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 355 | ← | Archive 358 | Archive 359 | Archive 360 | Archive 361 | Archive 362 | → | Archive 365 |
Can the Albanian historian Pëllumb Xhufi be considered a reliable source for the purposes of the article Petros Lantzas? In that article, several users are insisting on using a paper by Xhufi as a source. I personally think he shouldn't be used, given that he has been criticized by multiple Albanian historians for falsifying sources, as can be seen in his bio on sq.wiki [1]. He is also on record saying the Tepelenë Internment Camp of the Hoxha regime was "not bad", despite the deaths of hundreds of people there. My impression is that such sources should not be used, but I would like the opinion of the community. Khirurg ( talk) 04:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
“Kampi funksionoi si kazermë ushtarake deri në vitet -60. Ai qe ndërtuar nga italianët, ishte ndërtesë solide me tulla. Në dokument [e CIA-s] shkruhet se kushtet ishin ‘no bad’ jo të mira,” shtoi ai ndërsa pranoi e Tepelena ishte në thelb një kamp pune të detyruar[The camp functioned as a military barracks until the 1960s. It was built by the Italians, it was a solid brick building. "[The CIA] document says the conditions were 'no bad'," he added, while acknowledging that Tepelena was essentially a forced labor camp] and
Shqipëria ka pasur kampe edhe me te këqija dhe represive si ai i Spaçit apo Burrelit, shtoi Xhufi, dhe Tepelena nuk ka qene përfaqësuese.Albania has had worse and more repressive camps like that of Spac and Burrel, added Xhufi who said that that of Tepelena was not representative of the situation. [5] Khirurg distorted his comments in such a way to make it seem as if he was defending internment camps. This should be treated on grounds of BLPTALK. Khirurg is spreading rumors about a reputable academic and member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania in a content dispute that he wants to remove him as a source. In 2020 Xhufi became member [6] of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. The paper is WP:RS because it was published in a peer-reviewed reliable source ( Studime Historike). Durraz0 ( talk) 11:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Xhufi has never justified or downplayed internment camps. His comment was against those who compare labor camps in Albania and elsewhere to Nazi death camps. ideatorët e projektit janë duke e propaganduar si “Aushvici shqiptar” dhe si “një kamp i shfarosjes në masë”. .. U mundova t’i këshilloj të heqin dorë nga marrëzia për ta propaganduar këtë kamp të shfarosjes në masë, sepse Auschwitz, Mathausen, Dachau apo Birkinau ku janë asgjësuar e djegur në furrat naziste miliona hebrej e antifashistë nga e gjithë bota, nuk e kanë shokun në asnjë vend të botës, e nuk e kanë as në Shqipëri
interview Translation: the creators of the project are propagating it as "Albanian Auschwitz" and as "a mass extermination camp". I tried to advise them to give up absurdity to propagate this as a mass extermination camp, because Auschwitz, Mathausen, Dachau or Birkinau, where millions of Jews and anti-fascists from all over the world were annihilated and burned in Nazi kilns, have no comparison in no other country in the world, not even in Albania
The people who try to do such comparisons in Albania are often tied with neofascists ideas. It's sad that this was brought to wikipedia in such a distorted way to make Xhufi seem like an apologist for labor camps.
Ahmet Q. (
talk) 12:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be an Italian genealogical royalty website. [7] The page linked, has no references or citations of any kind.
The main page Enciclopedia genealogica del Mediterraneo.
Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know the accuracy of Screen Shot (Screen Shot media) as a source? It appears to be a pop culture, technology, and politics news site, similar to sources like Vice or Mashable. I'm writing a draft and it looks like a promising source, but no results on this noticeboard or on WP:RS/PS and no article about the source makes me worry a bit. According to their about page, they're funded by an independent journalism organization called FairPlanet (which doesn't have an article either). wizzito | say hello! 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm exploring doing a fairly large outreach project with Encyclopedia of Life and I wanted to know if there has been any discussion about it being a reliable source? I can't find anything in the archive. Currently EOL is used 7,764 times on English Wikipedia as a reference.
For reference EOL is run by taxonomists in the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, it collates data from many large biodiversity databases e.g Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), Barcode of Life (BOLD), Catalogue of Life (COL), Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), a full list of imports is available here.
Thanks very much
. John Cummings ( talk) 12:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much, this is helpful, if there's any questions I can ask them which would be helpful to understand the reliability better please let me know. My main question I have so far is how up to date the information is. John Cummings ( talk) 14:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I found this discussion shortly after removing EOL as a source from Poa cita because EOL's info seemed plainly wrong. I documented this at Talk:Poa cita#Encyclopedia of Life as a source. I see that @ CycoMa: asked about EOL's reliability two weeks ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Encyclopedia of Life and Talk:Baccharis articulata#reliability of EOL. Some food for thought at those discussions. Nurg ( talk) 08:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Cleaning up some old edit filters. 554 prohibits the use of certain "top 100" websites (domains: "top100 *.blog", "*charly1300*", "*mickeycharts*", "atrl.net/forums", "hot100brasil.com" -- asterisk means any characters). I can't quite tell the history of how this filter came to be but I'm not sure referencing certain sites should be disallowed by the software unless either: (a) community consensus has been found to deprecate them (in which case they're added to 869); or (b) they've went through the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist process.
So... how should these sites be dealt with? Should they be added to spam blacklist, RfCs started for deprecation, or allow them entirely? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Proto Thema is not a reliable source in my opinion. It can be found 205 times across en.WP [10] There is sensationalism, lack of accuracy and their fact are not regularly checked.
Worth noting that Protothema ranks among the biggest news portals in Greece in terms of articles posted per day and traffic. (see discussion here [14])
Poor fact checking plus sensationalism means does not stand against WP criteria for RS. I think it should be included at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with the indication "Generally unreliable" Cinadon 36 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article(see WP:BLPSPS). – Ljleppan ( talk) 12:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
https://www.indcatholicnews.com seems to be used across many pages. [15] I found it while cleaning up WP:PROMO issues on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign page. This quote, in itself, isn't particularly problematic:
"PSC was part of 2007's ENOUGH coalition to oppose the Israeli occupation of territories controlled since the 1967 Six-Day War."
However, looking at the "article" [16] Independent Catholic News seems to have re-posted a press release from activist orgs in their own voice in their news section. As such, it seems this entire source should be probably be declared unreliable.
I also did a search in here and it doesn't seem this website has been discussed before.
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 19:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
In WP:NEWSBLOG does the "opinion piece" link to WP:PRIMARY mean it is a primary source and should follow what's said there rather than say a secondary or tertiary source? Thanks. NadVolum ( talk) 23:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind, however, that it can get a bit hazy because you can use an opinion piece to establish that someone believes something that would otherwise be secondary (ie. their personal interpretation or analysis), when that opinion is relevant; it's just that without the fact-checking that non-opinion sources get, we can only frame that as their opinion.Say, for instance, we have an opinion piece or NEWSBLOG column written by Professor Reliablepants, world's greatest academic expert on fascism; he says that in his expert opinion, such-and-such a thing is comparable to fascism. This piece would be a primary source for his opinions, but it's the kind of thing we're intended to use opinion pieces for. We could not use that source to say, in the article voice, "X is fascist", but we could us it to say "Professor Reliablepants, world's greatest academic expert on fascism, compared X to fascism" because then we're just reporting what he said - the fact that he said that is a straightforward fact citeable to a primary source. A newsblog by an established expert is clearly a decent source for opinion - it's in a venue that is otherwise reliable and it's someone whose opinion matters. At that point it becomes a question of WP:DUE weight rather than WP:RS - not everyone's opinions are as important as Professor Reliablepants, (and even Professor Reliablepants' opinions might not always be relevant) so the question is whether it's an opinion worth including at all, which is often harder to answer. I think newblogs are primary sources in most regards, but so are all other opinion pieces; it clearly doesn't make sense to omit opinion pieces purely because they're published as a newsblog (since that's, generally speaking, going to be high-quality as sources for opinions go), and it doesn't make sense to bar opinion pieces from being used to report someone else's interpretation and analysis as long as it's being clearly attributed to them and is otherwise WP:DUE - we just have to avoid treating it as fact in the article voice. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I would like to validate what the value or status is of the annual World Air Force directory published (free of charge) by Flight Global magazine as it is often referred to as source on Wikipedia prevailing over other sources or even official sources such a Ministeries of Defence, Aircraft manufacturers or National Air Forces. Please have a look at the Belgian Air Component and Netherlands Air Force pages on Wikipedia (updates/revert/undo discussions).
