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 360 | Archive 361 | Archive 362 | Archive 363 | Archive 364 | Archive 365 | → | Archive 370 |
Currently this left-wing magazine is deprecated for spreading conspiracy theories, yet it should not be for two reasons: (1) A Wikipedian claimed that it denies the existence of Holodomor (cf. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355#CounterPunch_and_Al_Bawaba), yet that CounterPunch article does acknowledge that a famine occurred in Ukraine in 1932-33 (2) Novaya Gazeta spreads global warming conspiracy theory [1], yet it is still not deprecated.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 14:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Geez, tag me if you are going to reference my edits. The piece by Grover Furr is not any evidence that the magazine is reliable in the slightest, nor does this actually address the things that concerned some editors (me, for example) the most. That, of course being the plethora of (the-Jews-did-9/11 level) conspiracy theories that it has preferentially published. There was a pretty clear consensus in that discussion, even if you take be arguments made by socks away, based upon the analysis that several editors (including me) provided regarding the source’s dubious-at-best editorial practices. Making another RfC for this sort of source is probably not wise unless you believe you have a strong argument in favor of the site being one with editorial control, editorial independence, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (c.f. WP:BIASED).— Mhawk10 ( talk) 22:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion on Counterpunch was nonsensical from start to finish. Users took a website that never made any claim to editorial control and then decided that their editorial control was lacking. They presented an incredibly distorted picture of the website, using articles from 9/11 truthers as though they were what the website was all about but ignoring the large number of articles there saying that 9/11 truthers are insane conspiracy nuts (eg [1], [2]). It also ignored one basic truth here, nobody ever ever ever cited a Counterpunch article not written by an expert in his or her field. Nobody had ever cited any of the articles that were brought forth as though they were some great problem here. It was a very effective exercise in controlling the narrative at the start of the discussion with strawman arguments about what the site is used for. It was absurd, and it ignored the countless actual undisputed experts in their field who write on Counterpunch. A new RFC is needed, but I dont think questioning the close of the last one is productive. And now we have editors removing actual experts from our articles (David Price being author of Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists, published by Duke University Press, and writing about the FBI surveilling an activist academic.) But because it hosts material that some users find distasteful, while also hosting the opposing viewpoints, we should not use the work of actual experts. nableezy - 23:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
nobody ever ever ever cited a Counterpunch article not written by an expert in his or her field. Really? That's quite the claim. For an extraordinarily mundane example, let's look at radical centrism.
In 2017, in a 1,700-word article for CounterPunch entitled "Beware the Radical Center", Canadian writer Ryan Shah characterized radical centrism as a just-in-time "repackaging" of neoliberalism meant to sustain the political, economic, and social status quo.[139] He warned that political leaders such as Europe's Emmanuel Macron and North America's Justin Trudeau were creating a false image of radical centrist programs as progressive, and urged leftists to develop "genuine" policy alternatives to neoliberalism such as those advocated by British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
nobody ever ever ever cited a CounterPunch article not written by an expert in his or her field. It's fiction, full stop. I don't see evidence that somehow editors have been particularly and extraordinarily squeaky clean with using CounterPunch (even in one of the more mundane politics-related articles). And honestly, the guidance that we should pick and choose from the source what is good and what is garbage was brought up during the discussion that took place and was generally discarded along the lines of WP:DAILYMAIL. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
nobody ever ever ever cited a Counterpunch article not written by an expert in his or her field. Do you still believe that to be the case? Third, I'm not making any claims regarding the majority of source removals; I haven't actually done the digging on that nor is it obvious to me how to conduct a systemic review. But if the vast majority of these removals that you see are coming in an extremely politically contentious field, then perhaps editors in that area should be striving to use more reliable sources rather than relying upon a magazine that has published multiple Jews-did-9/11 conspiracy theories (see points one and two of my bolded !vote in the deprecation discussion if you disagree with my characterization). Fourth, I agree that not every single reference to a deprecated publication should be purged; as WP:DEPS notes that
citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately.Fifth, if you're going to challenge David Gerard's closure, there is actually a mechanism to do so. That mechanism is outlined in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and involves a challenge on the administrator's noticeboard. An informal discussion on RSN is not capable of overturn the community consensus on the publication's reliability established in a request for comment about two months ago. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 17:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
More, the model of the Reichstag fire false flag has been readily replicated, not least in the 1954 Lavon Affair and, most spectacularly, in 9/11 (whence the five dancing Israelis at Liberty Park?). Practice makes perfect with false flags. Add extra-judicial murders made to order.Are you saying that the person writing this is not conveying the belief that the "dancing Israelis" were conducting some false flag operation on 9/11? I certainly hope not; that would be absurd.
"In the Western World, Corporatism has become ‘subject’ to Zionism and in consequence Capitalist Democracy has been usurped by the power of a concentrated accumulation of resources – and this- no mere product of ‘happenstance’ – but rather part of a systemic scheme whereby the rich are to get richer and the poor to get poorer? When 2.3 Trillion Dollars can ‘go missing’ from an Economy and disappear down a ‘memory hole’ as part of a historical revisionism aka denial; when the very day after the gone missing is ‘announced’ and the Rabbi Dov Zakheim as Comptroller is not held to account because it ‘happens’ there is an attack on the Twin Towers (also WTC 7) and the Pentagon which becomes the focus of attention and a casus belli for war then something is seriously wrong – and psycho political abuse is in operation? Let us also not forget the ‘weapons grade anthrax’ – such the ‘memory hole’?"Are you saying that the author is not trying to connect Rabbi Dov Zakheim to the 9/11 attacks in the context of Zionism?
a new RFC is neededat this time. You were able to make your arguments in the RfC that happened two months ago; the fact that the community (and the closer) found them rather unconvincing does not mean that we need to rapidly run another RfC where the same base arguments are going to be made. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 06:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
It also ignored one basic truth here, nobody ever ever ever cited a Counterpunch article not written by an expert in his or her field.Worth tracking back through the links to see the citation that kickstarted the discussion that ended with CP deprecated: unattributed use as a source for facts about a legal case in the BLP article Alex Saab, citing a CP article by a retired wetlands consultant and Peace and Freedom Party activist (i.e. not an expert on international criminal law, the relevant topic) that included at least two factual inaccuracies. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 08:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
References
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. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Deprecated is too harsh, given that it has occasionally contributors who are experts on the subject they're writing about. I support changing the RSN listing to WP:MREL. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 17:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
the work, the creator, and the publisher all affect reliability. In this case, that means we have to take into account the fact that these sources choose to write a particular article for a publisher who regularly publishes false and fabricated information and not a more reliable publisher.I'd echo this view here—the publication does impact reliability, which is something that WP:SOURCE says, even if the author might also publish elsewhere. Good editorial oversight makes for good writing, even among experts, while shoddy editorial oversight degrades the quality of the work. (That's the whole point of peer review in the academic world, or the employment of fact-checkers in newsroooms). — Mhawk10 ( talk) 19:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. If the only place we can find information is in a source such as the Daily Mail, RT, or CounterPunch, then it is probably not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, regardless of the credentials of the author. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
In the case of Counterpunch, there's been evidence provided that they do not fact check submissions and print fringe perspectives, but not that they deceptively misrepresent themselves or the authors published there.- doesn't catch the arguments made in the RFC about the exact nature of Counterpunch's reliability. The problem clearly documented through a large number of examples there was not a simple failure to fact check submissions, but an editorial policy of - an active preference for - actively publishing material that challenges mainstream reportage, and therefore includes a considerable amount of dubious, fringe, conspiracist and disinfo content, including dangerous anti-vaxx material as well as antisemitic content. It is this that many editors considered pushed it from generally unreliable to deprecated status. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The deprecation judgment, when not a pretext for nationalist POV pushing by suppression of contrarian material, has become an excuse for laziness. See CounterPunch cited? Strike the source on sight, without even analysing who wrote it. This is how Shrike reads this. His objection seems to be to elide anything from that source which reflects negatively on Israel’s occupation. CounterPunch, which has a long history as the fav target for ‘pro-Israeli’ socks at RSN, covers the I/P conflict closely, with details rarely reported in the mainstream press, and many of its authorities are academic specialists, or Israelis or Jews. That is discomforting ergo, as Nableezy noted, following that, to me, erratic discussion, we now have systematic removalist abuse at
Where does this censorious opportunism lead, of exploiting a debatable conclusion about CounterPunch to set up a Pavlovian reflex of cancellation at sight of anything, regardless of quality, associated with that webzine?
I wrote a good part of the article on Raul Hilberg – in my view one of the greatest historians in that trade since the year dot, and a personal hero. So I cited
In the way this deprecation judgment is being read, anyone can mangle articles like that on Hilberg by erasing Finkelstein or Neumann for writing their commemorations of that historian for Counterpunch.
The founder of CounterPunch was hostile to conspiracy theories, antisemitism, nutters of whatever description, as is its present editor, but as the editor of, not a ’ left-wing magazine’ (above), but a libertarian webzine that hosts views ranging from the Republican right to the heterogeneous left, including at times crap I scroll past. Like many who have had occasion to cite it here, I look at the quality of the piece and who wrote it.
As the deprecation is being manipulated, we can expect that wikipedia will slowly be shorn of trenchant and highly focused reports by Alexander Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn (the latter a widely published authority on Iraq), Uri Avnery, es:Gary Leupp (brilliant on the orient), Melvin Goodman, (incisive and with a deep professional grounding in American security doctrines) security, Ralph Nader, Andrew Levine, Winslow Wheeler (works from Capitol Hill- knows everything about congressional budgets), Naomi Klein, Brian Cloughley, Mark Weisbrot, Serge Halimi, Norman Pollack, Neve Gordon, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Michael Brenner, Sheldon Richman, Ramzy Baroud, Vijay Prashad, Robert Fisk, Gareth Porter, Mel Gurtov, Henry Giroux, Rodolfo Acuña, Ray McGovern, Deepak Tripathi, William Quigley, Michael Neumann, Michael Hudson, Tom Engelhardt, John Feffer, Jeremy Scahill, William Loren Katz, Andrew Bacevich, Edward Said, Tariq Ali, Bruce Jackson, Sam Bahour, Marjorie Cohn, Russ Feingold, Andre Vltchek, Lawrence Davidson, Lawrewce Wittner, Stephen Soldz, Lenni Brenner, Karl Grossman, Frank Spinney, Paul Krassner, Gabriel Kolko, Stan Goff, Diana Johnstone etc.etc. That implication, that these, for Wikipedia, if they choose to write for Cockburn's webzine, are personae non gratae, following on deprecation is dazzlingly obtuse.
