Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Association of Religion Data Archives and World Religion Database

Æo has removed ARDA religious estimations from various wiki pages because he says it uses some World Religion Database data which he claims is affiliated to the World Christian Database which he claims is unreliable. First of all, ARDA is completely separate from both of them. Below is ARDAs impressive resume from their about page https://www.thearda.com/about/about-the-arda

Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) strives to democratize access to the best data on religion. Founded as the American Religion Data Archive in 1997 and going online in 1998, the initial archive was targeted at researchers interested in American religion. The targeted audience and the data collection have both greatly expanded since 1998, now including American and international collections submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA is generously supported by the Lilly Endowment, the John Templeton Foundation, Chapman University, Pennsylvania State University and Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

ARDA Advisory Board: Renata Curty (UC Santa Barbara), Joel Herndon (Duke University), Nathaniel Porter (Virginia Tech), Ruth Tillman (Pennsylvania State University), Andrew Tyner (Center for Open Science)

ARDA Affiliates: US Religion Census, Baylor Univeristy, World Religion Database at Boston University, which is part of Brill publishing: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/

Here is The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion.

Below are multiple book sources that call ARDA and the World Religion Database "Reliable", including the Oxford handbook and Cambridge University: 12, 3, 4, 5 AEO does not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely his personal opinion from his own original research. He thinks he knows better than Harvard and Oxford. Foorgood (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Since 2022, ARDA has completely reviewed its datasets and has aligned them with those of the WRD/WCD. As I have thoroughly demonstrated here, the WRD and the WCD are the same, they are the continuation of the World Christian Encyclopedia, and are ultimately produced by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. They are therefore biased and unreliable (WP:PARTISAN, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SPONSORED). In any case, they should never replace data from national censuses and surveys conducted by statistical organisations. In the linked discussion, I cited extensive excerpts from WP:RS which have criticised the WRD/WCD. I have also thoroughly commented the links provided by Foorgood in support of his opinion and even provided an excerpt from one of them which demonstrates my view.
• Other users who have recently been involved in discussions about these topics can intervene: Erp, Nillurcheier, Lipwe.--Æo (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The World Religion Database and World Christian Database are not officially affiliated but in any case both are considered Reliable by endless scholars including the 5 I included above such as Oxford and Cambridge.Foorgood (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Foorgood, "endless scholars" isn't going to cut it, and "Oxford and Cambridge" aren't scholars. It's important to be precise here. One of the librarians listed on one of the pages you linked confirmed to me what academics already know: a note on a library guide on a university library's website should NOT be taken as any kind of official endorsement for the reliability of that database. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

      I have 5 books from scholars in the original post and then I added some of the many institutional examples: Harvards Library calls it "a good source of statistics for religions" right here https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and Stanfords Library calls ARDA "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports" here https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion but I'm done with this conversation. Have your way and make the source deprecated so that all the scholars and universities can continue to tell their students they shouldnt use Wikipedia. New editors here will now see that sources called good by Harvard are considered deprecated by Wiki. Foorgood (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

In one of the sources provided by Foorgood (F. Lionel Young, III, World Christianity and the Unfinished Task: A Very Short Introduction, Wipf and Stock, 2020), which is itself a book dedicated to a particular Protestant missionary project and view, you can read the following lines: ...Barrett's research has continued under the auspices of an organization established in 2001 named the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, now situated on the campus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. The center's co-director, Todd Johnson, began working with Barrett in 1989, and collaborates with his colleague on several projects, including the 2001 edition of the WEC. Building on Barrett's groundbreaking work, the center launched the World Christian Database and the World Religion Database....

As a general example and point of reference, compare ARDA projections about Australia to the Australian 2021 Census (ARDA overestimates Christianity by 14%); ARDA projections about Canada to the Canadian 2021 Census (ARDA overestimates Christianity by 10%). They are completely wrong, for every single country.

