is there any citation for the claim that he was dismissed for "promotion of racism"is given in lead of Noah Carl. Here are two such sources referenced there: [22], [23]. I sincerely hope this clears things up. But in any case I will not be engaging further with this self-evidently specious line of discussion. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which should probably be deprecated. Uses: [24]. See for instance [https://www.ancient-origins.net/jason-jarrell-sarah-farmer] on giants in ancient America. This section on "ancient technology" [https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-technology]. Not all of its content is woowoo, but it happily hosts nonsense so nothing on it is reliably published. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The goal of Ancient Origins is to highlight recent archaeological discoveries, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.
We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives.
peer-reviewed academic research and evidencehighlighted by them that's worthy of inclusion here, we will have the RS to cite anyway. – Austronesier ( talk) 13:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment I have implemented what I read as the consensus in this thread by blacklisting the link. However, my decision was questioned by user:Peter Gulutzan as being out-of-process. It may be worth some further discussion and an independent closure of this thread. If that decides that we should not blacklist I will revert the blacklisting (but as the situation stands now, I see no reason why to revert). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Article: Hijabophobia
Content: File:Matthias Laurenz Gräff - "Liebende Eltern".jpg
A user has removed the image from the page claiming there should be a reliable source saying the depicted work has links to the Hijabophobia. Is it so? -- Mhhossein talk 13:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The below content was removed from Julian Assange in this edit, with the suggestion that it is "weakly sourced" and "UNDUE", and removed a second time here. I'm placing the RfC here with a note at NPOVN. The sources are as follows: [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
Should the article Julian Assange include the following information, sourced to The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times and Yahoo News:
According to former intelligence officials, following the Vault 7 leaks senior officials in the CIA discussed plans to either kidnap Assange from the embassy or assassinate him, going so far as to request "sketches" or "options" for doing so. No plans were approved, partly because White House lawyers raised concerns about the legality of such an operation. Some officials, interviewed as part of an investigation by Yahoo News, stated that they were sufficiently concerned about the proposals that they alerted staffers and members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Cambial foliage❧ 23:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
* Include In addition to the cited RS, [1] [2] [3] [4] several other mainstream reliable sources have published articles about the investigation: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] The argument that the available sourcing is weak does not bear scrutiny. This is clearly highly relevant to Assange's biography and represents encyclopaedic content. Following the initial report, several news organisations have reported on the story and sought comment from the agencies/governments involved. Cambial foliage❧ 23:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
* Include (reasons pretty well the same as Cambial Yellowing above) Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Question: Why was this RfC started here and not in the Julian Assange article's talk page? M.Bitton ( talk) 23:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
THis is not an RS issue, as it is a wp:undue issue. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Question: I only see a single source in the first diff, why does the opening statement suggest that the edit summary from that diff applied to all four sources provided? That seems to be either a mistake or deeply and profoundly misleading. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 05:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
With reference to this conversation, /info/en/?search=Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#Issues_with_NPOV_on_this_page, can we establish how reliable these actors are? Chantern15 ( talk) 00:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15
an UFO, or a group of UFOs over decades interfered (shut down missiles for ex., a no-go state) with nuclear missiles while they were in silos.If true, this would be the most important story of the century with serious, extensive coverage in all major newspapers and media with accompanying statements from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee, the Pentagon, etc. Yet it can only be found buried in the dark corners of UFOlogy or treated in passing as an anecdotal curiosity by some regional and national media, hence WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:FRINGE apply. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this website reliable for wikipedia articles? There is no neutrality in this website. The website propagates a leftist view which lack neutrality. About us in this website dictates as follows " NewsClick’s aim has always been to report, in depth, on news and views ignored by corporate media, whose agenda is dictated by the rich and powerful in the country." These lines emotes the behavior of the website which has some agenda itself. The editor's leftist views are witnessed from this website " https://cpim.org/tags/prabir-purkayastha" which is a political party in India. How can a sympathizer of a political party can be neutral? The reliability of this website is in question. Need discussion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalrahu ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Please check universalrahu's edits he is removing everything by saying POV in a casteist film. He is asking this now to remove some content which is criticism of caste pride. 2409:4072:6C9F:42AA:7B21:32FD:F907:DBC4 ( talk) 04:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this website being used as a reference;
Specifically this part;
used in Elisabeth of Romania. Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
As examples, the Jewish and Catholic Encyclopedias. I recall adding some cn tags to an article that was almost all from the Jewish Encyclopedia, only to have them all removed on the grounds the JE is a reliable source. Sadly I can't recall the article. This applies of course to other very old tertiary sources. I can see where maybe a reference to old scholarship in such an encyclopedia could be an rs, but even then I would be concerned that opinions may have changed, there might have been new discoveries, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
better source needed}}
?