So, ladies and gentlemen, can we wake up to the potential damage, and tweak the deprecation badge of shame, so that as commonsense dictates, that doesn’t become an enabling excuse for people with a POV drum to beat to cancel, erase, eviscerate scholars and writers of the quality listed above, and, by giving editors a warrant for gutting indiscriminately numerous pages of even uncontroversible material, allowing them blindly to throw the babies out with the barfwater? Nishidani ( talk) 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't use a source unless its reliability is more or less unassailable-
evidence that CounterPunch editorial has some quality or peer review process, unlike WP:RS. The fact there are experts is nowhere apparent from the fact they're writing for CounterPunch. So articles using CounterPunch shouldn't automatically have their references removed, but it does likely mean we need to explicitly state who we're citing, as an authoritative subject expert. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
articles using CounterPunch shouldn't automatically have their references removedThis is what deprecation implicitly does. Deprecation means that a bot automatically revert any edits which add references with the website URL from IP and recently registered users. counterpunch.org is on User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList.
Since my attempt to deal with a specific source was undone by a user (who somehow was uninvolved enough to close the RFC, but is reverting to enforce his own close, and is voting in the follow up RFC), Ive started an RFC on the subject down below in #RFC: Counterpunch nableezy - 02:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines. In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately; language elsewhere is similar (
The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited, emphasis mine.) And I say this as someone who spends time removing / replacing depreciated sources. The reality, though, is that, first, in cases where it would be justifiable to use a depreciated source, it is usually trivial to find a better source anyway, or a better source even exists already (anyone who has spent time removing depreciated sources can attest to this - part of my bafflement at the extended argument below is that a better source was easily found.) And, second, in cases where a depreciated source is the only source, it's usually something exceptional or controversial that we wouldn't even begin to consider making one of the exceptions. That is why I haven't weighed in on the RFC below directly - I think it is technically true that a depreciated source could sometimes be used subject to the restrictions of SPS, but it is practically true to that there is virtually no case where we would actually end up doing so, so saying "it can be used as a SPS" as some sort of sweeping statement is bizarre and misleading. As to whether or not Counterpunch should be reassessed, I am not sure - I haven't actually bothered to go over it in-depth because there's no point unless another RFC actually occurs - but one thing I would say is that it might help to focus more on how it is covered by others; it looked to me at a glance like the past RFC focused heavily on a handful of terrible things posted there. Those are not irrelevant, especially given the lack of any indication of a retraction, but the crux of RS is a source's
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; the reputation bit is key. Things editors find objectionable there - even stuff that is blatantly, obviously wrong and terrible - is secondary to how it is viewed by other RSes, and demonstrating that it largely has a good reputation, including but not limited to strong WP:USEBYOTHERS, could therefore support the argument that the examples shown in the previous RFC are aberrations. Of course, conversely, people might just show it has a terrible reputation; but the relative lack of any focus on that aspect was one thing that struck me as off about that RFC, relative to most other depreciation RFCs. Either way, again, if a significant number of people think the previous RFC reached the wrong conclusion, the thing to do is to stop talking about it and start another RFC; this discussion can't really overturn a formal RFC, and the discussion / RFC below is honestly a bit silly, since what it's really asking is for CounterPunch to be classified as "other considerations apply" without actually asking that. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
An RFC about sourcing and deprecation has been started on a separate page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources and would be appropriate to attention here - David Gerard ( talk) 22:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
As somebody who has written on many subjects outside the English-speaking world but who lives in the English-speaking world, I see many websites like the Teller Report in my search results. These websites Google Translate major news websites from the rest of the world. The articles are 1) often incomprehensible and 2) violate copyright. Teller Report is cited on many pages: [10]. It is my opinion that there is no room for negotiation here: this site must be blacklisted for 1) copyright violation and 2) not being written or edited by humans. I found on Ralf Rangnick that a Teller Report page had been removed on request from the German newspaper Zeit. For those unfamiliar with the Teller Report's content and quality, here is a story from today which even copied the image from RT: "Zhirinovsky proposed to increase the holidays of Russians at the expense of holidays" Unknown Temptation ( talk) 20:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Older discussions: [1]
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Musk's tweets:
If option 3 or 4 is chosen, I suggest to make the tweets depreciated, since he is being used for referencing on many articles, by many users. For reference, Twitter itself is considered generally unreliable. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 16:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Not actionable, you can't deprecate tweets from an individual. What you can do is replace or remove them where ever it is being used as a source for facts. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
unduly self-serving. It's not really acceptable to rely on the personal twitter feed of a business owner to cite statements that obviously promote that business (ie. making it sound like they have something big or noteworthy planned - if there is no secondary coverage, those plans are not significant and should not be on Wikipedia; preventing someone who owns a business from tweeting out some exceptional / amazing thing that then gets picked up on Wikipedia and boosts their stock price seems like the precise thing that the
unduly self-servingrestriction on SPS exists for.) Generally speaking, at least glancing over how Musk's twitter has been used, this means that almost everything cited to it right now needs to be nuked from orbit. Extremely unexceptional and non-promotional stuff like eg. "this person is in this position" or "we were founded on this date" could be cited to a SPS, but absolutely not stuff like "we're gonna put a man on the MOOOOOON, woo! We're gonna have flying cars and jetpacks capable of reaching Mars in every garage by 2024!" To be clear, I'm saying that I don't think Musk's twitter can be cited for such self-serving statements even if they are attributed to him, ie. it's not acceptable to use his Twitter and nothing else to cite a statement like
On Twitter, Musk said that "our company is going to send a manned mission to Mars by 2030"or something. That is obviously a self-serving statement and requires an independent secondary source, fullstop. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
unduly self-servingrestriction of SPS in mind in a situation like this, because much of what Musk posts on Twitter is going to be overtly intended to be self-serving and therefore completely unusable (of course, we can still cite it via independent secondary sources - just not to Twitter directly.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
"In January 2019, Musk responded to a query from an Australian MP regarding a tunnel through the Blue Mountains to the west of Sydney, suggesting costs of $24 million/mi ($15 million/km) or $750 million for the 31-mile (50 km) tunnel, plus $50 million per station."Although reliably sourced to Mashable, the whole story was based on a single Twitter exchange and doesn't have any follow-up coverage that I've found. Until today, our article also omitted criticism from tunneling experts which was included in the source.
"In January 2019, Musk stated that he had been asked by the director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) about construction of the tunnels for its 62-mile-circumference (100 km) Future Circular Collider and that The Boring Company could save CERN several billion euros."Again, based on a tweet ("Director of CERN asked me about Boring Co building the new LHC tunnel when we were at the @royalsociety. Would probably save several billon Euros.") with no follow-up.
"In August 2019, Musk announced that he would be launching The Boring Company China during a trip at the end of the month."Two years later, nothing has come of this Twitter announcement.
Here I am citing some sources which may come useful in the development of the Draft:Sadashib (Fictional Character):- 2. https://www.bookishsanta.com/blogs/booklings-world/books-sharadindu-bandhopadhayay
4. https://archive.org/details/SadashibComicbook/1.%20Sadashib%20-%20adikando/page/n0/mode/2up
5. https://www.parabaas.com/translation/database/authors/texts/saradindu.html
7. https://www.thisday.app/en/details/the-man-behind-byomkesh-bakshi
Please convey your opinion regarding the sources cited, whether they are reliable and can be used in the development of the draft.-- Michri michri ( talk) 17:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is an anti-immigration advocacy organization with ties to white nationalism. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated it as a hate group. I was surprised to see someone try to cite it in an immigration article, so figured I'd look for other citations. It appears in 60 articles. Some of these are legitimate (someone being appointed to its board); others are not. Going around and removing a bunch of the same source can get a little dodgy, so posting here, too, for good measure. It doesn't look like we've had a thread about it here in the past. I've removed a few citations and have to stop for now. I've also added some context to a couple articles where we simply stated e.g. "FAIR criticized" or "FAIR lobbied against" which didn't contextualize what the organization is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I came across these today. They're a very slick promotional site, completely transparent about their lack of editorial oversight and their promotional mission but they've been accused of being a personal data aggregator, and one person who used them reported they won't allow submissions that don't include the emails of five other "influencers". Googling them returns a ton of scam warnings.
At minimum these shouldn't be used to prove notability or for anything that we wouldn't source to any other self-source. There's at minimum VoyageLA, VoyageATL, BostonVoyager, VoyageChicago, VoyageDallas, VoyageHouston, VoyageMIA, SDVoyager, VoyagePhoenix, and probably many more as I stumbled across a story on VoyageOhio, which isn't listed on the main website.
We currently have 148 articles sourced to VoyageLA alone. —valereee ( talk) 15:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Wolfgang Proske is a scholar who write multiple accounts that accuse Erwin Rommel of being a war criminal. As the subject attracts quite a lot of debate and the article cites a lot of journalists etc, I think that this author can be mentioned too, but my addition (that this author's main work is self-published after he failed to find a publisher who agreed to publish it as well as criticism by Lieb and Schweizer towards him) tends to be deleted for being intricate details. My passage is the following:
.Historians Christian Schweizer and Peter Lieb note that: "Over the last few years, even though the social science teacher Wolfgang Proske has sought to participate in the discussion [on Rommel] with very strong opinions, his biased submissions are not scientifically received." [1] The Heidenheimer Zeitung notes that Proske was the publisher of his main work Täter, Helfer, Trittbrettfahrer – NS-Belastete von der Ostalb, after failing to have it published by another publisher. [2]
.