A further critical remark is that ARDA data are speculative projections, not actual surveys, and therefore violate WP:CRYSTAL. There have already been discussions about these matters in the past (e.g.), and some time ago Nillurcheier and I discussed about the possibility of making these sources WP:DEPRECATED (here).--Æo (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Authoritative critical assessments

Religion studies scholars & statisticians

For the sake of information completeness, I re-copy hereunder the excerpts I originally reported on my (Æo's) talk page in the discussion with Foorgood.

The following academic papers express criticism about the WRD/WCD, regarding their common origin in the WCE as a missionary tool, their systematic overestimate of Christianity while underestimating other forms of religion, and their favouring certain Christian denominations (Protestant ones) over others:

• Liedhegener A.; Odermatt A. (2013). "Religious Affiliation in Europe - an Empirical Approach. The "Swiss Metadatabase of Religious Affiliation in Europe (SMRE)". Zentrum für Religion, Wirtschaft und Politik (ZRWP), Universität Luzern. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.33430.55364. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

• p. 9: "...the World Christian Database (WCD) or the World Religion Database (WRD) which is a direct offspring of the WCD. ... In itself the latter is not an unproblematic source, because its data, gathered originally from the World Christian Encyclopedia, result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries. Therefore, a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism".

• Hsu, Becky; Reynolds, Amy; Hackett, Conrad; Gibbon, James (2008). "Estimating the Religious Composition of All Nations: An Empirical Assessment of the World Christian Database" (PDF). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 47 (4): 691–692. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00435.x.

• p. 679: ... The main criticisms scholars have directed at the WCD concern the estimation and categorization of certain religious populations. There are questions about whether religious composition within countries is skewed by the overcounting of certain groups or variance in quality of information obtained on different religious groups. There is also concern about possible bias because the WCE was originally developed as a Christian missionary tool. Some of the country descriptions in the WCE have been characterized as having an anti-Catholic and pro-Protestant orientation (McClymond 2002:881), and Martin describes the WCE as a work "dedicated to the conversion of mankind" (1990:293). Criticisms have also been raised about projections for different religious groups and demographic trends, as the WCD provides empirical data for the population of religious groups well into the future. Doubts have been raised about the WCD's estimation and categorization of new religious groups. Steenbrink (1998) criticizes the 1982 WCE data for Indonesia, which suggest the population is only 43.2 percent Muslim and 36.4 percent "new religionist." Steenbrink maintains that those classified as "new religionists" should actually be classified as Muslim, even if stricter Islamic groups might disagree. Lewis (2004) observes that the Soka Gakkai, Rissho Kosei Kai, and Nichiren Shoshu in the Japanese Buddhist tradition are classified as new religions, whereas Pentecostals (a much more recent movement) are classified as Christian rather than a new religion. The size of Christian populations is also debated. Jenkins (2002) notes a large gap between the reported size of India's Christian population in the government census and in the WCE/WCD. While he admits that census figures omit many Scheduled Caste adherents who can lose government benefits by declaring Christian identity, he suspects the WCD overcounts Christians in India. The WCE has also been criticized for including "inadequate and confusing" categories of Christian religious groups, in particular, "Great Commission Christians," "Latent Christians," "Non-baptized believers in Christ," and "Crypto-Christians" (Anderson 2002:129). Some worry that it is difficult to distinguish