JBchrch
talk 12:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)I think there's plenty of old-as-hell sources that are perfectly (and uncontroversially) usable. Fox Island (Detroit River), for example, is a GA I wrote which cites an 1850 article about an 1820 property sale. I can't think of any reason to claim that as apocryphal. Obviously, textbooks about surgical procedures or electrical engineering from the time will be found wanting, but it's not as though information simply "goes bad" (and, of course, an 1850 textbook about surgical procedures would be an excellent source for how surgery was performed in 1850). jp× g 10:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
Obsolete source}}
.
Platonk (
talk) 06:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war. @ Mikehawk10 and Horse Eye's Back: who commented here previously. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Specifico has once again given his tendentious and misleading hot take on well-sourced content he apparently dislikes. Contrary to the above, and as already described on this noticeboard in an earlier post, the article content is sourced from outlets like The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Intercept, The Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, BBC News, and The Hill alongside the extensive article from Yahoo News. Specifico's determination to rid the article of any content critical of the actions of the UK and US governments, regardless of the institution from which the criticism comes, has evidently got the better of him. The quite flagrant canvassing is not appreciated. Cambial foliage❧ 22:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
THis is not neutrally worded, and all editors need to lay off trying to dismiss other user's opinions on the grounds of bias. Nor am I sure this is even an RS issue. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Just to let people know, I pinged JBchrch, M.Bitton and PaleoNeonate to the RfC directly on the talk page since they were not pinged here. I felt it fairest to ensure all participants of that closed RfC were pinged especially PaleoNeonate who's exclusion was I assume a mistake. But it doesn't make sense to me to ping someone to a discussion telling them to go somewhere else. Nil Einne ( talk) 23:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Hope I'm posting this in the correct place. Could we ban think tanks as legitimate sources in wikipedia? Think tanks are rarely neutral and are usually just used to push the agenda and even misinformation on behalf of their funders. Take Wikipedia own article on think tanks for example. Under "Advocacy by think tanks" It gives an example of Philip Morris using a think tank to dispute the link between second hand smoke and cancer. From the article:
"In some cases, corporate interests[35] and political groups have found it useful to create policy institutes, advocacy organizations, and think tanks. For example, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was formed in the mid-1990s to dispute research finding an association between second-hand smoke and cancer.[36] According to an internal memorandum from Philip Morris Companies referring to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "The credibility of the EPA is defeatable, but not on the basis of ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] alone,... It must be part of a larger mosaic that concentrates all the EPA's enemies against it at one time."[37]
According to the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, both left-wing and right-wing policy institutes are often quoted and rarely identified as such. The result is that think tank "experts" are sometimes depicted as neutral sources without any ideological predispositions when, in fact, they represent a particular perspective.[38][39] In the United States, think tank publications on education are subjected to expert review by the National Education Policy Center's "Think Twice" think tank review project.[40]"
This article on prescription drug prices (
/info/en/?search=Prescription_drug_prices_in_the_United_States) is a clear example of misinformation on wikipedia due to think tank sources. The article claims that "One major reason for high prescription drug prices in the United States relative to other countries is the inability of government-granted monopolies in the U.S. health care sector to use their bargaining power to negotiate lower prices and that the US payer ends up subsidizing the world's R&D spending on drugs" and uses the think tank itif as a source. If you look at who funds the itif here:
https://itif.org/our-supporters You can see they are funded by many large Pharma companies such as Pfizer who have a clear financial interest in spreading such misinformation.
PLEASE ban think tanks as legitimate sources on wikipedia. These sources are allowing disinformation making it's way into the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.29.240 ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I wanted to inquire about whether or not The Irish Times is a generally reliable source. When I checked the Perennial Sources list, I didn't see it appear anywhere, and as a result I wasn't able to find a definitive answer for its reliability. At a glance I saw it was used in over 18,000 pages, and certainly an outlet like this wouldn't have appeared so often on Wikipedia articles without someone eventually questioning it. However, I couldn't find any actual discussions on the source's reliability in detail (or at least any one I could find without spending an entire day wading through every one of them). So this leads me to believe The Irish Times is either "a stellar source" that never "needed to be talked about because it was so obvious," or that "the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion." But seeing as how it's been cited over 18,000 times as aforementioned, this leads me to believe it falls in the former category. Personally, I think it's reliable but I'm still somewhat of a novice in determining the reliability of sources. What are your thoughts? PantheonRadiance ( talk) 02:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This sentence is in dispute -
"The book prompted a counter-publication by the group which included ad hominem of Abrahamian"
This is what the source used for this statement is saying -
"It must be emphasised from the outset that information about the MeK is politically highly charged and commonly provokes a reaction by either the organisation or the Iranian Government. Virtually every publication about the MeK is followed by a counter-publication..."
[Footnote]: "Often ad hominem discrediting their authors: … Abrahamian, above n 1, was followed by a critique by the MeK-affiliated Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities: Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities, Facts and Myths on the People’s Mojahedin of Iran: Examples of the Lies, Distortions and Fabrications in Ervand Abrahamian’s The Iranian Mojahedin (Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities, 1990)."
Is "the MeK-affiliated Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities"
the same as saying the "MeK"
itself? Is the content in the article synthesizing a conclusion that the author did not give, or does the content match the source? (I am pinging
Pahlevun who is the one I'm having this dispute with).