Hope you can be of help
A bit of help is needed in determining the reliability of the listed sources. Some of them are fairly obvious cases, but I'd still like to document them here to avoid misuse in the future.
For series of articles on history of music genres like [17] or [18]. It has come up here before, but the results have not been too clear-cut. While the listed articles seem objective enough to be referenced on wikipedia. The authors' names can also be found on google - it's often freelance writers/musicians who also write for other major publications such as djmag.com. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For hundreds of articles about music genres like [19] or [20]. It is probably obviously unreliable but it would be best to write about it here, as this source is already used on wikipedia in many articles. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For articles like [21] or [22]. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For articles on music genres like [23] or [24]. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For articles like [25]. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For articles like [26]. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For articles like [27]. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
It can be found here [28]. Is this a reliable source. An IP edited into the this article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that @ Keivan.f has been adding strange-looking sources to Draft:Yurdaer Okur, such as: [29], [30], [31].
It's odd that three different Turkish publishers seem to have almost the exact same text. It's suggestive that all three may have been plagiarised from trwiki or some common source, at some time in the past.
In a comment on my talk page this user mentioned that the sources he used for our English language article may have been lifted from the Turkish Wikipedia article about this subject.
I've noticed that the publications used in this draft that lifted Turkish Wikipedia articles have been used extensively on English Wikipedia:
The fact that these sources simply copy Wikipedia articles a common source without giving credit gives me cause for concern about this source. Perhaps these publications should be flagged as potentially problematic. --
Salimfadhley (
talk) 20:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
It is always delightful to see wikipedians discussing in such civil manner. In any case, what do we know of the reputation of each media? Are there any RS or fact checking sites that might be of any help? Cinadon 36 20:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Is [32] a BLP-good source for Heather Wolfe's year of birth and names? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, is Warner Bros. Entertainment youtube channel's commentary video reliable only if it is used in Joker (2019 film)? Reiro ( talk) 06:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
A few days ago an editor reverted my edits stating that the source is too old. A couple of days later another editor reverted my edit stating that there is no policy that prohibits citing older sources. Now I am confused. How old is considered too old to be cited? Especially in historical articles? Akshaypatill ( talk) 08:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Goodwordnews.com is a consolidator site which does machine translation of other sites, notably Russia Today. Bad MT, I should add. See for example, Zemmour tances BHL during a debate, a comically bad translation from the French RT article «Vous êtes le porte-parole parfait de l'Etat profond américain» : Zemmour tance BHL lors d'un débat. (Have a look at the GWN link; you don't need to know a word of French to see what a joke it is.) This site is currently being used at Eric Zemmour.
Since RT itself is already rated 'generally unreliable' ( here), and this site is so, so much worse, I was hoping we could rate GWN as " double secret unreliable" for posterity. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 08:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Crunchbase News ( https://news.crunchbase.com) has its own editorial and has a disclosure on how their newsroom is independent from the Crunchbase public / user-generated database. Here is their explanation: https://news.crunchbase.com/about-news/ I know that Crunchbase itself is not a reliable source because it is a user-generated database per WP:CRUNCHBASE, but what about the Crunchbase News? Is it reliable for the purpose of verifiability? Z22 ( talk) 19:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
How should we list it on WP:RSP?
I think Option 2 is reasonable. If caution is given, certain contents can be useful knowledge. For example, here is an example that shows a certain level of analysis of Crunchbase News by comparing and contrasting two approaches in attracting companies to New Jersey. We should not just deprecate Crunchbase News in a broad brush. Z22 ( talk) 12:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.- David Gerard ( talk) 14:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In the Pushbacks in Greece article, an editor is attempting to shoehorn in criticism of Turkey from a think tank article credited to "Middle East Research Intern". This article claims that in early 2020 Turkey engaged in "coercive engineered migration". Other sources such as such as New York Times reporting or a peer-reviewed academic article do not support that widespread coercion was used by Turkey. Can we get more eyes on this? ( t · c) buidhe 03:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC) s
“ | Turkey has encouraged Syrian refugees to move to Europe as part of a policy that appears to use refugees to wring concessions and support from European countries for Ankara’s role in Syria. In late February, Turkey opened the border for refugees to go to Greece and began prodding them to leave within a 72-hour window. | ” |
Weaponizing refugees and migrants has become a political strategy for countries at Europe’s periphery... In some cases, this strategy works. In 2016, Turkey negotiated an unprecedented $7 billion in foreign aid and other concessions in return for keeping Syrian refugees within Turkey’s borders. And this is from the NYT
Friday’s events were widely seen as his attempt to weaponize both the desperation of migrants and the xenophobia of Europe.It was the ninth time, in fact, that the Turkish president has promised to send a new surge of refugees Europe’s way. Whether Mr. Erdogan was merely dangling the threat again, or will unleash a full-blown crisis remains to be seen.. Alaexis ¿question? 20:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
(unindent) Here's another reliable source (Vice News) that basically states that the 2020 border crisis was engineered
[47], i.e., backs what BiC says. And the NYT article linked above begins with The country is winding down an aggressive two-week operation to move tens of thousands of migrants to its frontiers. But relations with Greece and Europe have suffered.
. "The country" here refers to Turkey.
Khirurg (
talk) 15:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The center or the article have literally zero clout. I tried to look up the author of this 'policy brief', a certain Arthur Jennequin, but there are no mentions of him anywhere else apart from the BIC. The report itself doesn't bother mentioning his credentials. Here we can see that he was a research intern. As Tayi Arajakate pointed out, publishing reports written entirely by interns is poor practice and reflects very badly on their reliability. The center itself does not seem to have received any significant attention in literature, their reports aren't exactly well-cited. I can see no evidence that this think-tank has proper fact-checking mechanisms in place. The center and this specific report cannot be considered RS for anything remotely contentious. -- GGT ( talk) 00:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that this website ( [48]) has been regarded unreliable by most editors, yet I still think that some editors might use this source to write articles in good faith (not knowing that it publishes misinformation that has never been accepted by MSM on earth), so I beg that this website be deprecated, since it claims that Natural News is reliable ( How Google and Wikipedia Brainwash You – OffGuardian (off-guardian.org)), despite the fact that Natural News is a fake news website ( Google delists Mike Adams’ Natural News website. Was it because of fake news? | Science-Based Medicine), and it downplays the COVID-19 pandemic.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This English-language website regularly spreads untruths about the coronavirus. In the OffGuardian piece , it was said during a WHO meeting that, based on estimates, 10 percent of the world's population has been infected with the corona virus. According to OffGuardian , the WHO admits that COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the flu... OffGuardian makes a wrong assumption.[50]
no one has died from COVID-19. This claim appeared online on May 13 on the website of the Bulgarian Pathologists Association. This message was only distributed outside Bulgaria on July 2 by the English-language website OffGuardian. This website is known for its conspiracy theories.[51] Austrian fact-checkers Mimikama cover the same story, reaching the same conclusions, [52] and so does Indonesia's Tirto. [53] German public service broadcaster [Bayerischer Rundfunk|BR] mentions it as a source for fake news in a debunking of a Swiss medical disinfo site. [54] Romanian daily Adevărul reported an interview with noted misinformation purveyor Sucharit Bhakdi was
published on the marginal English-language Off-Guardian fake news site (a kind of off-journalism journalism) and framed in a text with quotes from other benevolent "teachers" spreading in unison various "pseudo-theories" about coronavirus... The offGuardian site was created in 2015 and contains misinformation stories pro-Kremlin. Many of the articles published in the past were anti-Ukrainian. The site itself is part of the category of portals that systematically distribute conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific narratives.