Additionally, I've found out that this author himself tells the Schwaebische Zeitung that he is not sure that his accusation can stand on a legal basis, but he wants to call him such:
.Als Historiker würde er ihn einen Kriegsverbrecher nennen. Da er sich aber nicht sicher ist, ob diese Einstufung auch aus juristischer Sicht zu halten ist, nennt er Erwin Rommel schlicht einen NS-Täter und überlässt die weitere Beurteilung jedem selbst. Dies hat Wolfgang Proske bei einem gut besuchten Vortrag im Evangelischen Gemeindehaus deutlich gemacht.
Source When I added this, the admin User:Cullen328 undid it with the explanation that it added unnecessary doubt to the works of honest historians. Other editors, please advise me how to deal with this author and this case. Thanks. Deamonpen ( talk) 08:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
References
On the July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes article, There is an overarching framework about a group of Mujahideen in the article led by an "Ali Rabici" or "Alija Rabic". The sources about the Mujahideen and Alija Rabic are:
There is no mention of Ali Rabici outside of these sources except in reproductions of the original piece in NIN. NIN was under the control of Slobodan Milosevic and used for spreading Serbian nationalism. Shay and Delsio received negative reviews [14]. Deliso’s thesis of a ‘coming Balkan caliphate’ embraces Bosnia, Albania, Kosova, Macedonia and Turkey. Deliso’s animosity in particular is directed against the Albanians, and he faithfully upholds anti-Albanian stereotypes popular among the Balkan Christian peoples. He writes of ‘the opportunism they [the Kosovo Albanians] have shown in siding at various times with the Turks, the AustroHungarian Empire, Mussolini, Hitler, and, most recently, NATO’ (p. 51), thereby repeating the myth popular among Serbian nationalists, of the Albanians as stooges of repeated foreign invaders, though the Kosova Albanians’ record in this regard is absolutely no worse than that of other Balkan peoples. due to these discrepancies with the bibliography that supported this ali rabici framework i took to the Talk page of the article and proposed their removal. since no one objected I removed it. some weeks later it was added back again by another editor, he conceded that NIN was indeed not WP:RS and therefor did not add that back. he left a message on the talk page where he said that for them to be considered to be non WP:RS there had to be an entry here. Should highly criticized sources be used for such information in the article? Durraz0 ( talk) 16:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This Italian-language news website ( [16]), although sells conspiracy theories ( [17] (in Chinese)), and I had asked that it be deprecated (cf. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359), no other Wikipedians responded, meaning this website is still not deprecated, despite some articles use it as a "credible" source (e.g. Camouflage passport & International Parliament for Safety and Peace). In here I made the same proposal again. Hope that Wikipedians who are proficient at both Italian and Chinese can verify my claim that it is unreliable thus should be deprecated and discuss whether or not to deprecate it. Thanks!😁-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 15:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) fixed capitalization a bit and added the URL of the official website of La voce Delle Voci 15:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
New editor @ Jqmhelios11: is posting links to these pages on numerous articles ( Hyperion (tree), Sequoia sempervirens, ...), including replacing other references with them. I think these are transparently dodgy sources (see e.g. the disclaimer page at famousredwoods.com) and should not be used for anything, but perhaps others have a different opinion, or would like to help explain the situation to Jqmhelios11. -- JBL ( talk) 13:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Given WP:SNOW, I've found and removed where landmarktrees.com and mdvaden.com are used as sources (except about MD Vaden himself). They still show up as a few External Links. In the unlikely event of any objections, I can revert. — hike395 ( talk) 19:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I seek the deprecation of gotquestions.org and tektonics.org. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#gotquestions.org. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Reason: they're WP:SPS. What we won't do is quote amateur theologians who play hide and seek with their religious affiliations. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Looking at this article - no mentions of Thanh Nien in the RS/N archives and using google translate this article appears to say Oussou Konan Anicet died via poisoning. Unsure about the reliability of this. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe. They are read commonly in Vietnam, but international news? No idea. ( From a Vietnamese POV) Leomk0403 ( Don't shout here, Shout here!) 01:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
There are no past discussions on this website so that is why I’m asking and it seems to be used a lot.
Please ping me. ― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 03:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi.
At
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Multiple_sclerosis&oldid=1062131102#Alternative_treatments:_some_news_(2014)_about_incense_and_more I did note to an alternative treatment with incense.
This "Talk" (title) now is removed into "history", the link here.
´Justifying´: "quackery nonsense" and ONLY "phase IIa trial".
Told here:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Visionhelp#December_2021
Quote: "The results of the study have been published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry (DOI: 10.1136 / jnnp-2017-317101) since December 16, 2017.".
from
https://www-uksh-de.translate.goog/Service/Presse/Presseinformationen/2017/Hilft+Weihrauch+bei+fr%C3%BCher+Multipler+Sklerose_-p-62549.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
Best Regards,
Visionhelp (
talk) 18:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Many thanks,
MrOllie. I understand, so far.
It is from 2017. It is about ´Alternative treatments´ possible, which will be from interesst for affected people.
I did not write into the article, just as note in "Talk".
There should be newer developments possible.
More I did not want to do as work: just this note.
Does this justify to remove into the deep going hard to find history the entire note in the "Talk" section, please ? Thank You very much.
Visionhelp (
talk) 06:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Question about reliable sources that stems from this discussion, but more broadly potentially affects military articles in general. Perhaps specific guidance on this already exists, so if you can point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.
Are all articles published by the military automatically unreliable sources on a military subject, and if not, when would they be considered reliable?
For example:
Would a source by military journalists (who are generally school trained in journalist standards) qualify as reliable sources if there is a degree of separation to the topic, for example, if they are from a base newspaper reporting about a tenant unit (i.e., the journalists are not in the unit they are reporting on)?
A Department of Navy journal with content about the Air Force, or vice versa? There is a good case to say these two services are distinct, and have differences in their cultures, and they consist of unrelated people with the navy having no vested interest in many topics about the air force, with the exception of working together on the battlefield.
A military journal with peer reviewed articles?
A military student who writes at a Department of Defense school and that school has a civilian accreditation and largely professional civilian academic faculty?
It seems if we say ALL military sources on ALL military subjects are not independent under ANY circumstance is limiting and does not actually follow the guidelines for independent sources. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 22:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
ALL military sources on ALL military subjects is not independent under ANY circumstance", but at the same time it's unlikely anybody here is going to be able to supply you with a clearcut rule. A 2020 publication by a military history professor of the United States Army Command and General Staff College about the ACW? Sounds good to me. An article about a serving admiral in a base newspaper? Fine for factual information (e.g.
So-and-so was promoted on date) but not acceptable for establishing notability or for evaluative/opinionated content (e.g.
So-and-so is universally loved by his subordinates). CGSC article on Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021)? Getting iffy and needs more analysis of the publication venue, e.g. whether and in-house publication series or an established peer-reviewed journal with an independent editorial board but technically published by CGSC. - Ljleppan ( talk) 23:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
although there might be more scrutiny about their use", not any more than with any other source. There's nothing special about "military" here, except maybe how large the organization is. We wouldn't take at face value everything that Microsoft has to say about an Apple product, never mind their own product, either. Nor would we have blind trust at a history of a university written by that university's own history professor. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think another thing to take into account is how recent the events they're reporting on are. As far as I know US submarine crews in WWII over-reported the damage inflicted, and the Navy later on adjusted down the numbers after review. I'm sure similar things happen in other contexts where the reliability increases somewhat over time. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I remember in the Full Metal Jacket film, the reports from Stars and Stripes weren't 'completely' devoid of bias... 惑乱 Wakuran ( talk) 16:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The only bright line I would say exists is attribution, but military sources are often usable especially in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this [ [18]] an RS for the claim?
It has also been suggested this is an RS because it is based on (note not by) Tom Cooper's research, who or what is Tom Cooper? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Per this edit [ [19]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
A defunct website, Theme Park Junkies, is being cited by an IP editor who just wholesale reverted my cleanup efforts at Black Hole (roller coaster). The particular page being sourced is here, and aside from obvious spelling/grammar issues, there are links on the page to submit your own reviews and write your own articles. This appears to have been a glorified forum of sorts from back in the day and completely unreliable, but would appreciate a second opinion in the matter considering this is being challenged at Talk:Black Hole (roller coaster)#Lack of proper sourcing. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 20:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, UploadVR is not a reliable source in the Video Game Category. Rzzor ( talk) 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Is Attractions Magazine reliable? I think it could be. I don’t see them promoting parks by trying to sell their tickets or anything like that but I could have missed that. Also I couldn’t find anything where people that are not staff members can contribute to it. All of its content is related to theme parks and stuff to do with theme parks. It is in articles like Marvel Comics, Cheetah Hunt, Woody (Toy Story), Sisu (Raya and the Last Dragon), Jon Favreau, and others. ― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 19:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Articles:
Trakhan dynasty,
Patola Shahis
Could someone confirm if the following work can be considered RS (content deleted
here)? More specifically the article by
Ahmad Hasan Dani
here is being challenged and Dani is claimed to be "non RS" here
[22]. Thank you for your help!
पाटलिपुत्र
Pat
(talk) 10:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
There are several editions:
According to the traditional historywhich is a way of saying that the entire history is recorded from Humza lores, popular memory etc. collected in the 20th century. [Check the footnoted source for details.] Dani's most detailed narrative on the subject can be located at " History of Northern Areas (1991)", where he repeatedly says that nothing in his history of Gilgit can be corroborated with evidence (inscriptions/coins/literature etc.) but hypothesizes about a couple of events from our knowledge of history governing surrounding polities. To reconstruct the history, Dani had used two vernacular sources from 20th century (! - one of whom had used the local mosque-cleric as the primary source; also consult 1 on contexts of production) and he was frank enough to concede at the start that they are extremely faulty, contradictory and hagiographic with dates that made little sense.So, no: Dani is not a RS for this particular subject or rather, the particular line. It was a misrepresentation of Dani. At best, we can say that
Dani notes Gilgit tradition to mention of a Trakhan Dynasty to have replaced the Patola Shahis.[Add a foot-note about the lack of historical evidence etc.]TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Following the departure of the Chinese circa 760 CE, the Turks took control of the region and established the Trakhan dynasty, which would last until the 19th century. [Ref: Dani]—was a misrepresentation and at best, we can write something like
Dani notes Gilgit tradition to mention of a Trakhan Dynasty to have replaced the Patola Shahis, who would rule continually till the 19th century.[A foot-note about the lack of historical evidence etc.]Right? TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Dani is indeed the only historian to work on the area, then we need to rely on ... Dani- No. Dani was for a long time (iirc, till late 80s) assigned with Pakistan Govt.'s project(s) to map a history of its geographical territories without invoking India in any possible manner and much of his scholarship reflects such a goal. [I am sure that you can find multiple sources to these effects.] Why does every historian skip the history of the region after Patola Shahis except adding a vague line about probable Turk invasions?