Ypatch (
talk) 05:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This book is being discussed on Talk:Bakarkhani. The book was published on Mar 2, 2020 and the description of ' Bakarkhani' there is quite similar to earlier versions of the article dated 11 April 2019 and earlier. Is that a reliable source or an example of circular reference? Note that I have taken a position at the talk page arguing against the book. Za-ari-masen ( talk) 21:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This 24smi.org article is used as a source in Svetlana Krivonogikh's article. 24smi.org looks like a tabloid gossip website to me, so I removed it but another user added it back in saying it was reliable. Is it really considered reliable in Russia? I cannot find any information about it but I am not Russian. (In Krivonogikh's article, it it used as a citation for her patronymic, Alexandrovna. When the other user reincluded it, they added another source from istories.media ( ru:Важные истории) to back this up, so I am not disputing that Alexandrovna is her patronymic.) Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 20:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I would like to create an article decribing our provincial climbing federation in the Western Cape South AFrica. Are there special considerations that I should be aware of. I created a link to the federation facebook page which elicited a warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisNaude ( talk • contribs)
I found this discussion in the archives that pretty unequivocally indicated that we'd blacklist murderpedia.org for copyright issues, SPS, and circular references back to Wikipedia. However, I'm not finding it listed anywhere in our deprecated sources. Am I just bad at looking, or did this never get executed? -- Fyrael ( talk) 15:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 350 | ← | Archive 352 | Archive 353 | Archive 354 | Archive 355 | Archive 356 | → | Archive 360 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Insider for its original culture reporting?
Note this is section specific in efforts to try and find some narrow consensus as all previous discussions focusing on the sites as a whole have ended "no consensus".
-- TheSandDoctor Talk 05:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Generally reliable in its areas of expertise—this allows for a certain amount of areas of non-expertise (for instance, The New York Times is not a MEDRS per WP:MEDPOP) and for cases where the source is not going to be reliable even within its areas of expertise. I think it would be consistent to go for either options 1 or 2, but I opted for 1 because I don't think the issues are severe enough to lump it in with much worse "marginally reliable" listings. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
A review by Noah Carl, writing in The Critic (British magazine), is used in the article Russell Warne to help back up a summary of one of Warne's books. I am concerned that the Warne article may fail WP:PROF and WP:GNG, so evaluating whether this source counts as coverage in a reliable, independent source will help me decide whether to launch an AfD. There are only a few other sources which could conceivably be called coverage of this individual.
Carl and Warne are certainly both part of a tight network of fringe racial hereditarians who argue that there is a genetic basis for observed differences in IQ test performance between racial groups (if you're skeptical that this view is fringe, see this recent RfC), but I am unaware of any specific evidence that they are personally close. It's also worth noting that Carl is now an independent researcher since being sacked from his university position for "poor scholarship" and "selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes".
The Critic is described as "conservatively inclined", which certainly wouldn't be a problem if the author were reliable and independent. In this case, however, I'm not sure that is the case.
Thoughts? Generalrelative ( talk) 19:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
neutrally worded, short and simple. Ever since the 2020 RfC on race and intelligence (see [2]) reached a consensus (sustained on appeal) that the claim of genetic differences in intelligence between different races is a fringe POV, a small number of editors have been pressing to relitigate the matter. Ferahgo's malformed RfC was an example. After Ferahgo's abortive RfC, in order to resolve the matter I started a simple, neutrally worded RfC on the R&I talk-page (see [3]). It ended in a snow-close reaffirming the consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. Both RfCs on race and intelligence had extensive participation by many editors -- about 50 in 2020 and 35 in 2021. Ferahgo's claim that the unreliability of sources that promote racial hereditarian theories of intelligence has to be relitigated is without merit. NightHeron ( talk) 15:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Results are live at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1#Race and intelligence controversy. Note that Intelligence Journal really was Intelligence Bulletin, I've cleaned up the articles, but the compilation will reflect the old dump. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the original question: Russell Warne has been deleted at AFD - David Gerard ( talk) 15:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
David Gerard recently made these edits at Intelligence (journal), which I reverted. Per this and this edit summary, this is inappropriate. Not only does it misrepresent at least one of the sources cited, but it is using non-academic sources, two of which have a known political bias, to condemn an academic journal. That is entirely contrary to WP:SOURCETYPES. Aren't journalistic sources banned from race and intelligence? Is it the position of editors fighting pseudoscientific racism that all study of human intelligence is illegitimate? If so, that is an extreme position that is itself WP:FRINGE and completely out of step with cognitive psychology, psychiatry, and so on. If that is what people are fighting for, then it is time for a new RfC. That previous RfC never, ever justified that. This journal overwhelmingly publishes mainstream topics. I fear that some editors have become overzealous. Crossroads -talk- 01:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it the position of editors fighting pseudoscientific racism that all study of human intelligence is illegitimate?I'm not aware of anyone who has made this claim. But in any case, as Headbomb has suggested, if you're concerned about WP:NPOV then WP:NPOVN would be the proper forum to raise your concerns. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure it'll be that helpful, but I guess we'll see. I think the main issue will be that if it includes journals like Intelligence, the signal-to-noise (i.e. crap vs good citations) ratio will be pretty small, since Intelligence does not mainly publish bad scholarship. Do note that all the CiteWatch will do is compile publications involved in the controversy in some way, not only bad papers of dubious scholarly value involved in the controversy.Generalrelative ( talk) 03:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it the position of editors fighting pseudoscientific racism that all study of human intelligence is illegitimate?I don't know about editors specifically making this claim, but it does seem to be a rather common sentiment on the progressive left. This article [4] provides a good overview. Economist William Darity, for example, said: "There will be no reason to pursue these types of research programs at all, and they can be rendered to the same location as Holocaust denial research." Meanwhile, philosopher Peter Singer said: "If you ignore these things that contribute to inequality, or pretend they don’t exist, you make it more difficult to achieve the kind of society that you value....There’s a politically correct left that’s still not open to these things."