"Among the various English-language promoters of Russian propaganda, a website called OffGuardian drew attention to itself recently by praising a visit to occupied Crimea by Symphonic Brass Wales... Among the various English-language promoters of Russian propaganda, a website called OffGuardian drew attention to itself recently by praising a visit to occupied Crimea by Symphonic Brass Wales... As its name suggests, OffGuardian was allegedly created by people who were tired of being censored by the moderators of the Guardian’s comments section, so many of its articles attempt to pull apart articles in the Guardian and other “MSM” outlets. In line with the Kremlin’s goals, OffGuardian seeks to undermine trust in “mainstream media”."Media Bias, although itself not reliable, rates it "conspiracy-psuedoscience" and says
OffGuardian also frequently promotes conspiracy theories regarding GMOs such as Post-Brexit Farming, Glyphosate, and GMOs. Although this story utilizes some credible sources, it also cites Mercola, a website promoting quackery-level pseudoscience. They also promote 9/11 conspiracies such as The Fakest Fake News: The U.S. Government’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. They frequently cover False Flags and the US Deep State conspiracy as well as anti-vaccination propaganda, linking to examples. The Jewish Chronicle notes that it was the source for an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Enough? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This hasn't had much notice here - there's discussion of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources_section_of_WP:RS - David Gerard ( talk) 19:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Is [55] a reliable source for Hayat Abdullayeva? Note that the source is used to support the claim that "Over the years of her creative activity, H. Abdullayeva has also created a number of major works, including the sculpture of Maxim Gorky, installed on the pediment of the National Library named after M. F. Akhundov, the bronze sculptures of the famous actor Huseyngulu Sarabsky, of the statesman and poet Shah Ismail Khatai, the monument-busts of Khurshidbanu Natavan and the one of the poet Vagif in the city of Shusha", none of which is mentioned in the source. Vexations ( talk) 12:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Four sources I found refer to Garad Jama Garad Ali as by the abbreviation "garad of SSCD", namely [56], [57], [58], [59]. Are those sources sufficient to place this abbreviation in the body of the article? Heesxiisolehh ( talk) 23:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Currently,
The Diplomat (
thediplomat.com) is listed at
WP:RSP as "generally reliable" with the summary: "There is consensus that The Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics.
"
However, I'm wondering if this should perhaps be reevaluated, with an added disclaimer similar to Forbes, which not only distinguishes between it's print magazine and it's website, but especially (in this case) makes a further distinction regarding its various authors (Staff writers vs. Contributors):
RSP entry for Forbes magazine
|
---|
Forbes magazine is listed at RSP as "generally reliable" with the summary: " |
RSP entry for Forbes.com website
|
---|
Meanwhile, Forbes.com, the website, is listed as "generally unreliable" with the summary: " |
As for the Diplomat, I've noted there can be a difference among contributing authors. Here are two examples;
Franz-Stefan Gady is a Fellow with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London and a columnist for The Diplomat. He is the author of a number of monographs and book chapters on Asian and European security issues.
Franz-Stefan was a Senior Editor with The Diplomat. He has also reported from a wide range of countries and conflict zones including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. His writing and photos have appeared in The International New York Times, BBC News, Foreign Affairs Magazine, Foreign Policy, The Christian Science Monitor, and Slate among other publications.
His analysis has been featured in The Financial Times and The Wallstreet Journal [sic], and on Al Jazeera and PBS, among others.
Follow him on Twitter.
"His content and write ups are derived from cross examination of open source rumors and information. He is active on Reddit and can be found on Twitter.
"Example #1 is likely to be a reliable author, whereas example #2... maybe not so much. I'm thinking that if something to the effect of: "Each contributing author should be evaluated not only on their content, but the information provided about them in their individual bios." was added to the summary for The Diplomat at RSP, this could be beneficial. Thoughts? - wolf 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
“ | For their authority, depth and clarity, his books have won praise from professors at colleges and universities like Harvard, Oxford, Cornell, Columbia, Syracuse, Oberlin, and Edinburgh. [1] | ” |
References
Bhaktivedanta cult is also known as "Hare Krishna" group aka ISKCON.
In this edit User:Dāsānudāsa has restored praises about books by the subject. (The above quoted content was removed by me) Can a Bhaktivedanta site be used to source praises about books related to Bhaktivedanta founder? Can such a source be used to add such WP:NPOV violating content?
In my view, this is obvious promotion, and my removal was justified but I have been reverted repeatedly. If I remove again, I am sure I will be reverted again. The user had been warned by the admin for edit warring here. I have a suspicion that people/ supporters from the Bhaktivedanta/ ISKCON cult are active on this page and reverting improvements on this page. Venkat TL ( talk) 10:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed the sentence, source is not RS and does verify the sentence. [60]. Krisna.com is not a secondary RS, imo. Cinadon 36 11:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I know Crunchbase is not a valid source but I thought a report from them would be different. What do people think of https://about.crunchbase.com/cybersecurity-research-report-2021/ as a source? MaskedSinger ( talk) 15:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I really tried searching for prior discussion but "in the news" is a hopeless search term.
My question is: everything about the site suggests it is untrustworthy, but I wanted a second opinion - it is not listed at RS/P.
Looking to potentially update the Sabrina De Sousa article (which has no information more recent than 2019) I came across this link.
So what is this site? Is it worth sitting through the video for information re de Sousa's recent activities (obvs her opinions on Gen Hayden are irrelevant)?
Feel free to link to prior discussion if there's nothing new to say. I just couldn't find anything and I would appreciate the simplicity of a RS/P red entry. Regards CapnZapp ( talk) 08:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay so we have one user (Cobra) who feels the site is Generally Unreliable (to use the RS/P) categories. CapnZapp ( talk) 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
On page 90 of the 2021 book Consequences of Capitalism, Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone claim that the US has an "unusually violent labor history, going well into the 20th century." I used this as the primary source for this edit to the lead of the article Labor history of the United States. It was subsequently reverted with the claim that "the chomsky is not a reliable source" (nothing said about the other author, a professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, and nevermind that Chomsky is considered by many to be one of the top public intellectuals in the US). To my knowledge, that the US has a labor history more violent than other Western nations is widely understood and hardly controversial, like the sky being blue and grass being green. In fact, on the page Union violence in the United States, the second paragraph of the lead says "According to a study in 1969, the United States has had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world". So I included this source as well (unfortunately, no page number was provided). I think the material and sources are WP:DUE for this article. I can add attribution if necessary so it's not in Wikipedia's voice, if that would help.-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 15:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The Chomsky and Waterstone book is not a reliable source. This is an empirical claim which has presumably been assessed by scholars across relevant disciplines (e.g. history, political science, sociology, economics), so there's no need to use low-quality sources. Here is a better source: [61] Adding quotes by Chomsky to the first paragraph in the lead of Labor history of the United States is not OK. It makes Wikipedia look bad when a partisan non-expert is flagged at the top of Wikipedia articles as if he were the main authority on the subject (imagine if Victor Davis Hanson or Jordan Peterson were cited like this in the lead on articles unrelated to their expertise). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
‘From approximately 1873, the date which marks the peak of the post-Civil War revival of the American labor movement, until 1937, when the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Wagner Act, American labor suffered government repression that was probably as severe or more severe than that suffered by any labor movement in any other Western industrialized democracy. According to the foremost historians of American labor violence, the U.S. has had the “bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world.” An admittedly grossly underestimated tabulation of the number of casualties in labor disputes indicates over seven hundred deaths and thousands of serious injuries, almost all of which occurred in the 1973-1937 period.’(Robert Justin Goldstein Political Repression in Modern America, Shenkman (1978) Indiana University Press 2001 ISBN 978-0-252-06964-2 p.3 and for details pp.6-104, 195-208.(there’s a wiki stub on this, I see. Political Repression in Modern America).
‘according to a leading historian of the American federation of Labor, with the possible exception of the metal and machines trades in France, employees in no other country “have so persistently, vigorously, at such costs and with such conviction of serving a cause, fought trade unions as the American employing class” and in no other Western democracy “have employees been so much aided in their opposition to unions by the civil authorities, the armed forces of government and their courts.’ (Goldstein p.4)
I hope that I am in the right place, and I am not brewing a tempest in a teapot over this edit made a few months ago, but…
In October, an editor (
Muboshgu, whom I have pinged) briefly added (
Special:Diff/1049668090/next) claims that Blake Treinen (the Dodgers pitcher) "has promoted the views of a far-right crank who claims to be a "prophet of God," that Obama was secretly removed as President in 2010, that Trump is the true President, and that Jesus Christ has woken him up at night to tell him things - that he cannot share at this time, due to national security reasons", citing
an SFGate article (not an opinion piece) as their source. The edit was quickly reverted by the editor themselves, who discussed the matter in the article's
talk page.