Christians who keep their faith secret from Christians who practice an indigenized form of Christianity that incorporates elements of non-Christian religions. McClymond writes that estimates for the "non-baptized believers in Christ" or "non-Christian believers in Christ" in India who are Buddhist and Muslim "seem to be largely anecdotal" (2002:886). Estimates of adherents in the United States have also been challenged. Noll has questioned the designation and size of certain Christian categories, for which the WCD and WCE provide the most detail. Although he finds estimates for most Christian denominations agree with other sources, he notes that "Great Commission Christians"—a category used to describe those actively involved in Christian expansion—are estimated in the United States and Europe to be a much larger group than the number of Christians who weekly attend church (2002:451). Another cause for concern is the number of "independents," a muddled category including African-American, "community," and "Bible" churches. Changes in the data set also raise issues about categories: Anderson notes that groups previously labeled as Protestant in the first edition of the WCE in 1982 (Conservative Baptist Association of America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyterian Church in America) were relabeled Independent in the second edition published in 2001 (Anderson 2002). Some have argued that projections of religious composition for years such as 2025 and 2050 should not be included with the empirical data, as they are merely conjecture (McClymond 2002). Irvin (2005) argues against making predictions about the future of worldwide religion based on recent statistics because Christian growth in Asia and Africa will not necessarily continue along the trajectory it has in past decades. ....
• p. 680: ... To address the criticisms mentioned above, we compare the religious composition estimates in the WCD to four other cross-national data sets on religious composition (two survey-based data sets and two government-sponsored data sets): the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department). In our analysis, we find support for some of the criticisms made by reviewers ... the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries. Another important difference between the WCD and other cross-national data sets is that the WCD includes data on 18 different religious groups for each country while other data sets only estimate the size of major religions. In evaluating some of the specific critiques discussed above, we find that WCD estimates of American Christian groups are generally higher than those based on surveys and denominational statistics. ... The majority of data came from fieldwork, unpublished reports, and private communications from contributors who are a mix of clergy, academics, and others; the Christian origins of the encyclopedia explain in part its detailed information on Christian groups. ....
• p. 684: ... Figure 1 shows that the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. This suggests that while the percentage Christian estimates are closely related among the data sets, the tendency is for them to be slightly higher in the WCD. ... On the other hand, the WCD likely underestimates percent Muslim in former Communist countries and countries with popular syncretistic and traditional religions..
• p. 692: ... We find some evidence for the three main criticisms directed at the WCD regarding estimation, ambiguous religious categories, and bias. The WCD consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets. ... We also found evidence of overestimation when we compared WCD data on American denominational adherence to American survey data such as ARIS, due in part to inclusion of children, and perhaps also to uncritical acceptance of estimates from religious institutions. We agree with reviewers that some of the WCD's religious categories are impossible to measure accurately, such as "Great Commission Christians," "latent Christians," and "Crypto-Christians." ....
• (Added by Ramos1990). However, context matters. Here is their overall conclusion: ...In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups.