Per the comments by Headbomb and Ferahgo in the section above, I think we should have a discussion about the broader practice of rejecting otherwise high-quality academic sources in relation to this topic. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence about rejecting In the Know by Russell Warne as a source, which was published by Cambridge University Press. A previous discussion at this noticeboard found Cambridge University Press to be a reliable source with respect to the topic of race and intelligence.
This edit blanked five paragraphs of text cited to mostly high-quality academic sources, including some controversial figures such as Jensen, but mostly material cited to respected figures such as James Flynn (academic), Earl B. Hunt, Ulric Neisser and Donald T. Campbell. The link posted by Ferahgo above contains a few dozen examples of edits like that, but that one was one of the more severe cases. Until now, it has never been possible to have a community-wide discussion about this practice, but maybe we can have that discussion now.
@ Ekpyros: @ Alaexis: Both of you have been involved in the related discussion on the article's talk page, so I think you should be aware of this discussion as well. Gardenofaleph ( talk) 21:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
the [in]admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligencewas made in the context of a discussion of sources for scientific consensus. Sources by Jensen, Rushton, Richard Lynn, and the like, despite their claims of being scientific, are unreliable for describing what mainstream science says. They are, however, reliable for describing what the authors believe and so are cited many times in Race and intelligence, Scientific racism, and related articles in order to give an accurate summary of the fringe POV. NightHeron ( talk) 22:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
misled the community. (By the way, how exactly are you alleging he misled the community? Your argument seems to be premised on the idea that the community is unaware of how WP:FRINGE works, and that NightHeron somehow hid this knowledge from everyone until it was too late. That can't be right, can it?) Now you've piled on by stating that NightHeron's summary above was
simply not consistent with the pattern or removals from the articlesand described it as
revisionism, but failed to provide any reasons why an uninvolved observer might think so. Instead you're just repeating the same allegations over and over. I know this might sound like a radical idea, but perhaps just stop? There is clearly no appetite among the community to relitigate this in your favor. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of these discussions is that...When people go out of their way to be humble or circumspect, the least you can do is acknowledge that. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
There are also serious red flags over David Becker and Thomas R.Coyle publishing history.Becker I understand. But what did you mean about Coyle? Sesquivalent ( talk) 07:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
That gives 90% content which there is no reason to suspectAny other publication discussed on RSN having 10% of its content being pseudoscientific conspiracy theories would be a slam-dunk for complete deprecation. You're not making clear why Intelligence should be any exception - David Gerard ( talk) 12:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
non-Danish ethnicitycorrelates with having a low IQ. In another context, in another journal, I would give this study the benefit of the doubt, but this isn't another journal. Who gets to make the call that this is "definitively" problematic? This is a walled garden and the 'high score' with Scopus shows this. The study is cited multiple times times in Mankind Quarterly, once in OpenPsych, twice in Intelligence itself, and twice in Personality and Individual Differences which has a similar reputation to Intelligence.