While the talk page discussion has long subsided, I am wondering whether we can count this incident against SFGate's reliability as a Wikipedia source. In my opinion, the piece sounds like a smear campaign against Treinen, with him only mentioned marginally, and I only found some of its content true (although it could simply be because I don't want to go into political pages like the ones SFGate linked).
If this matter wasted your time, I apologise. Otherwise, thank you.
NotReallySoroka ( talk) 01:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
P.S. The reason why I did not raise the issue immediately is because I was on Wikibreak at that time.
The Bristolian’s slogan is “Smiter of the high and mighty”. It’s about page describes them as, “The Bristolian is a scandal sheet covering all sorts of shenanigans in the fine British city of Bristol.”
Our entry about the paper portrays a radical publication with strong left-wing partisanship. While I admire their commitment to free speech and holding the rich and powerful accountable, I have doubts over its general reliability as a source, particularly for contentious material in BLP articles.
Here’s my request for comment.
Is the current incarnation of The Bristolian (newspaper) a reliable source?
I have come up with the following options starting with what I think is the unlikeliest option.
I think the latter is the most sensible option but I look forward hearing everyone’s views. Ch1p the chop ( talk) 12:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Should https://www.biogs.com be considered a reliable source for biography articles? I've seen it used to cite dates of birth and early-life details here on Wikipedia, and it's presently linked from around 50 biographies. biogs.com looks like it's written by one person writing short summary biographies without giving many (if any) checkable sources for where that information was taken from. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 19:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The Black Book of Communism which is an unreliable source. For instance, the book pens the total death toll in the gulags to be around three million while an analysis by J Arch Getty, Gabor T Rittersporn and Viktor N Zemskov shows a death toll of slightly over a third of that amount and inflating the death toll of the Cultural Revolution. Thus it should be deprecated. Elishop ( talk) 01:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So if many well-established scholars say that the book's research and conclusions are dated or otherwise seriously flawed, that reduces its reliability; a source whose scholarship is heavily contested should be used with caution, which its current heavy use in the article certainly doesn't reflect. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
May I ask you two questions? What exactly each of you mean under "The Black Book of Communism"? What exact statement do you want to support using this source? These are not rhetoric question. I am asking because the Book is considered a very reliable sources mostly due to the Werth's chapter about Russia, but the part that is being cited in Wikipedia is an introduction by Courtois, the most controversial, most criticized, most politicized, and most provocative part of the book. A talk page of the recent AfD contains a representative sample of sources about the BB. They fully confirm my words. In other words, Courtois's introduction and the chapter are unreliable for figures. It is also unreliable for his generalizations, and, especially, for his attempts to link all crimes to some generic Communism. In contrast, the Werth's part, is a reliable source, as on author wrote, "a rock the whole book rests upon".-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 04:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
In this context, a publication aiming to record all the ‘victims of communism’ worldwide, The Black Book of Communism: crimes, terror, repression (Courtois et al., 1999), contributed directly to the rise of the totalitarian paradigm. This best-selling publication was the subject of violent controversy among historians specialising in communism, to the point that some of its co-authors distanced themselves from the introduction written by the French historian Stéphane Courtois. Its detractors criticised its lack of methodological rigour, its conception of historical work as ‘work of justice and memory’ and the ideological dimension of its approach (Dreyfus et al., 2000; Traverso, 2001; Morgan, 2010). In any event, by making criminality the very essence of communism, by explicitly equating the ‘race genocide’ of Nazism with the ‘class genocide’ of Communism in connection with the Ukrainian Great Famine of 1932–1933, the Black Book of Communism contributed to legitimating the equivalence of Nazi and Communist crimes.
Unlike the cardboard cutouts of Communist leadership presented in ideologically charged studies like The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (1997), these essays are both nuanced and balanced, presenting Lenin and Stalin as human leaders driven as much by realpolitik and personal histories and events as by Communist ideology.
A petulant upsurge in anti-communism is permeating the United States (US) and Canada, as well as countries in the European Union (EU). Its main truncheon is the simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim that communism caused 100 million victims, a catchy slogan sensationalised through a 1997 propaganda volume titled The Black Book of Communism (henceforth BBC).
Werth's chapter stands on its own merit and his other works, largely, as always with historians, for specific claims rather than the general vibe people all too often read into a historian's engagement. Courtois, as I have explicated in detail previously, hangs his chapters on "non-catholicism" as a causative category of communism and therefore murderousness. This is widely recognised to not be social science. It depends, as the ***great big header at the top of the page explains*** on which bit, is cited in what article, for which claims. Fifelfoo ( talk) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Werth),2 but may be outdated1 — introduction and foreword are too controversial and disputed to be reliable but can be relied on for secondary coverage, such as the reactions of Le Monde and Le Figaro, and as primary sources for quotes. I do not understand this dismissal of Capitalism Nature Socialism as if it negates the criticism and controversy also reported by Neumayer and more centrist sources — that article is good as a tertiary source (to quote TFD,
"Engel-De Mauro is merely reciting facts: that the 100 million figure has no support in reliable sources and was chosen for its propaganda value. He is not providing his own opinion. The advantage of a recent source is that the author would be aware of any changes in the academic literature."), and is absurd to compare it to Grover Furr when it was written in an academic journal published by the academic press (Routledge). And to quote from the RSN discussion,
"[a]n academic journal that serves a particular community and thus embodies its biases does not sound very different from a news website with an editorial slant, as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES is concerned. I'd take a journal that wears its editorial mission on its sleeve ... over those that try to look staid while having no standards inside."Centrism is also an ideology, and left-wing books and articles published within the academic press remain reliable, whether we like it or not.
With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing.However, I don't think BBoC is so much closer to the events that it should be considered less likely to have errors, but on the other hand, it should not be penalized for age unless new documents have come to light. -- SVT Cobra 14:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt., and later is says
Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years.This is such a case, with new developments in this field in the past ~25 years, plus we're further away from the events and thus newer sources are better at "remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt" which is why I and others have quoted from newer sources above. This situation is square-on what RSAGE is about: the 1990s is too close to the fall of Soviet communism; 21st-century scholarship is better. Levivich 17:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I have seen Saving Country Music show up in a myriad of country music-related articles. According to the about page, it is written and published entirely by one person. This means that there is no editorial oversight or fact-checking involved. The content of such blog does lean a bit WP:POLEMIC at times with regards to the author's opinions on country music, not to mention the severe ego of the about page in such terms as "first journalist to discover Sturgill Simpson". By these standards, Saving Country Music is not a WP:RS.
In addition, most of the uses I've seen of it are for biographical information, peacocking a barely-notable artist, or unduly pushing the author's viewpoints. Given the nature of the site, it should clearly be at least deprecated, if not outright blacklisted. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
See this article. [62] The narrative section of our article is a mess and even includes names of notable people. Looking at this I also found Book of Helaman - hardly NPOV. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm currently engaged in an editing debate. I want to add on the Music Career section of Son of Dork a sentence which states that the lead-singer James Bourne has spoken about returning for a second album. My source is a post on his Twitter page (which is verified). This is the source: https://twitter.com/JamesBourne/status/1115431751848026112 There is also context for this addition as the previous few sentences speak about a possible Son of Dork reunion. The user reverting my changes stated:Rv... Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. Primary sources are only to fill in minor details. but I'm not sure what this means? Thanks for you help! 194.66.200.1 ( talk) 14:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for you help and advice! 194.66.200.1 ( talk) 14:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I want to use Artists in California, 1786–1940 for some details on Giuseppe Cadenasso. It's by Edan Milton Hughes and published by "Hughes Publishing Company". WorldCat Identities says 413 libraries have this book. I feel like it's OK to use? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Extra eyes would be helpful in the talk page discussion at David Miller (sociologist), with the above sources being used. If I am reading the archives correctly, we have no consensus on reliability of Middle East Monitor and have not discussed the reliability of Palestine Chronicle. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
None of those are suitable for controversial BLP content and some aren't suitable for anything. You don't need an rsn thread if only one editor is advocating for inclusion though. Journalism and scholarship, not advocacy orgs. Levivich 13:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Not Reliable The EJ already have an RSP entry so that one clear while reading our article about MEMO especially descriptions by BBC as "pro-Hamas" organization gives us clear view that the source cannot be trusted Shrike ( talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
No, nay, never! This shouldn't even be a discussion! C'mon people! ENCYCLOPEDIA remember?