Missionologists

Added by Erp and Ramos1990:

• Woodberry, Robert D. (2010). "World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable". International Bulletin of Missionary Research. 34 (1): 21–22. ISSN 0272-6122.
  • Quote: ... the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals ....
  • However, context matters: Despite these criticisms, we can appreciate the editors’ achievement in applying a relatively consistent methodology across the world. Furthermore, the WRD estimates are highly correlated with other cross-national estimates of religious distribution, a conclusion supported by an article by Becky Hsu and others. and also ...Still, despite my criticisms, I will eagerly use these data in my research. I do not know of any better data available on such a broad scale and am amazed at the editors’ ability to provide even tentative estimates of religious distribution by province and people group.

• Marsh, Christopher; Zhong, Zhifeng (2010). "Chinese Views on Church and State". Journal of Church and State. 52 (1): 34–49. ISSN 0021-969X. JSTOR 23922246.
  • Quote: overestimate of Christianity in China, which adds a lot to the total number and percentage of world Christians: ... At the extreme high end, the World Religion Database puts the percentage of Christians in China at 7.76 percent, or a just above 100 million, but this number is most certainly an overestimation ....

Added by Æo:

Another edition of WRD/WCD data has been the Atlas of Global Christianity (produced by the same Gordon-Conwell team). I have found negative critical assessments even for this edition, this time coming from an "insider" (Christian missionary) source, even though through an academic publisher, written by Anne-Marie Kool of the Evangelical Theological Seminary of Osijek, Croatia:

• Kool, Anne-Marie (2016). "Revisiting Mission in, to and from Europe through Contemporary Image Formation" (PDF). In Charles E. Van Engen (ed.). The State of Missiology Today: Global Innovations in Christian Witness. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. pp. 231–49.
  • p. 1: ... [the resource] seeks to give “as nuanced a picture as possible” of the history of Christianity over the last 100 years showing an “unmistakable” general pattern, that Christianity experiences a “severe recession” on the European continent that once was its primary base, while it has undergone “unprecedented growth and expansion” in the other parts of the world. ....
  • p. 2: ... widespread caution is raised with regard to the accuracy of the figures and not to engage in statistical analysis with the data, “without robustness checking… they contain random error and probably some systematic error” ....
  • p. 9, containing a self-criticism from Kool for having herself made uncritical use of the data: ... The World Christian Database and the World Religion Database serve as sources for the data of the Atlas. With regard to the methodology used, Woodberry is right in emphasizing that “more transparency is needed”. It might well be that the great quantity of details easily silenced possible critical voices. It is peculiar that hardly any serious critical interaction and discussion of the underlying methodology of the Atlas has taken place, neither of its two data providing predecessors. The data are simply taken for granted, as I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades. ....
  • p. 12, about systematic overestimation of Christianity in Europe, with allusions that there might be financial reason behind such overestimations: ... The statistical image of Europe that is now communicated only re-enforces the image of Europe as a Christian continent, by not giving insight in the internal diversification and erosion. So why is only this broad definition used? Is it for fear of losing power? Or for maintaining the image of the numerically strong “World C” that provides the human and financial resources to “finish the task”? Are matters of Christian finance playing a role? Out of a sense of empire building? Or of a sense of hidden resistance to accept that Europe also is now also a mission field? Is it out of fear of becoming a minority? Fear for ending up statistically weaker than the Muslims? Or an attempt to cling to the influence of the “Western” over the “non-Western” world, based on an image of Europe as still a massive Christian continent? ....
  • p. 13; it is a missionary tool designed for a specific strategy of aggression towards what in American missionary Christianity has been conceptualised as the "10/40 window": ... Eric Friede’s sharp analysis points us to the fact that the Atlas is ultimately written from the perspective of the so-called Great Commission Christians, Christians who engage in and support Christian missions, as many essays address the issue of “how to grow Christianity” in a particular region. The mission strategy invoked is then one of identifying within Global Christianity the resources needed for the task, the human resources, the GCC Christians, as well as the Christian finances that could make this enterprise work. An assessment of major tools needed for finishing this task is offered in subsequent sections, like Bible translation is followed by a section on Evangelization, with a division of the world in A, B and C, according to the level “being evangelized”. Statistics are used to motivate missionaries and national workers to mission action with Christian mission being reduced to a manageable enterprise with a dominant quantitative approach and a well-defined pragmatic orientation, “as a typical school of thought coming from modern United States”. .... Kool makes largely reference to: Eric Friede, "Book Review. Atlas of Global Christianity: 1910-2010, by Johnson, T.M. & Ross, K.R. (Eds.), 2010", Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, Theological Librarianship 3(1), 2010.

Among other sources, some of which we have already analysed, Kool makes reference to:

• Brierley, Peter. (2010). "World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!". International Bulletin of Missionary Research. 34 (1): 18–20.
  • It is a critical assessment, once again coming from a missionary journal, that raises doubts as to the reliability of the WRD on the basis of the mismatch of the latter's data (purportedly based on censuses) with actual data from censuses, in particular those of the UK. Judd Birdsall and Lori Beaman, in Faith in Numbers: Can we Trust Quantitative Data on Religious Affiliation and Religious Freedom?, Transatlantic Policy Network on Religion & Diplomacy, 22 June 2020, at p. 3 say that the WRD, despite being widely cited and impressive, "comes with limitations. In his review of the Database, the statistician Peter Brierley pointed out that for the United Kingdom the Database used denominational reports, such as Church of England baptismal records, rather than the UK census figures to calculate affiliation. A tally of denominational reporting showed that 82% of Britons were Christian, whereas only 72% of them claimed to be Christian in the UK census". (n.b. Brierley makes reference to the UK 2001 census data, showing that already in 2001 the WRD overestimated Christianity in the UK by at least 10%).
  • (Added by Ramos1990). However context matters. The same source states: The WRD is a truly remarkable resource for researchers, Christian workers, church leaders, religious academics, and any others wanting to see how the various religions of the world impact both the global and the local scenes. It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it.