Researchers with extreme views on race number relatively few but, having languished on the margins of their fields for many years, they are now managing to push their ideas into the mainstream, including into respectable scientific journals....Both Meisenberg and Lynn also serve on the editorial board of Intelligence, a psychology journal also published by Elsevier.The Guardian (note that since this article Lynn and Meisenberg are no longer on the editorial board - but the author is clearly calling it a respectable scientific journal)
The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field....Journals and universities that allow their reputations to be used to launder or legitimate racist pseudo-science bear responsibility when that pseudo-science is used for political ends.New Statesman
Intelligence, a more respected psychology journal that’s published by the major publishing company Elsevier, also occasionally included papers with pseudoscientific findings about intelligence differences between races.Smithsonian Magazine
The remaining concern was that the views of Rindermann and Hunt may be Fringe. The discussion indicated that there is a lack of sources supporting or opposing the notion that the views in these books are fringe, though when a viewpoint does not have wide support, we do treat it as fringe, and do not give it undue weight. That is, we can give the views of Rindermann and Hunt, sourced to their books published by the Cambridge University Press, but take care not to promote their views as widely accepted unless/until sources can be found which indicate their views are widely accepted.That closing (in February 2020) was superseded by the RfC at WP:FTN on Race and Intelligence that closed in April 2020 (and was reaffirmed by another RfC in 2021) that held unequivocally that the belief that there's evidence of genetic superiority of certain races to other races in intelligence is a fringe viewpoint, rejected by mainstream science. NightHeron ( talk) 23:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Outside of that one area of race-and-intelligence that sources have commented on, I see no reason to treat it as anything other than an ordinary psychology journal, to which Generalrelative replied about that RfC,
that was my understanding of the consensus among editors who discussed the journal at the RfC. Academic publishing doesn't work like the news media - journals sometimes publish ideas or hypotheses that are marginal or fringe to show them to the wider academic community for critique, etc., plus there is academic freedom. This applies to every subject, but this one is particularly hot-button. This isn't like the Daily Mail not being trusted to report events accurately. And frankly, unless you are proposing to gut the anti-racial-hereditarian material at race and intelligence, Flynn effect, etc., much of which is cited to Intelligence, I don't see a reason to keep debating this. We don't do guilt-by-association or over-the-top "purity testing" demands beyond what sources say, nor do we cherry-pick what we want to hear from the sources on the topic. Crossroads -talk- 15:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
To restate my point, the three sources we have for this journal's positive reputation are also sources pointing out its problem with scientific racism. The scientific racism is not incidental to the journal. It is the only reason these three sources are talking about the journal at all. This context is not hidden or arcane, it's specifically provided by these sources. Grayfell ( talk) 19:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anyone who has made this claim.I did not and would not assure you that no one has made the claim because I don't imagine myself to be omniscient. Now some folks have begun arguing that the official journal of the International Society for Intelligence Research is largely unreliable, making claims that go beyond the discussion at the RfC which I linked to above. That may be concerning to you but they are not in so doing necessarily attacking all research into intelligence as illegitimate. Research on intelligence continues to be published in top-tier journals like Nature, Science and the various journals of the American Psychological Association. As I stated below, I'm not willing at this time to stake out a position on how reliable a source Intelligence is beyond the narrow topic of race & intelligence, but those who are arguing for a broad unreliability are not thereby arguing that all research into human intelligence is illegitimate. If someone does want to pop in here and argue that, so be it, but I have not seen such an argument yet. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not at all tricky..." is not supported by these sources. Sometimes it is obvious, but sometimes it isn't, which is exactly why sources are commenting on it. Per sources, the outlet is superficially respectable, so the question sources are asking is why does an otherwise respectable journal keep publishing pseudoscience? You may personally think it's always obvious which are good and which are bad, but I don't accept that. As I've tried to explain, some articles appear reliable but this doesn't always hold up to scrutiny.
Despite careful, scholarly criticism in every era since the early 1900s, scientific racism in psychology has proven remarkably resilient. Although Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton both died in 2012, a small but very active community of researchers continue to pursue questions of race in relation to intelligence, brain size, crime, sexuality, reproduction, and dysgenics, with new work appearing in Personality and Individual Differences, Intelligence, and other journals. This international community is led by Richard Lynn, who for a number of years served simultaneously on the editorial boards of Intelligence and Mankind Quarterly, and as president of the Pioneer Fund. . . . The interlacing of scientific psychology with racial politics has now lasted over 100 years. The community of race scientists had sufficient funding, access to journals, dedication, and shared understanding to carry on a project that most psychologists had considered moribund by the 1960s.Note that the source does not take a position on whether being a vehicle for scientific racism is the primary thing the journal Intelligence is known for, just that this journal is a crucial part of the story of the persistence of scientific racism in psychology through to the present day. I don't see anyone disagreeing with this assessment here but I wanted to make sure that with the discussion of sources this one too was given consideration. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The question is loaded with tendentious uncited material that is probably false.
Carl and Warne are certainly both part of a tight network of fringe racial hereditarians-- almost certainly false.
There is no indication Carl is a hereditarian at all. He is a quantitative social scientist, not a psychometrician, behavior geneticist, psychologist or geneticist. So not from any of the fields involved in research on intelligence, its possible genetic correlates, or genetic differences by race. He has no papers on anything genetic.
I looked into him a while ago during, you guessed it, Wikipedia talk page controversies on these matters and did not see any place where he takes any position on race-and-intelligence hereditarianism except the standard academic freedom arguments that it's an open question and legitimate area of research and (even if those statements were not true) that it should not lead to vilification campaigns against those who publish about it. Well-known non- or anti-hereditarians such as Stephen Pinker, James Flynn, Stephen Ceci say much the same thing and are not classified as "fringe racial hereditarians" for it.