EnlightenmentNow1792 (
talk) 23:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Non ecp editor, Arbpia restrictions apply
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 355 | ← | Archive 358 | Archive 359 | Archive 360 | Archive 361 | Archive 362 | → | Archive 365 |
Can the Albanian historian Pëllumb Xhufi be considered a reliable source for the purposes of the article Petros Lantzas? In that article, several users are insisting on using a paper by Xhufi as a source. I personally think he shouldn't be used, given that he has been criticized by multiple Albanian historians for falsifying sources, as can be seen in his bio on sq.wiki [1]. He is also on record saying the Tepelenë Internment Camp of the Hoxha regime was "not bad", despite the deaths of hundreds of people there. My impression is that such sources should not be used, but I would like the opinion of the community. Khirurg ( talk) 04:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
“Kampi funksionoi si kazermë ushtarake deri në vitet -60. Ai qe ndërtuar nga italianët, ishte ndërtesë solide me tulla. Në dokument [e CIA-s] shkruhet se kushtet ishin ‘no bad’ jo të mira,” shtoi ai ndërsa pranoi e Tepelena ishte në thelb një kamp pune të detyruar[The camp functioned as a military barracks until the 1960s. It was built by the Italians, it was a solid brick building. "[The CIA] document says the conditions were 'no bad'," he added, while acknowledging that Tepelena was essentially a forced labor camp] and
Shqipëria ka pasur kampe edhe me te këqija dhe represive si ai i Spaçit apo Burrelit, shtoi Xhufi, dhe Tepelena nuk ka qene përfaqësuese.Albania has had worse and more repressive camps like that of Spac and Burrel, added Xhufi who said that that of Tepelena was not representative of the situation. [5] Khirurg distorted his comments in such a way to make it seem as if he was defending internment camps. This should be treated on grounds of BLPTALK. Khirurg is spreading rumors about a reputable academic and member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania in a content dispute that he wants to remove him as a source. In 2020 Xhufi became member [6] of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. The paper is WP:RS because it was published in a peer-reviewed reliable source ( Studime Historike). Durraz0 ( talk) 11:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Xhufi has never justified or downplayed internment camps. His comment was against those who compare labor camps in Albania and elsewhere to Nazi death camps. ideatorët e projektit janë duke e propaganduar si “Aushvici shqiptar” dhe si “një kamp i shfarosjes në masë”. .. U mundova t’i këshilloj të heqin dorë nga marrëzia për ta propaganduar këtë kamp të shfarosjes në masë, sepse Auschwitz, Mathausen, Dachau apo Birkinau ku janë asgjësuar e djegur në furrat naziste miliona hebrej e antifashistë nga e gjithë bota, nuk e kanë shokun në asnjë vend të botës, e nuk e kanë as në Shqipëri
interview Translation: the creators of the project are propagating it as "Albanian Auschwitz" and as "a mass extermination camp". I tried to advise them to give up absurdity to propagate this as a mass extermination camp, because Auschwitz, Mathausen, Dachau or Birkinau, where millions of Jews and anti-fascists from all over the world were annihilated and burned in Nazi kilns, have no comparison in no other country in the world, not even in Albania
The people who try to do such comparisons in Albania are often tied with neofascists ideas. It's sad that this was brought to wikipedia in such a distorted way to make Xhufi seem like an apologist for labor camps.
Ahmet Q. (
talk) 12:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be an Italian genealogical royalty website. [7] The page linked, has no references or citations of any kind.
The main page Enciclopedia genealogica del Mediterraneo.
Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know the accuracy of Screen Shot (Screen Shot media) as a source? It appears to be a pop culture, technology, and politics news site, similar to sources like Vice or Mashable. I'm writing a draft and it looks like a promising source, but no results on this noticeboard or on WP:RS/PS and no article about the source makes me worry a bit. According to their about page, they're funded by an independent journalism organization called FairPlanet (which doesn't have an article either). wizzito | say hello! 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm exploring doing a fairly large outreach project with Encyclopedia of Life and I wanted to know if there has been any discussion about it being a reliable source? I can't find anything in the archive. Currently EOL is used 7,764 times on English Wikipedia as a reference.
For reference EOL is run by taxonomists in the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, it collates data from many large biodiversity databases e.g Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), Barcode of Life (BOLD), Catalogue of Life (COL), Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), a full list of imports is available here.
Thanks very much
. John Cummings ( talk) 12:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much, this is helpful, if there's any questions I can ask them which would be helpful to understand the reliability better please let me know. My main question I have so far is how up to date the information is. John Cummings ( talk) 14:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I found this discussion shortly after removing EOL as a source from Poa cita because EOL's info seemed plainly wrong. I documented this at Talk:Poa cita#Encyclopedia of Life as a source. I see that @ CycoMa: asked about EOL's reliability two weeks ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Encyclopedia of Life and Talk:Baccharis articulata#reliability of EOL. Some food for thought at those discussions. Nurg ( talk) 08:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Cleaning up some old edit filters. 554 prohibits the use of certain "top 100" websites (domains: "top100 *.blog", "*charly1300*", "*mickeycharts*", "atrl.net/forums", "hot100brasil.com" -- asterisk means any characters). I can't quite tell the history of how this filter came to be but I'm not sure referencing certain sites should be disallowed by the software unless either: (a) community consensus has been found to deprecate them (in which case they're added to 869); or (b) they've went through the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist process.
So... how should these sites be dealt with? Should they be added to spam blacklist, RfCs started for deprecation, or allow them entirely? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Proto Thema is not a reliable source in my opinion. It can be found 205 times across en.WP [10] There is sensationalism, lack of accuracy and their fact are not regularly checked.
Worth noting that Protothema ranks among the biggest news portals in Greece in terms of articles posted per day and traffic. (see discussion here [14])
Poor fact checking plus sensationalism means does not stand against WP criteria for RS. I think it should be included at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with the indication "Generally unreliable" Cinadon 36 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article(see WP:BLPSPS). – Ljleppan ( talk) 12:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
https://www.indcatholicnews.com seems to be used across many pages. [15] I found it while cleaning up WP:PROMO issues on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign page. This quote, in itself, isn't particularly problematic:
"PSC was part of 2007's ENOUGH coalition to oppose the Israeli occupation of territories controlled since the 1967 Six-Day War."
However, looking at the "article" [16] Independent Catholic News seems to have re-posted a press release from activist orgs in their own voice in their news section. As such, it seems this entire source should be probably be declared unreliable.
I also did a search in here and it doesn't seem this website has been discussed before.
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 19:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
In WP:NEWSBLOG does the "opinion piece" link to WP:PRIMARY mean it is a primary source and should follow what's said there rather than say a secondary or tertiary source? Thanks. NadVolum ( talk) 23:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind, however, that it can get a bit hazy because you can use an opinion piece to establish that someone believes something that would otherwise be secondary (ie. their personal interpretation or analysis), when that opinion is relevant; it's just that without the fact-checking that non-opinion sources get, we can only frame that as their opinion.Say, for instance, we have an opinion piece or NEWSBLOG column written by Professor Reliablepants, world's greatest academic expert on fascism; he says that in his expert opinion, such-and-such a thing is comparable to fascism. This piece would be a primary source for his opinions, but it's the kind of thing we're intended to use opinion pieces for. We could not use that source to say, in the article voice, "X is fascist", but we could us it to say "Professor Reliablepants, world's greatest academic expert on fascism, compared X to fascism" because then we're just reporting what he said - the fact that he said that is a straightforward fact citeable to a primary source. A newsblog by an established expert is clearly a decent source for opinion - it's in a venue that is otherwise reliable and it's someone whose opinion matters. At that point it becomes a question of WP:DUE weight rather than WP:RS - not everyone's opinions are as important as Professor Reliablepants, (and even Professor Reliablepants' opinions might not always be relevant) so the question is whether it's an opinion worth including at all, which is often harder to answer. I think newblogs are primary sources in most regards, but so are all other opinion pieces; it clearly doesn't make sense to omit opinion pieces purely because they're published as a newsblog (since that's, generally speaking, going to be high-quality as sources for opinions go), and it doesn't make sense to bar opinion pieces from being used to report someone else's interpretation and analysis as long as it's being clearly attributed to them and is otherwise WP:DUE - we just have to avoid treating it as fact in the article voice. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I would like to validate what the value or status is of the annual World Air Force directory published (free of charge) by Flight Global magazine as it is often referred to as source on Wikipedia prevailing over other sources or even official sources such a Ministeries of Defence, Aircraft manufacturers or National Air Forces. Please have a look at the Belgian Air Component and Netherlands Air Force pages on Wikipedia (updates/revert/undo discussions).