Discussion (ARDA and WRD)

Part 1

The World Religion Database provides its estimates based on census and surveys: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/, just like Pew Research does. The sources I cited above from Oxford and Princeton call it very reliable and accurate even though it is not exact as Censuss but estimates like Pew are used all over Wikipedia.Foorgood (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That being said, I want to confirm whether or not AEOs position is that ARDA/WRD estimates shouldn't override national censuss(which I agree with) meaning they could still be used for other estimates, OR if AEOs position is that ARDA/WRD should not be used at all(which is absurd given their reliable reputation with Oxford and Cambridge)?Foorgood (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The WRD is not a census (survey of the entire population of a state by that state's statistical office), and, as demonstrated by Erp herebelow, their methods for collecting and elaborating data are unclear (and, n.b., circular! the WRD makes reference to Pew which in turn made reference to WRD!). With my comments, I have abundantly demonstrated the bias of the WRD and its sponsors. Please note that some of the sources you have cited are from the same sponsors of the ARDA (e.g. Pennsylvania University), others (the Oxford etc. books you claim recommend ARDA) are from years ago when the ARDA had not yet switched completely to WRD data (I myself consulted the ARDA site in 2020/2021 and their data were completely different, and more reasonable, than those from the WRD implemented after 2020/2021) and they merely list or cite ARDA as a source. That ARDA data should never replace data from national censuses is obvious. Moreover, they are WP:CRYSTAL projections. Therefore, I think that ARDA/Gordon-Conwell data, together with Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures (another dataset of projections based on Pew 2001-2010 surveys) should be WP:DEPRECATED. Æo (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope you cannot radically decide to block PEW and ARDA, both globally recognized as top reliable sources, from Wikipedia just because you now think you know better than them. But what we can do is give preeminence to Censuss while allowing estimates to be provided lower in the article with the disclaimer that they are not official surveys etc. Foorgood (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"Both globally recognized as top reliable sources". Please note that such alleged "global recognition" is basically the result of their own campaigns of promotion, and support by their allied journalistic media. Take the F. Lionel Young source cited above: it indeed praises the WRD within a chapter dedicated to statistical sources which are part of a precise Protestant Christian missionary project. These are, very simply, unreliable biased sources. Obviously, I cannot classify them as deprecated myself; this would require community consensus. Let's see how the present discussion will develop before proceeding with further steps. Æo (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You actually think that PEW or ARDA, globally recognized as reliable, would meet all the requirements listed here?!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources.. Again are you so extreme in your stance that you can't come to a compromise like you've done already by simply having Censuss take top priority on nations religions pages? Foorgood (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding census data I have not come to any compromise; census data are simply the best, most accurate available. And yes, I think ARDA/WRD/WCD (alias Gordon-Conwell) and Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures (projections based on outdated 2001-2010 surveys/collections of data) meet the requirement for deprecation. Note that deprecation does not mean banning a source (blacklisting), it's just a warning that will appear whenever contributors will insert links to such sources. Æo (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok so you are saying that you don't feel the PEW or ARDA data needs to banned entirely from articles, just given disclaimer that it's not an official survey like a census? Foorgood (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