Carl was an editor or reviewer of one of Kirkegaard's OpenPsych journals. Must be hereditarian, right? Actually there were 3-4 such journals, and Carl was connected to the one for quantitative social science (no apparent connection to hereditarianism) and as of the time I checked his publications and (I think) reviews were not hereditarian-related. He cosigned an article with most of the OpenPsych affiliates defending the aforementioned freedom-of-research position, but there was no place online where one can discover what, if anything, he believes about race differences in intelligence.
Ah, but Carl published in MANKIND QUARTERLY! Case closed! Yeah, but just like James Flynn in the same journal, it was an anti-hereditarian paper. Carl found some data disconfirming a pet hereditarian idea that regional IQ increases with distance from the equator.
Yes, but he wrote a paper with EMIL KIRKEGAARD!!! Not on hereditarianism, though. It was a social science paper on stereotype accuracy in Denmark.
It might be fair to class Carl with people like Cofnas, Anomaly, and Winegard; social scientists who defend a similar (in fact considerably stronger) position on freedom to research hereditarianism. Some of them may have put forth an opinion on the likelihood of race differences but Carl has not.
Carl is now an independent researcher since being sacked from his university position
Carl received a large settlement when he sued the university for illegally firing him, and his independence may reflect financial independence resulting from that, not an inability to get another position. The university fired him as a virtue signal under political pressure and literally paid the price.
for "poor scholarship" and "selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes"
These sound bites are conveniently quoted without a reference to any source where they can be checked. There is a long report from the university committee that investigated Carl. Having read it, my recollection is that they did not deign to name any specific problem with Carl's research (data, methods, conclusions). The sound bites may come from a shorter press release which contains general unverifiable denunciations for media (and student protestor) consumption. The papers by Carl that I looked at seemed to be standard social science. No apparent problem of poor scholarship, and in any case the papers being nebulously associated with racism had nothing to do with hereditarianism. Sesquivalent ( talk) 08:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll respond to a few of the above points now and if necessary will continue later. A few gross errors in the above:
1) These sound bites are conveniently quoted without a reference to any source where they can be checked.
It's actually pretty easy to check by clicking through
Noah Carl. You will see there that it is a quotation from the Master of St Edmund's College, i.e. Carl's former employer. I suppose this counts as a shorter press release which contains general unverifiable denunciations for media (and student protestor) consumption
, but so what? It's certainly a reliable source for the position of St Edmund's College on Carl's termination.
2) Carl received a large settlement when he sued the university for illegally firing him, and his independence may reflect financial independence resulting from that, not an inability to get another position.
Citation needed. The article states that Carl withdrew his claim; the case was settled by a confidential agreement between both parties.
[17] Instead, it appears that Carl raised $100,000 online through cultural grievance publicity.
[18] Do you have a citation for your claim otherwise? Or were you simply wrong to make this assumption?
3) Update: Sesquivalent's original heading read "Citation needed. Noah Carl is not a hereditarian." David Gerard has kindly reworded it for neutrality.
Generalrelative (
talk) 18:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Per
WP:TALKHEADPOV, A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
Presumably this applies to noticeboards too, no? If so, Sesquivalent's heading here is a clear violation on the guideline and should be changed, either by herself or another editor.
4) Anyone familiar with Sesquivalent's editing behavior will recognize her charge of wikilawyering as projection. Edit warring has been used disproportionately by opponents of the existing consensus on race and intelligence, not those of us who support it. No one who looks at the history of these pages could possibly come away with any other conclusion. And the charge of OWNership falls flat given the overwhelming nature of the consensus that supports what we do.
For my part, I'll admit that I may have been in error to assert that Carl is specifically a "hereditarian" and will be happy to substitute "advocate for scientific racism" if that is amenable to Sesquivalent. We will have no trouble providing ample sources to support that. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
is there any citation for the claim that he was dismissed for "promotion of racism"is given in lead of Noah Carl. Here are two such sources referenced there: [22], [23]. I sincerely hope this clears things up. But in any case I will not be engaging further with this self-evidently specious line of discussion. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which should probably be deprecated. Uses: [24]. See for instance [https://www.ancient-origins.net/jason-jarrell-sarah-farmer] on giants in ancient America. This section on "ancient technology" [https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-technology]. Not all of its content is woowoo, but it happily hosts nonsense so nothing on it is reliably published. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The goal of Ancient Origins is to highlight recent archaeological discoveries, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.
We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives.