Hope you can be of help
A bit of help is needed in determining the reliability of the listed sources. Some of them are fairly obvious cases, but I'd still like to document them here to avoid misuse in the future.
For series of articles on history of music genres like [17] or [18]. It has come up here before, but the results have not been too clear-cut. While the listed articles seem objective enough to be referenced on wikipedia. The authors' names can also be found on google - it's often freelance writers/musicians who also write for other major publications such as djmag.com. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For hundreds of articles about music genres like [19] or [20]. It is probably obviously unreliable but it would be best to write about it here, as this source is already used on wikipedia in many articles. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For articles like [21] or [22]. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For articles on music genres like [23] or [24]. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For articles like [25]. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For articles like [26]. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For articles like [27]. Solidest ( talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
It can be found here [28]. Is this a reliable source. An IP edited into the this article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that @ Keivan.f has been adding strange-looking sources to Draft:Yurdaer Okur, such as: [29], [30], [31].
It's odd that three different Turkish publishers seem to have almost the exact same text. It's suggestive that all three may have been plagiarised from trwiki or some common source, at some time in the past.
In a comment on my talk page this user mentioned that the sources he used for our English language article may have been lifted from the Turkish Wikipedia article about this subject.
I've noticed that the publications used in this draft that lifted Turkish Wikipedia articles have been used extensively on English Wikipedia:
The fact that these sources simply copy Wikipedia articles a common source without giving credit gives me cause for concern about this source. Perhaps these publications should be flagged as potentially problematic. --
Salimfadhley (
talk) 20:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
It is always delightful to see wikipedians discussing in such civil manner. In any case, what do we know of the reputation of each media? Are there any RS or fact checking sites that might be of any help? Cinadon 36 20:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Is [32] a BLP-good source for Heather Wolfe's year of birth and names? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, is Warner Bros. Entertainment youtube channel's commentary video reliable only if it is used in Joker (2019 film)? Reiro ( talk) 06:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
A few days ago an editor reverted my edits stating that the source is too old. A couple of days later another editor reverted my edit stating that there is no policy that prohibits citing older sources. Now I am confused. How old is considered too old to be cited? Especially in historical articles? Akshaypatill ( talk) 08:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Goodwordnews.com is a consolidator site which does machine translation of other sites, notably Russia Today. Bad MT, I should add. See for example, Zemmour tances BHL during a debate, a comically bad translation from the French RT article «Vous êtes le porte-parole parfait de l'Etat profond américain» : Zemmour tance BHL lors d'un débat. (Have a look at the GWN link; you don't need to know a word of French to see what a joke it is.) This site is currently being used at Eric Zemmour.
Since RT itself is already rated 'generally unreliable' ( here), and this site is so, so much worse, I was hoping we could rate GWN as " double secret unreliable" for posterity. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 08:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Crunchbase News ( https://news.crunchbase.com) has its own editorial and has a disclosure on how their newsroom is independent from the Crunchbase public / user-generated database. Here is their explanation: https://news.crunchbase.com/about-news/ I know that Crunchbase itself is not a reliable source because it is a user-generated database per WP:CRUNCHBASE, but what about the Crunchbase News? Is it reliable for the purpose of verifiability? Z22 ( talk) 19:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
How should we list it on WP:RSP?
I think Option 2 is reasonable. If caution is given, certain contents can be useful knowledge. For example, here is an example that shows a certain level of analysis of Crunchbase News by comparing and contrasting two approaches in attracting companies to New Jersey. We should not just deprecate Crunchbase News in a broad brush. Z22 ( talk) 12:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.- David Gerard ( talk) 14:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In the Pushbacks in Greece article, an editor is attempting to shoehorn in criticism of Turkey from a think tank article credited to "Middle East Research Intern". This article claims that in early 2020 Turkey engaged in "coercive engineered migration". Other sources such as such as New York Times reporting or a peer-reviewed academic article do not support that widespread coercion was used by Turkey. Can we get more eyes on this? ( t · c) buidhe 03:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC) s
“ | Turkey has encouraged Syrian refugees to move to Europe as part of a policy that appears to use refugees to wring concessions and support from European countries for Ankara’s role in Syria. In late February, Turkey opened the border for refugees to go to Greece and began prodding them to leave within a 72-hour window. | ” |
Weaponizing refugees and migrants has become a political strategy for countries at Europe’s periphery... In some cases, this strategy works. In 2016, Turkey negotiated an unprecedented $7 billion in foreign aid and other concessions in return for keeping Syrian refugees within Turkey’s borders. And this is from the NYT
Friday’s events were widely seen as his attempt to weaponize both the desperation of migrants and the xenophobia of Europe.It was the ninth time, in fact, that the Turkish president has promised to send a new surge of refugees Europe’s way. Whether Mr. Erdogan was merely dangling the threat again, or will unleash a full-blown crisis remains to be seen.. Alaexis ¿question? 20:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
(unindent) Here's another reliable source (Vice News) that basically states that the 2020 border crisis was engineered
[47], i.e., backs what BiC says. And the NYT article linked above begins with The country is winding down an aggressive two-week operation to move tens of thousands of migrants to its frontiers. But relations with Greece and Europe have suffered.
. "The country" here refers to Turkey.
Khirurg (
talk) 15:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The center or the article have literally zero clout. I tried to look up the author of this 'policy brief', a certain Arthur Jennequin, but there are no mentions of him anywhere else apart from the BIC. The report itself doesn't bother mentioning his credentials. Here we can see that he was a research intern. As Tayi Arajakate pointed out, publishing reports written entirely by interns is poor practice and reflects very badly on their reliability. The center itself does not seem to have received any significant attention in literature, their reports aren't exactly well-cited. I can see no evidence that this think-tank has proper fact-checking mechanisms in place. The center and this specific report cannot be considered RS for anything remotely contentious. -- GGT ( talk) 00:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that this website ( [48]) has been regarded unreliable by most editors, yet I still think that some editors might use this source to write articles in good faith (not knowing that it publishes misinformation that has never been accepted by MSM on earth), so I beg that this website be deprecated, since it claims that Natural News is reliable ( How Google and Wikipedia Brainwash You – OffGuardian (off-guardian.org)), despite the fact that Natural News is a fake news website ( Google delists Mike Adams’ Natural News website. Was it because of fake news? | Science-Based Medicine), and it downplays the COVID-19 pandemic.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This English-language website regularly spreads untruths about the coronavirus. In the OffGuardian piece , it was said during a WHO meeting that, based on estimates, 10 percent of the world's population has been infected with the corona virus. According to OffGuardian , the WHO admits that COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the flu... OffGuardian makes a wrong assumption.[50]
no one has died from COVID-19. This claim appeared online on May 13 on the website of the Bulgarian Pathologists Association. This message was only distributed outside Bulgaria on July 2 by the English-language website OffGuardian. This website is known for its conspiracy theories.[51] Austrian fact-checkers Mimikama cover the same story, reaching the same conclusions, [52] and so does Indonesia's Tirto. [53] German public service broadcaster [Bayerischer Rundfunk|BR] mentions it as a source for fake news in a debunking of a Swiss medical disinfo site. [54] Romanian daily Adevărul reported an interview with noted misinformation purveyor Sucharit Bhakdi was
published on the marginal English-language Off-Guardian fake news site (a kind of off-journalism journalism) and framed in a text with quotes from other benevolent "teachers" spreading in unison various "pseudo-theories" about coronavirus... The offGuardian site was created in 2015 and contains misinformation stories pro-Kremlin. Many of the articles published in the past were anti-Ukrainian. The site itself is part of the category of portals that systematically distribute conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific narratives.