ARDA itself is a database archive and states that when citing ARDA the original source must be included in the cite so the key question in most cases is the reliability of WRD. I have access to the World Religion Database so decided to check one recent cite in the Demographics of atheism article where the claim was "In 2020, the World Religion Database estimated that the countries with the highest percentage of atheists were North Korea and Sweden". First how on earth does anyone know what the percentage of the population are atheists in North Korea? Tunneling down through the WRD yielded the source for its info on religion in that country as "North Korea, Future of the Global Muslim Population (FGMP), 2020" and a note at the bottom of a fairly blank page was "Pew Forum Projection". Unfortunately the Pew FGMP (a) doesn't mention atheists and (b) cites the WRD as its source for the Muslim population of North Korea. I do note a WRD discussion of its methodology is at https://worldreligiondatabase.org/wrd/doc/WRD_Methodology.pdf including the paragraph:

"Religious demography must attempt to be comprehensive. In certain countries where no hard statistical data or reliable surveys are available, researchers have to rely on the informed estimates of experts in the area and subject. Researchers make no detailed attempt at a critique of each nation’s censuses and polls or each church’s statistical operations. After examining what is available, researchers then select the best data available until such time as better data come into existence. In addition, there are a number of areas of religious life where it is impossible to obtain accurate statistics, usually because of state opposition to particular tradition(s). Thus it will probably never be possible to get exact numbers of atheists in Indonesia or Baha’i in Iran. Where such information is necessary, reasonable and somewhat conservative estimates are made."

My suspicion is the estimate of the number of atheists in North Korea is a guess with very large error bars. The number of atheists in Sweden is likely to be more accurate though the latest survey they used is 2008. One should check what definition of atheist is being used by WRD. Erp (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me the 2017 Win/Gallup poll also has Sweden as the 2nd most atheist country and here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea we can see 2 different estimates are used to give North Korea's high atheist percentage. Estimates have their own methodology and they are considered Reliable by Oxford and Cambridge so don't try to reinvent the wheel and say that we know better than these statisticians because if so you're going to have to remove every single estimate on Wikipedia for every topic- and there are thousands. Our job on Wikipedia is to include estimates that are reliable while obviously giving precedence to government surveys *When available*.Foorgood (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually the estimates for North Korea in the Religion in North Korea are for 'no religion' which is not the same as being atheistic. Also the 2017 Win/Gallop report (https://web.archive.org/web/20171114113506/http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/370/file/370.pdf) has China as being the 'least religious', not atheistic, of the countries polled with Sweden second. However in the same report when it comes to percentage stating they are atheists Sweden drops below China, Hong Kong, Japan, Czech Republic, Slovenia, South Korea, France, and Belgium. North Korea for obvious reasons was not among the countries polled. This does not help in showing that WRD is a reliable source. Note that does not mean I agree with @Æo that censuses are the best sources; censuses can have biases or be incomplete and good surveys/polls can be just as reliable or better if not as precise. I would be happier with WRD if it were specific on how it got its figures for each country (among other things it would avoid articles citing X and then citing WRD which in turn was using X). Erp (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

If you click here https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/np-sort?var=ADH_704#S_1 and read the top it says "Variables: Total number of Atheists by country and percent of population that are Atheists: Persons who deny the existence of God, gods, or the supernatural. (World Religion Database, 2020) (Atheists)1" Again, you guys are acting like you know better than these world renowned sources. Foorgood (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Foorgood, I have thoroughly demonstrated that such "world renowned sources" are not produced by actual statisticians but by Protestant missionaries and Erp has demonstrated that their methods for collecting data are dubious. The line you have cited does not mean anything as to statistical survey methodology, it is just a conceptual category they have used to represent their data. Please read WP:NOTHERE. Æo (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the precision of exactly 4,016,422 atheists in North Korea in 2020, too precise for what is suppose to be an estimate. Have the authors not heard of significant figures or more likely it is an issue with the database design not being able to round? Also the definition at the top of the ARDA WRD chart is not quite the same as the one in the World Religion Database (the numbers do match). The latter definition is "Number of Atheists in this country's population. Atheists are persons professing atheism, skepticism, impiety, disbelief or irreligion, or Marxist-Leninist Communism regarded as a political faith, or other quasi-religions, and who abstain from religious activities and have severed all religious affiliation; and others opposed, hostile or militantly opposed to all religion (anti-religious); dialectical materialists, militant non-believers, anti-religious humanists, skeptics." There is a separate category for agnostics.