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.
User generated news site, seems to be quite new, and has so far only been used a handful of times. Mostly local news in the UK at the moment like complaints about roadworks, dogs up for adoption and such. However there are obvious issues that anyone can just "create" a reliable source there. The Adrian Câciu (a Romanian politician) article is one BLP article that uses it as a source. This might be a bit of a premature rfc, and one with a forgone conclusion but I think that it's better to deal with it explicitly now than wait until it becomes a problem later.
Is it:
I hope I've done this correctly, {{ping}} me if I've messed up. 🙂 Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako) 05:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an article about a church in my area. I met someone who was a member, and I was motivated to improve the quality of the article, which had been somewhat of a booster piece, and make it more NPOV. I wrote a section titled "Service to the community," with what seems to me like totally vanilla material about the church's activities. The section can be seen in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mariners_Church&oldid=1063068773#Service_to_the_community I provided two sources for the description of the activities. One of the sources was the LA Review of Books, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/how-the-pandemic-radicalized-evangelicals/ . User Avatar317 has complained, without any explanation, that there is something wrong with the LA Review of Books, has repeatedly blanked the entire section, and did not participate in discussion on the article's talk page until we had gone through several cycles of reverts. Once I finally got them to participate on the talk page, they said, "Wikipedia is not the place for alternative facts or misinformation.," which strikes me as totally bizarre, since the section is well sourced and doesn't promote conspiracy theories or anything of the sort. They have provided links to general policies, but nothing in those policies suggests that there is anything wrong with the LA Review of Books as a source. As far as I can tell, it's a perfectly legitimate journalistic outlet with no particular ideological bias. I think it would be helpful if we could get an independent read on the situation.-- Fashionslide ( talk) 14:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
How should protothema.gr be classified?
Currently, protothema.gr is being used 201 times through en.WP [27] Cinadon 36 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I am re-posting what I have posted earlier in this noticeboard, but got not replies. [28]
Proto Thema is not a reliable source in my opinion. It can be found 205 times across en.WP [29] 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 [33])
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 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Having reviewed all of the material you present, I am unable to get a grip on what they do wrong. The report from Triandafyllidou doesn't demonstrate a lack of fact checking and accuracy. Specifically, it is only about immigration, and while it makes it clear the paper is biased, and does not " reflect migration related diversity and promote migrant integration," that's not relevant. Media Bias Fact Check is terrible and I have not reviewed it, because it is worthless. I cannot read greek - if there is a specific hoax they are accused of hoaxing, that would be relevant data. Reviewing pages 6 and 14 of that subreport, the mentions of Protothema include them not taking the Coronavirus seriously... In January of 2020, and that they used... hyperlinks in Feb of 2020. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
There is an ongoing sourcing dispute at Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh concerning two contradicting claims published by the same publication, the Los Angeles Times. This article, published on July 30, 2015, written by LA Times staff, claims Kavanaugh finished his UCLA degree in 2012. This article, published on August 7, 2015, written by LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik, claims the same degree doesn't exist.
Both claims are currently stated in the Ryan Kavanaugh article while Hiltzik's claim is attributed. The question is, do we know whether LA Times applies the same editorial oversight to its columnists? If not, we should obviously omit Hiltzik's claim. Throast ( talk | contribs) 19:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, draft of Joker was leaked and released at the internet, and several media reported and linked directly. In draft, there is different set-up between film, such as existence of illusionary cat, true relationship of Arthur and Sophie, etc. I would like to refer it to describe old set-up, and add later Todd's confirmation; "Leaked Joker Script Is Outdated". Is it ok that I refer the draft directly in this context?
And, I wonder if news story of Den of Geek is good reference. Thank you. Reiro ( talk) 06:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this source reliable as used in Mark Goldbridge? SK2242 ( talk) 08:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
A major computer system is not named/listed as part of Burroughs history. The B300 series systems were manufactured, sold and maintained by Burroughs in the 1960s. These mainframe systems were primarily sold to financial institutions but also to a variety of other users. Several hundred customers including the federal government owned or leased these machines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:80a0:e00:7c:8d01:df5e:82d2:d3b1 ( talk) 17:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks like there was a shitload of socking on the Counterpunch deprecation RFC.
On my talk page, there's suggestions of reviewing the RFC close. When Shibbolethink closed it, and I supported their close, it seemed pretty straightforward.
One thing that CP fans are questioning is a lot of non-ECP users. That isn't actually a rule for RSN discussions ... but personally I think it might be a damn good idea. I'm straining to find a reason for completely fresh users to be diving into deprecation discussions.
It's last thing Saturday night in the UK so I'm not going to dive in right now. But I thought it would be good to open for discussion.
(I still think myself, and especially from going through cites to it and looking how it's used, that CP is a trash source that's bad for Wikipedia and I'd support deprecating it again - I'm not doing this in the hope of un-deprecating it. But the discussion needs to be robust, not white-anted by sockpuppets.) - David Gerard ( talk) 00:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", if the RSN discussion itself substantially discusses to the ECR topic, or if the source typically reports information within the topic area. But a source that covers many things including some things that are related to an ECR topic is not covered (unless the RSN discussion substantially relates to the ECR topic).) BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This discussion doesn't reverse the existing RFC, much as Counterpunch advocates might want it to. Even as an RFC closer, I can't just declare that it doesn't stand any more. This discussion is to work out what to do. We'd need an RFC of equal weight to reverse it, not just advocates jumping the gun - David Gerard ( talk) 18:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I've opened an RFC on the ECP proposal, below - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Should_deprecation_RFCs_be_open_to_all_users_or_restricted? - David Gerard ( talk) 18:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There are editors going around claiming the RFC has been reversed and Counterpunch is no longer deprecated so putting it back into articles. This is incorrect, the RFC has not (yet) been reversed - David Gerard ( talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Everyone should just wait for a bloody close of this section here. Discussion is (and was) very much still ongoing here. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 19:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Can anybody please point to a consensus to deprecate CounterPunch? Because right now I am unaware of a single valid RFC for maintaining that deprecation. Anybody? nableezy - 21:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Per this previous RfC, RateYourMusic is currently deprecated. I do not intend to overturn this ruling. However, starting in 2019, they started posting short interviews with some prominent musicians (including Sweet Trip, Lil Ugly Mane, Peter Kemper, and Injury Reserve). Here's a list of all the current ones. So my question is should we allow these interviews for artists' statement attributions? (e.g. "In an interview with RateYourMusic staff, Disasterpeace said "[insert quote here]") RadarStorm ( talk) 02:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Simon MacDowall appears to be an amateur historian. I was not sure if Osprey is seen as a reliable publisher, though they have published works by academic historians(ie. David Nicolle). Should Osprey titles be assessed on a case by case basis(ie. per the author(s))? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about Verlag Dr. Kovač? Is it a reputable publisher? This query is prompted by me seeing that MigracijeHrvata has added references to books they've published to a significant number of articles. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank You! Verlag Dr. Kovač is a renowned publisher of scientific literature from Hamburg, Germany: https://www.verlagdrkovac.de/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MigracijeHrvata ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Due to the complexity related to WP:PIA, should there be there be changes to the WP:RSP listing of Politico similar to Fox News and Newsweek?
Below are a few proposals:
Thanks for any support or comments ahead of time!-- WMrapids ( talk) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Opening an RfC as recent changes could pose potential issues for WP:PIA related articles that have been subject to arbitration, requiring the community to take a look at updating an existing WP:RSP listing.
Knowing how controversial WP:PIA articles are, I do not even participate in them. However, the recent acquisition of Politico by Axel Springer SE has raised concerns about the company's journalistic objectivity. Haaretz has said that a "pro-Israel policy" now exists at Politico while FAIR wrote that pro-Israel advocacy was introduced and its parent company has "No semblance of objectivity".
Currently, I made an edit recognizing this new distinction of a possible pro-Israel bias.-- WMrapids ( talk) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy. It's important to note that the ideological requirements to work at Politico under the new management go beyond just stuff about Israel. I'd also note that while some people say we should wait and see to even note the bias, we do have coverage indicating that the policy changes introduce bias - we need to wait and see for more information about their reliability, definitely, but when a source openly declares their bias and says that people who don't share those views shouldn't work there, there isn't really anything left to debate or to wait and see on. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy. If that isn't sufficient to consider a source biased, what sort of coverage are you waiting on? (ie. what would convince you, in terms of what we should wait for before running a second RFC?) Because AFAIK we have normally taken overt statements of intent from a company to cover particular topics in particular ways, coupled with secondary sourcing covering those statements, as sufficient to describe them as WP:BIASED in those areas. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
While these questions has arisen with regard to a couple of particular articles, they might be of general interest.