peer-reviewed academic research and evidencehighlighted by them that's worthy of inclusion here, we will have the RS to cite anyway. – Austronesier ( talk) 13:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment I have implemented what I read as the consensus in this thread by blacklisting the link. However, my decision was questioned by user:Peter Gulutzan as being out-of-process. It may be worth some further discussion and an independent closure of this thread. If that decides that we should not blacklist I will revert the blacklisting (but as the situation stands now, I see no reason why to revert). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Article: Hijabophobia
Content: File:Matthias Laurenz Gräff - "Liebende Eltern".jpg
A user has removed the image from the page claiming there should be a reliable source saying the depicted work has links to the Hijabophobia. Is it so? -- Mhhossein talk 13:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The below content was removed from Julian Assange in this edit, with the suggestion that it is "weakly sourced" and "UNDUE", and removed a second time here. I'm placing the RfC here with a note at NPOVN. The sources are as follows: [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
Should the article Julian Assange include the following information, sourced to The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times and Yahoo News:
According to former intelligence officials, following the Vault 7 leaks senior officials in the CIA discussed plans to either kidnap Assange from the embassy or assassinate him, going so far as to request "sketches" or "options" for doing so. No plans were approved, partly because White House lawyers raised concerns about the legality of such an operation. Some officials, interviewed as part of an investigation by Yahoo News, stated that they were sufficiently concerned about the proposals that they alerted staffers and members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Cambial foliage❧ 23:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
* Include In addition to the cited RS, [1] [2] [3] [4] several other mainstream reliable sources have published articles about the investigation: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] The argument that the available sourcing is weak does not bear scrutiny. This is clearly highly relevant to Assange's biography and represents encyclopaedic content. Following the initial report, several news organisations have reported on the story and sought comment from the agencies/governments involved. Cambial foliage❧ 23:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
* Include (reasons pretty well the same as Cambial Yellowing above) Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Question: Why was this RfC started here and not in the Julian Assange article's talk page? M.Bitton ( talk) 23:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
THis is not an RS issue, as it is a wp:undue issue. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Question: I only see a single source in the first diff, why does the opening statement suggest that the edit summary from that diff applied to all four sources provided? That seems to be either a mistake or deeply and profoundly misleading. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 05:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
With reference to this conversation, /info/en/?search=Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#Issues_with_NPOV_on_this_page, can we establish how reliable these actors are? Chantern15 ( talk) 00:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15
an UFO, or a group of UFOs over decades interfered (shut down missiles for ex., a no-go state) with nuclear missiles while they were in silos.If true, this would be the most important story of the century with serious, extensive coverage in all major newspapers and media with accompanying statements from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee, the Pentagon, etc. Yet it can only be found buried in the dark corners of UFOlogy or treated in passing as an anecdotal curiosity by some regional and national media, hence WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:FRINGE apply. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this website reliable for wikipedia articles? There is no neutrality in this website. The website propagates a leftist view which lack neutrality. About us in this website dictates as follows " NewsClick’s aim has always been to report, in depth, on news and views ignored by corporate media, whose agenda is dictated by the rich and powerful in the country." These lines emotes the behavior of the website which has some agenda itself. The editor's leftist views are witnessed from this website " https://cpim.org/tags/prabir-purkayastha" which is a political party in India. How can a sympathizer of a political party can be neutral? The reliability of this website is in question. Need discussion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalrahu ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Please check universalrahu's edits he is removing everything by saying POV in a casteist film. He is asking this now to remove some content which is criticism of caste pride. 2409:4072:6C9F:42AA:7B21:32FD:F907:DBC4 ( talk) 04:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this website being used as a reference;
Specifically this part;
used in Elisabeth of Romania. Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
As examples, the Jewish and Catholic Encyclopedias. I recall adding some cn tags to an article that was almost all from the Jewish Encyclopedia, only to have them all removed on the grounds the JE is a reliable source. Sadly I can't recall the article. This applies of course to other very old tertiary sources. I can see where maybe a reference to old scholarship in such an encyclopedia could be an rs, but even then I would be concerned that opinions may have changed, there might have been new discoveries, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
better source needed}}
?
JBchrch
talk 12:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)I think there's plenty of old-as-hell sources that are perfectly (and uncontroversially) usable. Fox Island (Detroit River), for example, is a GA I wrote which cites an 1850 article about an 1820 property sale. I can't think of any reason to claim that as apocryphal. Obviously, textbooks about surgical procedures or electrical engineering from the time will be found wanting, but it's not as though information simply "goes bad" (and, of course, an 1850 textbook about surgical procedures would be an excellent source for how surgery was performed in 1850). jp× g 10:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
Obsolete source}}
.