"Among the various English-language promoters of Russian propaganda, a website called OffGuardian drew attention to itself recently by praising a visit to occupied Crimea by Symphonic Brass Wales... Among the various English-language promoters of Russian propaganda, a website called OffGuardian drew attention to itself recently by praising a visit to occupied Crimea by Symphonic Brass Wales... As its name suggests, OffGuardian was allegedly created by people who were tired of being censored by the moderators of the Guardian’s comments section, so many of its articles attempt to pull apart articles in the Guardian and other “MSM” outlets. In line with the Kremlin’s goals, OffGuardian seeks to undermine trust in “mainstream media”."Media Bias, although itself not reliable, rates it "conspiracy-psuedoscience" and says
OffGuardian also frequently promotes conspiracy theories regarding GMOs such as Post-Brexit Farming, Glyphosate, and GMOs. Although this story utilizes some credible sources, it also cites Mercola, a website promoting quackery-level pseudoscience. They also promote 9/11 conspiracies such as The Fakest Fake News: The U.S. Government’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. They frequently cover False Flags and the US Deep State conspiracy as well as anti-vaccination propaganda, linking to examples. The Jewish Chronicle notes that it was the source for an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Enough? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This hasn't had much notice here - there's discussion of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources_section_of_WP:RS - David Gerard ( talk) 19:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Is [55] a reliable source for Hayat Abdullayeva? Note that the source is used to support the claim that "Over the years of her creative activity, H. Abdullayeva has also created a number of major works, including the sculpture of Maxim Gorky, installed on the pediment of the National Library named after M. F. Akhundov, the bronze sculptures of the famous actor Huseyngulu Sarabsky, of the statesman and poet Shah Ismail Khatai, the monument-busts of Khurshidbanu Natavan and the one of the poet Vagif in the city of Shusha", none of which is mentioned in the source. Vexations ( talk) 12:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Four sources I found refer to Garad Jama Garad Ali as by the abbreviation "garad of SSCD", namely [56], [57], [58], [59]. Are those sources sufficient to place this abbreviation in the body of the article? Heesxiisolehh ( talk) 23:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Currently,
The Diplomat (
thediplomat.com) is listed at
WP:RSP as "generally reliable" with the summary: "There is consensus that The Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics.
"
However, I'm wondering if this should perhaps be reevaluated, with an added disclaimer similar to Forbes, which not only distinguishes between it's print magazine and it's website, but especially (in this case) makes a further distinction regarding its various authors (Staff writers vs. Contributors):
RSP entry for Forbes magazine
|
---|
Forbes magazine is listed at RSP as "generally reliable" with the summary: " |
RSP entry for Forbes.com website
|
---|
Meanwhile, Forbes.com, the website, is listed as "generally unreliable" with the summary: " |
As for the Diplomat, I've noted there can be a difference among contributing authors. Here are two examples;
Franz-Stefan Gady is a Fellow with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London and a columnist for The Diplomat. He is the author of a number of monographs and book chapters on Asian and European security issues.
Franz-Stefan was a Senior Editor with The Diplomat. He has also reported from a wide range of countries and conflict zones including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. His writing and photos have appeared in The International New York Times, BBC News, Foreign Affairs Magazine, Foreign Policy, The Christian Science Monitor, and Slate among other publications.
His analysis has been featured in The Financial Times and The Wallstreet Journal [sic], and on Al Jazeera and PBS, among others.
Follow him on Twitter.
"His content and write ups are derived from cross examination of open source rumors and information. He is active on Reddit and can be found on Twitter.
"Example #1 is likely to be a reliable author, whereas example #2... maybe not so much. I'm thinking that if something to the effect of: "Each contributing author should be evaluated not only on their content, but the information provided about them in their individual bios." was added to the summary for The Diplomat at RSP, this could be beneficial. Thoughts? - wolf 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
“ | For their authority, depth and clarity, his books have won praise from professors at colleges and universities like Harvard, Oxford, Cornell, Columbia, Syracuse, Oberlin, and Edinburgh. [1] | ” |
References
Bhaktivedanta cult is also known as "Hare Krishna" group aka ISKCON.
In this edit User:Dāsānudāsa has restored praises about books by the subject. (The above quoted content was removed by me) Can a Bhaktivedanta site be used to source praises about books related to Bhaktivedanta founder? Can such a source be used to add such WP:NPOV violating content?
In my view, this is obvious promotion, and my removal was justified but I have been reverted repeatedly. If I remove again, I am sure I will be reverted again. The user had been warned by the admin for edit warring here. I have a suspicion that people/ supporters from the Bhaktivedanta/ ISKCON cult are active on this page and reverting improvements on this page. Venkat TL ( talk) 10:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed the sentence, source is not RS and does verify the sentence. [60]. Krisna.com is not a secondary RS, imo. Cinadon 36 11:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I know Crunchbase is not a valid source but I thought a report from them would be different. What do people think of https://about.crunchbase.com/cybersecurity-research-report-2021/ as a source? MaskedSinger ( talk) 15:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I really tried searching for prior discussion but "in the news" is a hopeless search term.
My question is: everything about the site suggests it is untrustworthy, but I wanted a second opinion - it is not listed at RS/P.
Looking to potentially update the Sabrina De Sousa article (which has no information more recent than 2019) I came across this link.
So what is this site? Is it worth sitting through the video for information re de Sousa's recent activities (obvs her opinions on Gen Hayden are irrelevant)?
Feel free to link to prior discussion if there's nothing new to say. I just couldn't find anything and I would appreciate the simplicity of a RS/P red entry. Regards CapnZapp ( talk) 08:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay so we have one user (Cobra) who feels the site is Generally Unreliable (to use the RS/P) categories. CapnZapp ( talk) 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
On page 90 of the 2021 book Consequences of Capitalism, Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone claim that the US has an "unusually violent labor history, going well into the 20th century." I used this as the primary source for this edit to the lead of the article Labor history of the United States. It was subsequently reverted with the claim that "the chomsky is not a reliable source" (nothing said about the other author, a professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, and nevermind that Chomsky is considered by many to be one of the top public intellectuals in the US). To my knowledge, that the US has a labor history more violent than other Western nations is widely understood and hardly controversial, like the sky being blue and grass being green. In fact, on the page Union violence in the United States, the second paragraph of the lead says "According to a study in 1969, the United States has had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world". So I included this source as well (unfortunately, no page number was provided). I think the material and sources are WP:DUE for this article. I can add attribution if necessary so it's not in Wikipedia's voice, if that would help.-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 15:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The Chomsky and Waterstone book is not a reliable source. This is an empirical claim which has presumably been assessed by scholars across relevant disciplines (e.g. history, political science, sociology, economics), so there's no need to use low-quality sources. Here is a better source: [61] Adding quotes by Chomsky to the first paragraph in the lead of Labor history of the United States is not OK. It makes Wikipedia look bad when a partisan non-expert is flagged at the top of Wikipedia articles as if he were the main authority on the subject (imagine if Victor Davis Hanson or Jordan Peterson were cited like this in the lead on articles unrelated to their expertise). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
‘From approximately 1873, the date which marks the peak of the post-Civil War revival of the American labor movement, until 1937, when the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Wagner Act, American labor suffered government repression that was probably as severe or more severe than that suffered by any labor movement in any other Western industrialized democracy. According to the foremost historians of American labor violence, the U.S. has had the “bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world.” An admittedly grossly underestimated tabulation of the number of casualties in labor disputes indicates over seven hundred deaths and thousands of serious injuries, almost all of which occurred in the 1973-1937 period.’(Robert Justin Goldstein Political Repression in Modern America, Shenkman (1978) Indiana University Press 2001 ISBN 978-0-252-06964-2 p.3 and for details pp.6-104, 195-208.(there’s a wiki stub on this, I see. Political Repression in Modern America).
‘according to a leading historian of the American federation of Labor, with the possible exception of the metal and machines trades in France, employees in no other country “have so persistently, vigorously, at such costs and with such conviction of serving a cause, fought trade unions as the American employing class” and in no other Western democracy “have employees been so much aided in their opposition to unions by the civil authorities, the armed forces of government and their courts.’ (Goldstein p.4)
I hope that I am in the right place, and I am not brewing a tempest in a teapot over this edit made a few months ago, but…
In October, an editor (
Muboshgu, whom I have pinged) briefly added (
Special:Diff/1049668090/next) claims that Blake Treinen (the Dodgers pitcher) "has promoted the views of a far-right crank who claims to be a "prophet of God," that Obama was secretly removed as President in 2010, that Trump is the true President, and that Jesus Christ has woken him up at night to tell him things - that he cannot share at this time, due to national security reasons", citing
an SFGate article (not an opinion piece) as their source. The edit was quickly reverted by the editor themselves, who discussed the matter in the article's
talk page.