Art museums exhibit catalogs range from books containing little more than reproductions of the works in the show, perhaps with an introductory essay; to books with substantial text comparable to academic publications in art history. However, they are basically self-published works, since they are really part of the promotional package for the exhibit. Often they are entirely the product of the museum director or the curator of the exhibit, which may be the same person in a small museum. The publishers for these catalogs specialize in this market, producing whatever the client wants. They may end up in libraries, but the majority are coffee table books.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 20:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The general RS issue is citing text published in an exhibit catalog compared to the same sort of content citing an independently published book. I think the "it depends" answer has been sufficiently fleshed out above: if the museum is academically solid, then its ok. However there are museums with significant collections that are the pet projects of billionaires. Are the catalogs likely to say anything negative or controversial? With regard to the second question, the specific article is the BLP for Tobias G. Natter, which in addition to a lack of reliable sources the article has a long list of exhibit catalogs (many from the same museum) where he is credited as the author/editor. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 01:44, 12 January 2022 (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 360 | Archive 361 | Archive 362 | Archive 363 | Archive 364 | Archive 365 | → | Archive 370 |
Currently this left-wing magazine is deprecated for spreading conspiracy theories, yet it should not be for two reasons: (1) A Wikipedian claimed that it denies the existence of Holodomor (cf. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355#CounterPunch_and_Al_Bawaba), yet that CounterPunch article does acknowledge that a famine occurred in Ukraine in 1932-33 (2) Novaya Gazeta spreads global warming conspiracy theory [1], yet it is still not deprecated.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 14:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Geez, tag me if you are going to reference my edits. The piece by Grover Furr is not any evidence that the magazine is reliable in the slightest, nor does this actually address the things that concerned some editors (me, for example) the most. That, of course being the plethora of (the-Jews-did-9/11 level) conspiracy theories that it has preferentially published. There was a pretty clear consensus in that discussion, even if you take be arguments made by socks away, based upon the analysis that several editors (including me) provided regarding the source’s dubious-at-best editorial practices. Making another RfC for this sort of source is probably not wise unless you believe you have a strong argument in favor of the site being one with editorial control, editorial independence, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (c.f. WP:BIASED).— Mhawk10 ( talk) 22:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion on Counterpunch was nonsensical from start to finish. Users took a website that never made any claim to editorial control and then decided that their editorial control was lacking. They presented an incredibly distorted picture of the website, using articles from 9/11 truthers as though they were what the website was all about but ignoring the large number of articles there saying that 9/11 truthers are insane conspiracy nuts (eg [1], [2]). It also ignored one basic truth here, nobody ever ever ever cited a Counterpunch article not written by an expert in his or her field. Nobody had ever cited any of the articles that were brought forth as though they were some great problem here. It was a very effective exercise in controlling the narrative at the start of the discussion with strawman arguments about what the site is used for. It was absurd, and it ignored the countless actual undisputed experts in their field who write on Counterpunch. A new RFC is needed, but I dont think questioning the close of the last one is productive. And now we have editors removing actual experts from our articles (David Price being author of Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists, published by Duke University Press, and writing about the FBI surveilling an activist academic.) But because it hosts material that some users find distasteful, while also hosting the opposing viewpoints, we should not use the work of actual experts. nableezy - 23:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
nobody ever ever ever cited a Counterpunch article not written by an expert in his or her field. Really? That's quite the claim. For an extraordinarily mundane example, let's look at radical centrism.
In 2017, in a 1,700-word article for CounterPunch entitled "Beware the Radical Center", Canadian writer Ryan Shah characterized radical centrism as a just-in-time "repackaging" of neoliberalism meant to sustain the political, economic, and social status quo.[139] He warned that political leaders such as Europe's Emmanuel Macron and North America's Justin Trudeau were creating a false image of radical centrist programs as progressive, and urged leftists to develop "genuine" policy alternatives to neoliberalism such as those advocated by British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
nobody ever ever ever cited a CounterPunch article not written by an expert in his or her field. It's fiction, full stop. I don't see evidence that somehow editors have been particularly and extraordinarily squeaky clean with using CounterPunch (even in one of the more mundane politics-related articles). And honestly, the guidance that we should pick and choose from the source what is good and what is garbage was brought up during the discussion that took place and was generally discarded along the lines of WP:DAILYMAIL. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
nobody ever ever ever cited a Counterpunch article not written by an expert in his or her field. Do you still believe that to be the case? Third, I'm not making any claims regarding the majority of source removals; I haven't actually done the digging on that nor is it obvious to me how to conduct a systemic review. But if the vast majority of these removals that you see are coming in an extremely politically contentious field, then perhaps editors in that area should be striving to use more reliable sources rather than relying upon a magazine that has published multiple Jews-did-9/11 conspiracy theories (see points one and two of my bolded !vote in the deprecation discussion if you disagree with my characterization). Fourth, I agree that not every single reference to a deprecated publication should be purged; as WP:DEPS notes that
citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately.Fifth, if you're going to challenge David Gerard's closure, there is actually a mechanism to do so. That mechanism is outlined in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and involves a challenge on the administrator's noticeboard. An informal discussion on RSN is not capable of overturn the community consensus on the publication's reliability established in a request for comment about two months ago. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 17:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
More, the model of the Reichstag fire false flag has been readily replicated, not least in the 1954 Lavon Affair and, most spectacularly, in 9/11 (whence the five dancing Israelis at Liberty Park?). Practice makes perfect with false flags. Add extra-judicial murders made to order.Are you saying that the person writing this is not conveying the belief that the "dancing Israelis" were conducting some false flag operation on 9/11? I certainly hope not; that would be absurd.
"In the Western World, Corporatism has become ‘subject’ to Zionism and in consequence Capitalist Democracy has been usurped by the power of a concentrated accumulation of resources – and this- no mere product of ‘happenstance’ – but rather part of a systemic scheme whereby the rich are to get richer and the poor to get poorer? When 2.3 Trillion Dollars can ‘go missing’ from an Economy and disappear down a ‘memory hole’ as part of a historical revisionism aka denial; when the very day after the gone missing is ‘announced’ and the Rabbi Dov Zakheim as Comptroller is not held to account because it ‘happens’ there is an attack on the Twin Towers (also WTC 7) and the Pentagon which becomes the focus of attention and a casus belli for war then something is seriously wrong – and psycho political abuse is in operation? Let us also not forget the ‘weapons grade anthrax’ – such the ‘memory hole’?"Are you saying that the author is not trying to connect Rabbi Dov Zakheim to the 9/11 attacks in the context of Zionism?
a new RFC is neededat this time. You were able to make your arguments in the RfC that happened two months ago; the fact that the community (and the closer) found them rather unconvincing does not mean that we need to rapidly run another RfC where the same base arguments are going to be made. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 06:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
It also ignored one basic truth here, nobody ever ever ever cited a Counterpunch article not written by an expert in his or her field.Worth tracking back through the links to see the citation that kickstarted the discussion that ended with CP deprecated: unattributed use as a source for facts about a legal case in the BLP article Alex Saab, citing a CP article by a retired wetlands consultant and Peace and Freedom Party activist (i.e. not an expert on international criminal law, the relevant topic) that included at least two factual inaccuracies. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 08:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
References
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. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Deprecated is too harsh, given that it has occasionally contributors who are experts on the subject they're writing about. I support changing the RSN listing to WP:MREL. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 17:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
the work, the creator, and the publisher all affect reliability. In this case, that means we have to take into account the fact that these sources choose to write a particular article for a publisher who regularly publishes false and fabricated information and not a more reliable publisher.I'd echo this view here—the publication does impact reliability, which is something that WP:SOURCE says, even if the author might also publish elsewhere. Good editorial oversight makes for good writing, even among experts, while shoddy editorial oversight degrades the quality of the work. (That's the whole point of peer review in the academic world, or the employment of fact-checkers in newsroooms). — Mhawk10 ( talk) 19:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. If the only place we can find information is in a source such as the Daily Mail, RT, or CounterPunch, then it is probably not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, regardless of the credentials of the author. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
In the case of Counterpunch, there's been evidence provided that they do not fact check submissions and print fringe perspectives, but not that they deceptively misrepresent themselves or the authors published there.- doesn't catch the arguments made in the RFC about the exact nature of Counterpunch's reliability. The problem clearly documented through a large number of examples there was not a simple failure to fact check submissions, but an editorial policy of - an active preference for - actively publishing material that challenges mainstream reportage, and therefore includes a considerable amount of dubious, fringe, conspiracist and disinfo content, including dangerous anti-vaxx material as well as antisemitic content. It is this that many editors considered pushed it from generally unreliable to deprecated status. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The deprecation judgment, when not a pretext for nationalist POV pushing by suppression of contrarian material, has become an excuse for laziness. See CounterPunch cited? Strike the source on sight, without even analysing who wrote it. This is how Shrike reads this. His objection seems to be to elide anything from that source which reflects negatively on Israel’s occupation. CounterPunch, which has a long history as the fav target for ‘pro-Israeli’ socks at RSN, covers the I/P conflict closely, with details rarely reported in the mainstream press, and many of its authorities are academic specialists, or Israelis or Jews. That is discomforting ergo, as Nableezy noted, following that, to me, erratic discussion, we now have systematic removalist abuse at
Where does this censorious opportunism lead, of exploiting a debatable conclusion about CounterPunch to set up a Pavlovian reflex of cancellation at sight of anything, regardless of quality, associated with that webzine?
I wrote a good part of the article on Raul Hilberg – in my view one of the greatest historians in that trade since the year dot, and a personal hero. So I cited
In the way this deprecation judgment is being read, anyone can mangle articles like that on Hilberg by erasing Finkelstein or Neumann for writing their commemorations of that historian for Counterpunch.
The founder of CounterPunch was hostile to conspiracy theories, antisemitism, nutters of whatever description, as is its present editor, but as the editor of, not a ’ left-wing magazine’ (above), but a libertarian webzine that hosts views ranging from the Republican right to the heterogeneous left, including at times crap I scroll past. Like many who have had occasion to cite it here, I look at the quality of the piece and who wrote it.
As the deprecation is being manipulated, we can expect that wikipedia will slowly be shorn of trenchant and highly focused reports by Alexander Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn (the latter a widely published authority on Iraq), Uri Avnery, es:Gary Leupp (brilliant on the orient), Melvin Goodman, (incisive and with a deep professional grounding in American security doctrines) security, Ralph Nader, Andrew Levine, Winslow Wheeler (works from Capitol Hill- knows everything about congressional budgets), Naomi Klein, Brian Cloughley, Mark Weisbrot, Serge Halimi, Norman Pollack, Neve Gordon, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Michael Brenner, Sheldon Richman, Ramzy Baroud, Vijay Prashad, Robert Fisk, Gareth Porter, Mel Gurtov, Henry Giroux, Rodolfo Acuña, Ray McGovern, Deepak Tripathi, William Quigley, Michael Neumann, Michael Hudson, Tom Engelhardt, John Feffer, Jeremy Scahill, William Loren Katz, Andrew Bacevich, Edward Said, Tariq Ali, Bruce Jackson, Sam Bahour, Marjorie Cohn, Russ Feingold, Andre Vltchek, Lawrence Davidson, Lawrewce Wittner, Stephen Soldz, Lenni Brenner, Karl Grossman, Frank Spinney, Paul Krassner, Gabriel Kolko, Stan Goff, Diana Johnstone etc.etc. That implication, that these, for Wikipedia, if they choose to write for Cockburn's webzine, are personae non gratae, following on deprecation is dazzlingly obtuse.