Platonk (
talk) 06:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war. @ Mikehawk10 and Horse Eye's Back: who commented here previously. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Specifico has once again given his tendentious and misleading hot take on well-sourced content he apparently dislikes. Contrary to the above, and as already described on this noticeboard in an earlier post, the article content is sourced from outlets like The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Intercept, The Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, BBC News, and The Hill alongside the extensive article from Yahoo News. Specifico's determination to rid the article of any content critical of the actions of the UK and US governments, regardless of the institution from which the criticism comes, has evidently got the better of him. The quite flagrant canvassing is not appreciated. Cambial foliage❧ 22:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
THis is not neutrally worded, and all editors need to lay off trying to dismiss other user's opinions on the grounds of bias. Nor am I sure this is even an RS issue. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Just to let people know, I pinged JBchrch, M.Bitton and PaleoNeonate to the RfC directly on the talk page since they were not pinged here. I felt it fairest to ensure all participants of that closed RfC were pinged especially PaleoNeonate who's exclusion was I assume a mistake. But it doesn't make sense to me to ping someone to a discussion telling them to go somewhere else. Nil Einne ( talk) 23:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Hope I'm posting this in the correct place. Could we ban think tanks as legitimate sources in wikipedia? Think tanks are rarely neutral and are usually just used to push the agenda and even misinformation on behalf of their funders. Take Wikipedia own article on think tanks for example. Under "Advocacy by think tanks" It gives an example of Philip Morris using a think tank to dispute the link between second hand smoke and cancer. From the article:
"In some cases, corporate interests[35] and political groups have found it useful to create policy institutes, advocacy organizations, and think tanks. For example, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was formed in the mid-1990s to dispute research finding an association between second-hand smoke and cancer.[36] According to an internal memorandum from Philip Morris Companies referring to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "The credibility of the EPA is defeatable, but not on the basis of ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] alone,... It must be part of a larger mosaic that concentrates all the EPA's enemies against it at one time."[37]
According to the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, both left-wing and right-wing policy institutes are often quoted and rarely identified as such. The result is that think tank "experts" are sometimes depicted as neutral sources without any ideological predispositions when, in fact, they represent a particular perspective.[38][39] In the United States, think tank publications on education are subjected to expert review by the National Education Policy Center's "Think Twice" think tank review project.[40]"
This article on prescription drug prices (
/info/en/?search=Prescription_drug_prices_in_the_United_States) is a clear example of misinformation on wikipedia due to think tank sources. The article claims that "One major reason for high prescription drug prices in the United States relative to other countries is the inability of government-granted monopolies in the U.S. health care sector to use their bargaining power to negotiate lower prices and that the US payer ends up subsidizing the world's R&D spending on drugs" and uses the think tank itif as a source. If you look at who funds the itif here:
https://itif.org/our-supporters You can see they are funded by many large Pharma companies such as Pfizer who have a clear financial interest in spreading such misinformation.
PLEASE ban think tanks as legitimate sources on wikipedia. These sources are allowing disinformation making it's way into the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.29.240 ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I wanted to inquire about whether or not The Irish Times is a generally reliable source. When I checked the Perennial Sources list, I didn't see it appear anywhere, and as a result I wasn't able to find a definitive answer for its reliability. At a glance I saw it was used in over 18,000 pages, and certainly an outlet like this wouldn't have appeared so often on Wikipedia articles without someone eventually questioning it. However, I couldn't find any actual discussions on the source's reliability in detail (or at least any one I could find without spending an entire day wading through every one of them). So this leads me to believe The Irish Times is either "a stellar source" that never "needed to be talked about because it was so obvious," or that "the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion." But seeing as how it's been cited over 18,000 times as aforementioned, this leads me to believe it falls in the former category. Personally, I think it's reliable but I'm still somewhat of a novice in determining the reliability of sources. What are your thoughts? PantheonRadiance ( talk) 02:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This sentence is in dispute -
"The book prompted a counter-publication by the group which included ad hominem of Abrahamian"
This is what the source used for this statement is saying -
"It must be emphasised from the outset that information about the MeK is politically highly charged and commonly provokes a reaction by either the organisation or the Iranian Government. Virtually every publication about the MeK is followed by a counter-publication..."
[Footnote]: "Often ad hominem discrediting their authors: … Abrahamian, above n 1, was followed by a critique by the MeK-affiliated Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities: Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities, Facts and Myths on the People’s Mojahedin of Iran: Examples of the Lies, Distortions and Fabrications in Ervand Abrahamian’s The Iranian Mojahedin (Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities, 1990)."
Is "the MeK-affiliated Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities"
the same as saying the "MeK"
itself? Is the content in the article synthesizing a conclusion that the author did not give, or does the content match the source? (I am pinging
Pahlevun who is the one I'm having this dispute with).
Ypatch (
talk) 05:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This book is being discussed on Talk:Bakarkhani. The book was published on Mar 2, 2020 and the description of ' Bakarkhani' there is quite similar to earlier versions of the article dated 11 April 2019 and earlier. Is that a reliable source or an example of circular reference? Note that I have taken a position at the talk page arguing against the book. Za-ari-masen ( talk) 21:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This 24smi.org article is used as a source in Svetlana Krivonogikh's article. 24smi.org looks like a tabloid gossip website to me, so I removed it but another user added it back in saying it was reliable. Is it really considered reliable in Russia? I cannot find any information about it but I am not Russian. (In Krivonogikh's article, it it used as a citation for her patronymic, Alexandrovna. When the other user reincluded it, they added another source from istories.media ( ru:Важные истории) to back this up, so I am not disputing that Alexandrovna is her patronymic.) Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 20:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I would like to create an article decribing our provincial climbing federation in the Western Cape South AFrica. Are there special considerations that I should be aware of. I created a link to the federation facebook page which elicited a warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisNaude ( talk • contribs)
I found this discussion in the archives that pretty unequivocally indicated that we'd blacklist murderpedia.org for copyright issues, SPS, and circular references back to Wikipedia. However, I'm not finding it listed anywhere in our deprecated sources. Am I just bad at looking, or did this never get executed? -- Fyrael ( talk) 15:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)