While the talk page discussion has long subsided, I am wondering whether we can count this incident against SFGate's reliability as a Wikipedia source. In my opinion, the piece sounds like a smear campaign against Treinen, with him only mentioned marginally, and I only found some of its content true (although it could simply be because I don't want to go into political pages like the ones SFGate linked).
If this matter wasted your time, I apologise. Otherwise, thank you.
NotReallySoroka ( talk) 01:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
P.S. The reason why I did not raise the issue immediately is because I was on Wikibreak at that time.
The Bristolian’s slogan is “Smiter of the high and mighty”. It’s about page describes them as, “The Bristolian is a scandal sheet covering all sorts of shenanigans in the fine British city of Bristol.”
Our entry about the paper portrays a radical publication with strong left-wing partisanship. While I admire their commitment to free speech and holding the rich and powerful accountable, I have doubts over its general reliability as a source, particularly for contentious material in BLP articles.
Here’s my request for comment.
Is the current incarnation of The Bristolian (newspaper) a reliable source?
I have come up with the following options starting with what I think is the unlikeliest option.
I think the latter is the most sensible option but I look forward hearing everyone’s views. Ch1p the chop ( talk) 12:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Should https://www.biogs.com be considered a reliable source for biography articles? I've seen it used to cite dates of birth and early-life details here on Wikipedia, and it's presently linked from around 50 biographies. biogs.com looks like it's written by one person writing short summary biographies without giving many (if any) checkable sources for where that information was taken from. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 19:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The Black Book of Communism which is an unreliable source. For instance, the book pens the total death toll in the gulags to be around three million while an analysis by J Arch Getty, Gabor T Rittersporn and Viktor N Zemskov shows a death toll of slightly over a third of that amount and inflating the death toll of the Cultural Revolution. Thus it should be deprecated. Elishop ( talk) 01:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So if many well-established scholars say that the book's research and conclusions are dated or otherwise seriously flawed, that reduces its reliability; a source whose scholarship is heavily contested should be used with caution, which its current heavy use in the article certainly doesn't reflect. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
May I ask you two questions? What exactly each of you mean under "The Black Book of Communism"? What exact statement do you want to support using this source? These are not rhetoric question. I am asking because the Book is considered a very reliable sources mostly due to the Werth's chapter about Russia, but the part that is being cited in Wikipedia is an introduction by Courtois, the most controversial, most criticized, most politicized, and most provocative part of the book. A talk page of the recent AfD contains a representative sample of sources about the BB. They fully confirm my words. In other words, Courtois's introduction and the chapter are unreliable for figures. It is also unreliable for his generalizations, and, especially, for his attempts to link all crimes to some generic Communism. In contrast, the Werth's part, is a reliable source, as on author wrote, "a rock the whole book rests upon".-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 04:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
In this context, a publication aiming to record all the ‘victims of communism’ worldwide, The Black Book of Communism: crimes, terror, repression (Courtois et al., 1999), contributed directly to the rise of the totalitarian paradigm. This best-selling publication was the subject of violent controversy among historians specialising in communism, to the point that some of its co-authors distanced themselves from the introduction written by the French historian Stéphane Courtois. Its detractors criticised its lack of methodological rigour, its conception of historical work as ‘work of justice and memory’ and the ideological dimension of its approach (Dreyfus et al., 2000; Traverso, 2001; Morgan, 2010). In any event, by making criminality the very essence of communism, by explicitly equating the ‘race genocide’ of Nazism with the ‘class genocide’ of Communism in connection with the Ukrainian Great Famine of 1932–1933, the Black Book of Communism contributed to legitimating the equivalence of Nazi and Communist crimes.
Unlike the cardboard cutouts of Communist leadership presented in ideologically charged studies like The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (1997), these essays are both nuanced and balanced, presenting Lenin and Stalin as human leaders driven as much by realpolitik and personal histories and events as by Communist ideology.
A petulant upsurge in anti-communism is permeating the United States (US) and Canada, as well as countries in the European Union (EU). Its main truncheon is the simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim that communism caused 100 million victims, a catchy slogan sensationalised through a 1997 propaganda volume titled The Black Book of Communism (henceforth BBC).
Werth's chapter stands on its own merit and his other works, largely, as always with historians, for specific claims rather than the general vibe people all too often read into a historian's engagement. Courtois, as I have explicated in detail previously, hangs his chapters on "non-catholicism" as a causative category of communism and therefore murderousness. This is widely recognised to not be social science. It depends, as the ***great big header at the top of the page explains*** on which bit, is cited in what article, for which claims. Fifelfoo ( talk) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Werth),2 but may be outdated1 — introduction and foreword are too controversial and disputed to be reliable but can be relied on for secondary coverage, such as the reactions of Le Monde and Le Figaro, and as primary sources for quotes. I do not understand this dismissal of Capitalism Nature Socialism as if it negates the criticism and controversy also reported by Neumayer and more centrist sources — that article is good as a tertiary source (to quote TFD,
"Engel-De Mauro is merely reciting facts: that the 100 million figure has no support in reliable sources and was chosen for its propaganda value. He is not providing his own opinion. The advantage of a recent source is that the author would be aware of any changes in the academic literature."), and is absurd to compare it to Grover Furr when it was written in an academic journal published by the academic press (Routledge). And to quote from the RSN discussion,
"[a]n academic journal that serves a particular community and thus embodies its biases does not sound very different from a news website with an editorial slant, as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES is concerned. I'd take a journal that wears its editorial mission on its sleeve ... over those that try to look staid while having no standards inside."Centrism is also an ideology, and left-wing books and articles published within the academic press remain reliable, whether we like it or not.
With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing.However, I don't think BBoC is so much closer to the events that it should be considered less likely to have errors, but on the other hand, it should not be penalized for age unless new documents have come to light. -- SVT Cobra 14:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt., and later is says
Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years.This is such a case, with new developments in this field in the past ~25 years, plus we're further away from the events and thus newer sources are better at "remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt" which is why I and others have quoted from newer sources above. This situation is square-on what RSAGE is about: the 1990s is too close to the fall of Soviet communism; 21st-century scholarship is better. Levivich 17:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I have seen Saving Country Music show up in a myriad of country music-related articles. According to the about page, it is written and published entirely by one person. This means that there is no editorial oversight or fact-checking involved. The content of such blog does lean a bit WP:POLEMIC at times with regards to the author's opinions on country music, not to mention the severe ego of the about page in such terms as "first journalist to discover Sturgill Simpson". By these standards, Saving Country Music is not a WP:RS.
In addition, most of the uses I've seen of it are for biographical information, peacocking a barely-notable artist, or unduly pushing the author's viewpoints. Given the nature of the site, it should clearly be at least deprecated, if not outright blacklisted. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
See this article. [62] The narrative section of our article is a mess and even includes names of notable people. Looking at this I also found Book of Helaman - hardly NPOV. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm currently engaged in an editing debate. I want to add on the Music Career section of Son of Dork a sentence which states that the lead-singer James Bourne has spoken about returning for a second album. My source is a post on his Twitter page (which is verified). This is the source: https://twitter.com/JamesBourne/status/1115431751848026112 There is also context for this addition as the previous few sentences speak about a possible Son of Dork reunion. The user reverting my changes stated:Rv... Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. Primary sources are only to fill in minor details. but I'm not sure what this means? Thanks for you help! 194.66.200.1 ( talk) 14:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for you help and advice! 194.66.200.1 ( talk) 14:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I want to use Artists in California, 1786–1940 for some details on Giuseppe Cadenasso. It's by Edan Milton Hughes and published by "Hughes Publishing Company". WorldCat Identities says 413 libraries have this book. I feel like it's OK to use? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Extra eyes would be helpful in the talk page discussion at David Miller (sociologist), with the above sources being used. If I am reading the archives correctly, we have no consensus on reliability of Middle East Monitor and have not discussed the reliability of Palestine Chronicle. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
None of those are suitable for controversial BLP content and some aren't suitable for anything. You don't need an rsn thread if only one editor is advocating for inclusion though. Journalism and scholarship, not advocacy orgs. Levivich 13:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Not Reliable The EJ already have an RSP entry so that one clear while reading our article about MEMO especially descriptions by BBC as "pro-Hamas" organization gives us clear view that the source cannot be trusted Shrike ( talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
No, nay, never! This shouldn't even be a discussion! C'mon people! ENCYCLOPEDIA remember?
EnlightenmentNow1792 (
talk) 23:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Non ecp editor, Arbpia restrictions apply