So, ladies and gentlemen, can we wake up to the potential damage, and tweak the deprecation badge of shame, so that as commonsense dictates, that doesn’t become an enabling excuse for people with a POV drum to beat to cancel, erase, eviscerate scholars and writers of the quality listed above, and, by giving editors a warrant for gutting indiscriminately numerous pages of even uncontroversible material, allowing them blindly to throw the babies out with the barfwater? Nishidani ( talk) 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't use a source unless its reliability is more or less unassailable-
evidence that CounterPunch editorial has some quality or peer review process, unlike WP:RS. The fact there are experts is nowhere apparent from the fact they're writing for CounterPunch. So articles using CounterPunch shouldn't automatically have their references removed, but it does likely mean we need to explicitly state who we're citing, as an authoritative subject expert. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
articles using CounterPunch shouldn't automatically have their references removedThis is what deprecation implicitly does. Deprecation means that a bot automatically revert any edits which add references with the website URL from IP and recently registered users. counterpunch.org is on User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList.
Since my attempt to deal with a specific source was undone by a user (who somehow was uninvolved enough to close the RFC, but is reverting to enforce his own close, and is voting in the follow up RFC), Ive started an RFC on the subject down below in #RFC: Counterpunch nableezy - 02:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines. In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately; language elsewhere is similar (
The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited, emphasis mine.) And I say this as someone who spends time removing / replacing depreciated sources. The reality, though, is that, first, in cases where it would be justifiable to use a depreciated source, it is usually trivial to find a better source anyway, or a better source even exists already (anyone who has spent time removing depreciated sources can attest to this - part of my bafflement at the extended argument below is that a better source was easily found.) And, second, in cases where a depreciated source is the only source, it's usually something exceptional or controversial that we wouldn't even begin to consider making one of the exceptions. That is why I haven't weighed in on the RFC below directly - I think it is technically true that a depreciated source could sometimes be used subject to the restrictions of SPS, but it is practically true to that there is virtually no case where we would actually end up doing so, so saying "it can be used as a SPS" as some sort of sweeping statement is bizarre and misleading. As to whether or not Counterpunch should be reassessed, I am not sure - I haven't actually bothered to go over it in-depth because there's no point unless another RFC actually occurs - but one thing I would say is that it might help to focus more on how it is covered by others; it looked to me at a glance like the past RFC focused heavily on a handful of terrible things posted there. Those are not irrelevant, especially given the lack of any indication of a retraction, but the crux of RS is a source's
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; the reputation bit is key. Things editors find objectionable there - even stuff that is blatantly, obviously wrong and terrible - is secondary to how it is viewed by other RSes, and demonstrating that it largely has a good reputation, including but not limited to strong WP:USEBYOTHERS, could therefore support the argument that the examples shown in the previous RFC are aberrations. Of course, conversely, people might just show it has a terrible reputation; but the relative lack of any focus on that aspect was one thing that struck me as off about that RFC, relative to most other depreciation RFCs. Either way, again, if a significant number of people think the previous RFC reached the wrong conclusion, the thing to do is to stop talking about it and start another RFC; this discussion can't really overturn a formal RFC, and the discussion / RFC below is honestly a bit silly, since what it's really asking is for CounterPunch to be classified as "other considerations apply" without actually asking that. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
An RFC about sourcing and deprecation has been started on a separate page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources and would be appropriate to attention here - David Gerard ( talk) 22:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
As somebody who has written on many subjects outside the English-speaking world but who lives in the English-speaking world, I see many websites like the Teller Report in my search results. These websites Google Translate major news websites from the rest of the world. The articles are 1) often incomprehensible and 2) violate copyright. Teller Report is cited on many pages: [10]. It is my opinion that there is no room for negotiation here: this site must be blacklisted for 1) copyright violation and 2) not being written or edited by humans. I found on Ralf Rangnick that a Teller Report page had been removed on request from the German newspaper Zeit. For those unfamiliar with the Teller Report's content and quality, here is a story from today which even copied the image from RT: "Zhirinovsky proposed to increase the holidays of Russians at the expense of holidays" Unknown Temptation ( talk) 20:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Older discussions: [1]
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Musk's tweets:
If option 3 or 4 is chosen, I suggest to make the tweets depreciated, since he is being used for referencing on many articles, by many users. For reference, Twitter itself is considered generally unreliable. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 16:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Not actionable, you can't deprecate tweets from an individual. What you can do is replace or remove them where ever it is being used as a source for facts. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
unduly self-serving. It's not really acceptable to rely on the personal twitter feed of a business owner to cite statements that obviously promote that business (ie. making it sound like they have something big or noteworthy planned - if there is no secondary coverage, those plans are not significant and should not be on Wikipedia; preventing someone who owns a business from tweeting out some exceptional / amazing thing that then gets picked up on Wikipedia and boosts their stock price seems like the precise thing that the
unduly self-servingrestriction on SPS exists for.) Generally speaking, at least glancing over how Musk's twitter has been used, this means that almost everything cited to it right now needs to be nuked from orbit. Extremely unexceptional and non-promotional stuff like eg. "this person is in this position" or "we were founded on this date" could be cited to a SPS, but absolutely not stuff like "we're gonna put a man on the MOOOOOON, woo! We're gonna have flying cars and jetpacks capable of reaching Mars in every garage by 2024!" To be clear, I'm saying that I don't think Musk's twitter can be cited for such self-serving statements even if they are attributed to him, ie. it's not acceptable to use his Twitter and nothing else to cite a statement like
On Twitter, Musk said that "our company is going to send a manned mission to Mars by 2030"or something. That is obviously a self-serving statement and requires an independent secondary source, fullstop. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
unduly self-servingrestriction of SPS in mind in a situation like this, because much of what Musk posts on Twitter is going to be overtly intended to be self-serving and therefore completely unusable (of course, we can still cite it via independent secondary sources - just not to Twitter directly.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
"In January 2019, Musk responded to a query from an Australian MP regarding a tunnel through the Blue Mountains to the west of Sydney, suggesting costs of $24 million/mi ($15 million/km) or $750 million for the 31-mile (50 km) tunnel, plus $50 million per station."Although reliably sourced to Mashable, the whole story was based on a single Twitter exchange and doesn't have any follow-up coverage that I've found. Until today, our article also omitted criticism from tunneling experts which was included in the source.
"In January 2019, Musk stated that he had been asked by the director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) about construction of the tunnels for its 62-mile-circumference (100 km) Future Circular Collider and that The Boring Company could save CERN several billion euros."Again, based on a tweet ("Director of CERN asked me about Boring Co building the new LHC tunnel when we were at the @royalsociety. Would probably save several billon Euros.") with no follow-up.
"In August 2019, Musk announced that he would be launching The Boring Company China during a trip at the end of the month."Two years later, nothing has come of this Twitter announcement.
Here I am citing some sources which may come useful in the development of the Draft:Sadashib (Fictional Character):- 2. https://www.bookishsanta.com/blogs/booklings-world/books-sharadindu-bandhopadhayay
4. https://archive.org/details/SadashibComicbook/1.%20Sadashib%20-%20adikando/page/n0/mode/2up
5. https://www.parabaas.com/translation/database/authors/texts/saradindu.html
7. https://www.thisday.app/en/details/the-man-behind-byomkesh-bakshi
Please convey your opinion regarding the sources cited, whether they are reliable and can be used in the development of the draft.-- Michri michri ( talk) 17:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is an anti-immigration advocacy organization with ties to white nationalism. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated it as a hate group. I was surprised to see someone try to cite it in an immigration article, so figured I'd look for other citations. It appears in 60 articles. Some of these are legitimate (someone being appointed to its board); others are not. Going around and removing a bunch of the same source can get a little dodgy, so posting here, too, for good measure. It doesn't look like we've had a thread about it here in the past. I've removed a few citations and have to stop for now. I've also added some context to a couple articles where we simply stated e.g. "FAIR criticized" or "FAIR lobbied against" which didn't contextualize what the organization is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I came across these today. They're a very slick promotional site, completely transparent about their lack of editorial oversight and their promotional mission but they've been accused of being a personal data aggregator, and one person who used them reported they won't allow submissions that don't include the emails of five other "influencers". Googling them returns a ton of scam warnings.
At minimum these shouldn't be used to prove notability or for anything that we wouldn't source to any other self-source. There's at minimum VoyageLA, VoyageATL, BostonVoyager, VoyageChicago, VoyageDallas, VoyageHouston, VoyageMIA, SDVoyager, VoyagePhoenix, and probably many more as I stumbled across a story on VoyageOhio, which isn't listed on the main website.
We currently have 148 articles sourced to VoyageLA alone. —valereee ( talk) 15:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Wolfgang Proske is a scholar who write multiple accounts that accuse Erwin Rommel of being a war criminal. As the subject attracts quite a lot of debate and the article cites a lot of journalists etc, I think that this author can be mentioned too, but my addition (that this author's main work is self-published after he failed to find a publisher who agreed to publish it as well as criticism by Lieb and Schweizer towards him) tends to be deleted for being intricate details. My passage is the following:
.Historians Christian Schweizer and Peter Lieb note that: "Over the last few years, even though the social science teacher Wolfgang Proske has sought to participate in the discussion [on Rommel] with very strong opinions, his biased submissions are not scientifically received." [1] The Heidenheimer Zeitung notes that Proske was the publisher of his main work Täter, Helfer, Trittbrettfahrer – NS-Belastete von der Ostalb, after failing to have it published by another publisher. [2]
.
Additionally, I've found out that this author himself tells the Schwaebische Zeitung that he is not sure that his accusation can stand on a legal basis, but he wants to call him such:
.Als Historiker würde er ihn einen Kriegsverbrecher nennen. Da er sich aber nicht sicher ist, ob diese Einstufung auch aus juristischer Sicht zu halten ist, nennt er Erwin Rommel schlicht einen NS-Täter und überlässt die weitere Beurteilung jedem selbst. Dies hat Wolfgang Proske bei einem gut besuchten Vortrag im Evangelischen Gemeindehaus deutlich gemacht.
Source When I added this, the admin User:Cullen328 undid it with the explanation that it added unnecessary doubt to the works of honest historians. Other editors, please advise me how to deal with this author and this case. Thanks. Deamonpen ( talk) 08:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
References
On the July 18, 1998 Albanian–Yugoslav border clashes article, There is an overarching framework about a group of Mujahideen in the article led by an "Ali Rabici" or "Alija Rabic". The sources about the Mujahideen and Alija Rabic are:
There is no mention of Ali Rabici outside of these sources except in reproductions of the original piece in NIN. NIN was under the control of Slobodan Milosevic and used for spreading Serbian nationalism. Shay and Delsio received negative reviews [14]. Deliso’s thesis of a ‘coming Balkan caliphate’ embraces Bosnia, Albania, Kosova, Macedonia and Turkey. Deliso’s animosity in particular is directed against the Albanians, and he faithfully upholds anti-Albanian stereotypes popular among the Balkan Christian peoples. He writes of ‘the opportunism they [the Kosovo Albanians] have shown in siding at various times with the Turks, the AustroHungarian Empire, Mussolini, Hitler, and, most recently, NATO’ (p. 51), thereby repeating the myth popular among Serbian nationalists, of the Albanians as stooges of repeated foreign invaders, though the Kosova Albanians’ record in this regard is absolutely no worse than that of other Balkan peoples. due to these discrepancies with the bibliography that supported this ali rabici framework i took to the Talk page of the article and proposed their removal. since no one objected I removed it. some weeks later it was added back again by another editor, he conceded that NIN was indeed not WP:RS and therefor did not add that back. he left a message on the talk page where he said that for them to be considered to be non WP:RS there had to be an entry here. Should highly criticized sources be used for such information in the article? Durraz0 ( talk) 16:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This Italian-language news website ( [16]), although sells conspiracy theories ( [17] (in Chinese)), and I had asked that it be deprecated (cf. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359), no other Wikipedians responded, meaning this website is still not deprecated, despite some articles use it as a "credible" source (e.g. Camouflage passport & International Parliament for Safety and Peace). In here I made the same proposal again. Hope that Wikipedians who are proficient at both Italian and Chinese can verify my claim that it is unreliable thus should be deprecated and discuss whether or not to deprecate it. Thanks!😁-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 15:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) fixed capitalization a bit and added the URL of the official website of La voce Delle Voci 15:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
New editor @ Jqmhelios11: is posting links to these pages on numerous articles ( Hyperion (tree), Sequoia sempervirens, ...), including replacing other references with them. I think these are transparently dodgy sources (see e.g. the disclaimer page at famousredwoods.com) and should not be used for anything, but perhaps others have a different opinion, or would like to help explain the situation to Jqmhelios11. -- JBL ( talk) 13:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Given WP:SNOW, I've found and removed where landmarktrees.com and mdvaden.com are used as sources (except about MD Vaden himself). They still show up as a few External Links. In the unlikely event of any objections, I can revert. — hike395 ( talk) 19:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I seek the deprecation of gotquestions.org and tektonics.org. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#gotquestions.org. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Reason: they're WP:SPS. What we won't do is quote amateur theologians who play hide and seek with their religious affiliations. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Looking at this article - no mentions of Thanh Nien in the RS/N archives and using google translate this article appears to say Oussou Konan Anicet died via poisoning. Unsure about the reliability of this. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe. They are read commonly in Vietnam, but international news? No idea. ( From a Vietnamese POV) Leomk0403 ( Don't shout here, Shout here!) 01:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
There are no past discussions on this website so that is why I’m asking and it seems to be used a lot.
Please ping me. ― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 03:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi.
At
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Multiple_sclerosis&oldid=1062131102#Alternative_treatments:_some_news_(2014)_about_incense_and_more I did note to an alternative treatment with incense.
This "Talk" (title) now is removed into "history", the link here.
´Justifying´: "quackery nonsense" and ONLY "phase IIa trial".
Told here:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Visionhelp#December_2021
Quote: "The results of the study have been published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry (DOI: 10.1136 / jnnp-2017-317101) since December 16, 2017.".
from
https://www-uksh-de.translate.goog/Service/Presse/Presseinformationen/2017/Hilft+Weihrauch+bei+fr%C3%BCher+Multipler+Sklerose_-p-62549.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
Best Regards,
Visionhelp (
talk) 18:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Many thanks,
MrOllie. I understand, so far.
It is from 2017. It is about ´Alternative treatments´ possible, which will be from interesst for affected people.
I did not write into the article, just as note in "Talk".
There should be newer developments possible.
More I did not want to do as work: just this note.
Does this justify to remove into the deep going hard to find history the entire note in the "Talk" section, please ? Thank You very much.
Visionhelp (
talk) 06:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Question about reliable sources that stems from this discussion, but more broadly potentially affects military articles in general. Perhaps specific guidance on this already exists, so if you can point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.
Are all articles published by the military automatically unreliable sources on a military subject, and if not, when would they be considered reliable?
For example:
Would a source by military journalists (who are generally school trained in journalist standards) qualify as reliable sources if there is a degree of separation to the topic, for example, if they are from a base newspaper reporting about a tenant unit (i.e., the journalists are not in the unit they are reporting on)?
A Department of Navy journal with content about the Air Force, or vice versa? There is a good case to say these two services are distinct, and have differences in their cultures, and they consist of unrelated people with the navy having no vested interest in many topics about the air force, with the exception of working together on the battlefield.
A military journal with peer reviewed articles?
A military student who writes at a Department of Defense school and that school has a civilian accreditation and largely professional civilian academic faculty?
It seems if we say ALL military sources on ALL military subjects are not independent under ANY circumstance is limiting and does not actually follow the guidelines for independent sources. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 22:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
ALL military sources on ALL military subjects is not independent under ANY circumstance", but at the same time it's unlikely anybody here is going to be able to supply you with a clearcut rule. A 2020 publication by a military history professor of the United States Army Command and General Staff College about the ACW? Sounds good to me. An article about a serving admiral in a base newspaper? Fine for factual information (e.g.
So-and-so was promoted on date) but not acceptable for establishing notability or for evaluative/opinionated content (e.g.
So-and-so is universally loved by his subordinates). CGSC article on Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021)? Getting iffy and needs more analysis of the publication venue, e.g. whether and in-house publication series or an established peer-reviewed journal with an independent editorial board but technically published by CGSC. - Ljleppan ( talk) 23:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
although there might be more scrutiny about their use", not any more than with any other source. There's nothing special about "military" here, except maybe how large the organization is. We wouldn't take at face value everything that Microsoft has to say about an Apple product, never mind their own product, either. Nor would we have blind trust at a history of a university written by that university's own history professor. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think another thing to take into account is how recent the events they're reporting on are. As far as I know US submarine crews in WWII over-reported the damage inflicted, and the Navy later on adjusted down the numbers after review. I'm sure similar things happen in other contexts where the reliability increases somewhat over time. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I remember in the Full Metal Jacket film, the reports from Stars and Stripes weren't 'completely' devoid of bias... 惑乱 Wakuran ( talk) 16:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The only bright line I would say exists is attribution, but military sources are often usable especially in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this [ [18]] an RS for the claim?
It has also been suggested this is an RS because it is based on (note not by) Tom Cooper's research, who or what is Tom Cooper? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Per this edit [ [19]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
A defunct website, Theme Park Junkies, is being cited by an IP editor who just wholesale reverted my cleanup efforts at Black Hole (roller coaster). The particular page being sourced is here, and aside from obvious spelling/grammar issues, there are links on the page to submit your own reviews and write your own articles. This appears to have been a glorified forum of sorts from back in the day and completely unreliable, but would appreciate a second opinion in the matter considering this is being challenged at Talk:Black Hole (roller coaster)#Lack of proper sourcing. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 20:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, UploadVR is not a reliable source in the Video Game Category. Rzzor ( talk) 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Is Attractions Magazine reliable? I think it could be. I don’t see them promoting parks by trying to sell their tickets or anything like that but I could have missed that. Also I couldn’t find anything where people that are not staff members can contribute to it. All of its content is related to theme parks and stuff to do with theme parks. It is in articles like Marvel Comics, Cheetah Hunt, Woody (Toy Story), Sisu (Raya and the Last Dragon), Jon Favreau, and others. ― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 19:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Articles:
Trakhan dynasty,
Patola Shahis
Could someone confirm if the following work can be considered RS (content deleted
here)? More specifically the article by
Ahmad Hasan Dani
here is being challenged and Dani is claimed to be "non RS" here
[22]. Thank you for your help!
पाटलिपुत्र
Pat
(talk) 10:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
There are several editions:
According to the traditional historywhich is a way of saying that the entire history is recorded from Humza lores, popular memory etc. collected in the 20th century. [Check the footnoted source for details.] Dani's most detailed narrative on the subject can be located at " History of Northern Areas (1991)", where he repeatedly says that nothing in his history of Gilgit can be corroborated with evidence (inscriptions/coins/literature etc.) but hypothesizes about a couple of events from our knowledge of history governing surrounding polities. To reconstruct the history, Dani had used two vernacular sources from 20th century (! - one of whom had used the local mosque-cleric as the primary source; also consult 1 on contexts of production) and he was frank enough to concede at the start that they are extremely faulty, contradictory and hagiographic with dates that made little sense.So, no: Dani is not a RS for this particular subject or rather, the particular line. It was a misrepresentation of Dani. At best, we can say that
Dani notes Gilgit tradition to mention of a Trakhan Dynasty to have replaced the Patola Shahis.[Add a foot-note about the lack of historical evidence etc.]TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Following the departure of the Chinese circa 760 CE, the Turks took control of the region and established the Trakhan dynasty, which would last until the 19th century. [Ref: Dani]—was a misrepresentation and at best, we can write something like
Dani notes Gilgit tradition to mention of a Trakhan Dynasty to have replaced the Patola Shahis, who would rule continually till the 19th century.[A foot-note about the lack of historical evidence etc.]Right? TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Dani is indeed the only historian to work on the area, then we need to rely on ... Dani- No. Dani was for a long time (iirc, till late 80s) assigned with Pakistan Govt.'s project(s) to map a history of its geographical territories without invoking India in any possible manner and much of his scholarship reflects such a goal. [I am sure that you can find multiple sources to these effects.] Why does every historian skip the history of the region after Patola Shahis except adding a vague line about probable Turk invasions?
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.
User generated news site, seems to be quite new, and has so far only been used a handful of times. Mostly local news in the UK at the moment like complaints about roadworks, dogs up for adoption and such. However there are obvious issues that anyone can just "create" a reliable source there. The Adrian Câciu (a Romanian politician) article is one BLP article that uses it as a source. This might be a bit of a premature rfc, and one with a forgone conclusion but I think that it's better to deal with it explicitly now than wait until it becomes a problem later.
Is it:
I hope I've done this correctly, {{ping}} me if I've messed up. 🙂 Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako) 05:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an article about a church in my area. I met someone who was a member, and I was motivated to improve the quality of the article, which had been somewhat of a booster piece, and make it more NPOV. I wrote a section titled "Service to the community," with what seems to me like totally vanilla material about the church's activities. The section can be seen in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mariners_Church&oldid=1063068773#Service_to_the_community I provided two sources for the description of the activities. One of the sources was the LA Review of Books, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/how-the-pandemic-radicalized-evangelicals/ . User Avatar317 has complained, without any explanation, that there is something wrong with the LA Review of Books, has repeatedly blanked the entire section, and did not participate in discussion on the article's talk page until we had gone through several cycles of reverts. Once I finally got them to participate on the talk page, they said, "Wikipedia is not the place for alternative facts or misinformation.," which strikes me as totally bizarre, since the section is well sourced and doesn't promote conspiracy theories or anything of the sort. They have provided links to general policies, but nothing in those policies suggests that there is anything wrong with the LA Review of Books as a source. As far as I can tell, it's a perfectly legitimate journalistic outlet with no particular ideological bias. I think it would be helpful if we could get an independent read on the situation.-- Fashionslide ( talk) 14:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
How should protothema.gr be classified?
Currently, protothema.gr is being used 201 times through en.WP [27] Cinadon 36 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I am re-posting what I have posted earlier in this noticeboard, but got not replies. [28]
Proto Thema is not a reliable source in my opinion. It can be found 205 times across en.WP [29] 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 [33])
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 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Having reviewed all of the material you present, I am unable to get a grip on what they do wrong. The report from Triandafyllidou doesn't demonstrate a lack of fact checking and accuracy. Specifically, it is only about immigration, and while it makes it clear the paper is biased, and does not " reflect migration related diversity and promote migrant integration," that's not relevant. Media Bias Fact Check is terrible and I have not reviewed it, because it is worthless. I cannot read greek - if there is a specific hoax they are accused of hoaxing, that would be relevant data. Reviewing pages 6 and 14 of that subreport, the mentions of Protothema include them not taking the Coronavirus seriously... In January of 2020, and that they used... hyperlinks in Feb of 2020. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
There is an ongoing sourcing dispute at Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh concerning two contradicting claims published by the same publication, the Los Angeles Times. This article, published on July 30, 2015, written by LA Times staff, claims Kavanaugh finished his UCLA degree in 2012. This article, published on August 7, 2015, written by LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik, claims the same degree doesn't exist.
Both claims are currently stated in the Ryan Kavanaugh article while Hiltzik's claim is attributed. The question is, do we know whether LA Times applies the same editorial oversight to its columnists? If not, we should obviously omit Hiltzik's claim. Throast ( talk | contribs) 19:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, draft of Joker was leaked and released at the internet, and several media reported and linked directly. In draft, there is different set-up between film, such as existence of illusionary cat, true relationship of Arthur and Sophie, etc. I would like to refer it to describe old set-up, and add later Todd's confirmation; "Leaked Joker Script Is Outdated". Is it ok that I refer the draft directly in this context?
And, I wonder if news story of Den of Geek is good reference. Thank you. Reiro ( talk) 06:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this source reliable as used in Mark Goldbridge? SK2242 ( talk) 08:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
A major computer system is not named/listed as part of Burroughs history. The B300 series systems were manufactured, sold and maintained by Burroughs in the 1960s. These mainframe systems were primarily sold to financial institutions but also to a variety of other users. Several hundred customers including the federal government owned or leased these machines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:80a0:e00:7c:8d01:df5e:82d2:d3b1 ( talk) 17:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks like there was a shitload of socking on the Counterpunch deprecation RFC.
On my talk page, there's suggestions of reviewing the RFC close. When Shibbolethink closed it, and I supported their close, it seemed pretty straightforward.
One thing that CP fans are questioning is a lot of non-ECP users. That isn't actually a rule for RSN discussions ... but personally I think it might be a damn good idea. I'm straining to find a reason for completely fresh users to be diving into deprecation discussions.
It's last thing Saturday night in the UK so I'm not going to dive in right now. But I thought it would be good to open for discussion.
(I still think myself, and especially from going through cites to it and looking how it's used, that CP is a trash source that's bad for Wikipedia and I'd support deprecating it again - I'm not doing this in the hope of un-deprecating it. But the discussion needs to be robust, not white-anted by sockpuppets.) - David Gerard ( talk) 00:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", if the RSN discussion itself substantially discusses to the ECR topic, or if the source typically reports information within the topic area. But a source that covers many things including some things that are related to an ECR topic is not covered (unless the RSN discussion substantially relates to the ECR topic).) BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This discussion doesn't reverse the existing RFC, much as Counterpunch advocates might want it to. Even as an RFC closer, I can't just declare that it doesn't stand any more. This discussion is to work out what to do. We'd need an RFC of equal weight to reverse it, not just advocates jumping the gun - David Gerard ( talk) 18:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I've opened an RFC on the ECP proposal, below - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Should_deprecation_RFCs_be_open_to_all_users_or_restricted? - David Gerard ( talk) 18:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There are editors going around claiming the RFC has been reversed and Counterpunch is no longer deprecated so putting it back into articles. This is incorrect, the RFC has not (yet) been reversed - David Gerard ( talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Everyone should just wait for a bloody close of this section here. Discussion is (and was) very much still ongoing here. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 19:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Can anybody please point to a consensus to deprecate CounterPunch? Because right now I am unaware of a single valid RFC for maintaining that deprecation. Anybody? nableezy - 21:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Per this previous RfC, RateYourMusic is currently deprecated. I do not intend to overturn this ruling. However, starting in 2019, they started posting short interviews with some prominent musicians (including Sweet Trip, Lil Ugly Mane, Peter Kemper, and Injury Reserve). Here's a list of all the current ones. So my question is should we allow these interviews for artists' statement attributions? (e.g. "In an interview with RateYourMusic staff, Disasterpeace said "[insert quote here]") RadarStorm ( talk) 02:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Simon MacDowall appears to be an amateur historian. I was not sure if Osprey is seen as a reliable publisher, though they have published works by academic historians(ie. David Nicolle). Should Osprey titles be assessed on a case by case basis(ie. per the author(s))? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about Verlag Dr. Kovač? Is it a reputable publisher? This query is prompted by me seeing that MigracijeHrvata has added references to books they've published to a significant number of articles. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank You! Verlag Dr. Kovač is a renowned publisher of scientific literature from Hamburg, Germany: https://www.verlagdrkovac.de/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MigracijeHrvata ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Due to the complexity related to WP:PIA, should there be there be changes to the WP:RSP listing of Politico similar to Fox News and Newsweek?
Below are a few proposals:
Thanks for any support or comments ahead of time!-- WMrapids ( talk) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Opening an RfC as recent changes could pose potential issues for WP:PIA related articles that have been subject to arbitration, requiring the community to take a look at updating an existing WP:RSP listing.
Knowing how controversial WP:PIA articles are, I do not even participate in them. However, the recent acquisition of Politico by Axel Springer SE has raised concerns about the company's journalistic objectivity. Haaretz has said that a "pro-Israel policy" now exists at Politico while FAIR wrote that pro-Israel advocacy was introduced and its parent company has "No semblance of objectivity".
Currently, I made an edit recognizing this new distinction of a possible pro-Israel bias.-- WMrapids ( talk) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy. It's important to note that the ideological requirements to work at Politico under the new management go beyond just stuff about Israel. I'd also note that while some people say we should wait and see to even note the bias, we do have coverage indicating that the policy changes introduce bias - we need to wait and see for more information about their reliability, definitely, but when a source openly declares their bias and says that people who don't share those views shouldn't work there, there isn't really anything left to debate or to wait and see on. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy. If that isn't sufficient to consider a source biased, what sort of coverage are you waiting on? (ie. what would convince you, in terms of what we should wait for before running a second RFC?) Because AFAIK we have normally taken overt statements of intent from a company to cover particular topics in particular ways, coupled with secondary sourcing covering those statements, as sufficient to describe them as WP:BIASED in those areas. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
While these questions has arisen with regard to a couple of particular articles, they might be of general interest.
Art museums exhibit catalogs range from books containing little more than reproductions of the works in the show, perhaps with an introductory essay; to books with substantial text comparable to academic publications in art history. However, they are basically self-published works, since they are really part of the promotional package for the exhibit. Often they are entirely the product of the museum director or the curator of the exhibit, which may be the same person in a small museum. The publishers for these catalogs specialize in this market, producing whatever the client wants. They may end up in libraries, but the majority are coffee table books.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 20:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The general RS issue is citing text published in an exhibit catalog compared to the same sort of content citing an independently published book. I think the "it depends" answer has been sufficiently fleshed out above: if the museum is academically solid, then its ok. However there are museums with significant collections that are the pet projects of billionaires. Are the catalogs likely to say anything negative or controversial? With regard to the second question, the specific article is the BLP for Tobias G. Natter, which in addition to a lack of reliable sources the article has a long list of exhibit catalogs (many from the same museum) where he is credited as the author/editor. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 01:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)