As for world renowned? Something can be well known yet still not be deemed reliable. I did a search of the Wiley Online Library for "World Religion Database", 27 hits though 16 of them were to a single book by the people who created the database. Wiley also includes the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion which had two of the cites (one of which was a critique of the World Christian Database). One would think people contributing to a journal on the scientific study of religion might be using this database extensively? I also did a search on "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" in Wiley, that had 1,248 hits.

I will note that Brian Grim's background does include a PhD in sociology from Penn State which should ensure some statistical training. Erp (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge and 3 other top publishers call them reliable 12, 3, 4, 5 Why? Because they are all statisticians from Universities around the country: ARDA Advisory Board: Renata Curty (UC Santa Barbara), Joel Herndon (Duke University), Nathaniel Porter (Virginia Tech), Ruth Tillman (Pennsylvania State University), Andrew Tyner (Center for Open Science)

ARDA Affiliates: US Religion Census, Baylor Univeristy, World Religion Database at Boston University, which is part of Brill publishing: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/

No, you do not know better than these experts. But AEO I'm asking you, your position is that ARDA not be banned from articles you just want it with the deprecated tag?Foorgood (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And ERP you will have to show us a screenshot if you think we will simply take your word about what WRD classifies as atheism because there is so far absolutely 0 proof of what you just stated. Foorgood (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Foorgood I'm not sure I'm permitted to put a screen shot in this discussion (wikipedia images are suppose to be stuff we can use in articles) or even if it would be sufficient proof for you given you apparently have no access to the database and therefore don't know what it looks like (I could after all photoshop it). Would it be better to have a third party who has access to WRD to vouch for the accuracy? A party you choose. I'm not sure whether @NebY or @Æo have access. Erp (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope because as I wrote below: Here is The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion. All the top Universities call it a reliable source period you do not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely your personal opinion from your own original research. Foorgood (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Erp: I don't have access to the database, but I personally trust your word. In any case, I think it would not be a problem if you uploaded a little screenshot of the section of the page which demonstrates unclear and circular reporting; I think it would not be a copyright violation. Regarding Foorgood, I think he is gaming the discussion system by bringing the interlocutor to exhaustion, ignoring the evidence we have put forward and stubbornly copy-pasting his links which do not demonstrate anything except that ARDA/WRD is listed among other sources on some university/library websites. Æo (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I would also remind @Foorgood: of WP:AGF. We have no reason to suspect Erp of fabricating a quotation from WRD and I very much hope that FoorGood doesn't imagine that such suspicion would be justified by or would justify misleading statements by Foorgood themself. NebY (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for pointing that out about Good Faith. I would like someone else to check given that I am using an older browser so perhaps some things are hidden from me such as lack of sources (not the definition of atheists, that is definitely there). Or I should check on a different computer. I note @Foorgood has been contacting various people and one of them might have access.

I'm actually not so sure it was circular reporting since it isn't clear whether the surveys listed by WRD were actually listed sources or listed links for related information. The idea behind the WRD makes a certain amount of sense; however, the methodology is lacking in a few ways. What are the sources for each country and a short description on how they are used, who is responsible for the calculations in each country (or are the listed editors, Todd M. Johnson, Brian J. Grim, Gina A. Zurlo, Peter Crossing, and David Hannan, responsible for all countries?), are there regular archives so a researcher using it doesn't find the data changing out from underneath them (these archives might exist); why aren't figures rounded to avoid giving a precision that is impossible for estimates? what are the error estimates?

By the way if WRD is well known (whether for good and/or for bad), it probably should have its own Wikipedia article. Erp (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Foorgood, your wrote "Oxford and Cambridge and 3 other top publishers call them reliable" and previously "they are considered Reliable by Oxford and Cambridge". Books publishesd by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press don't represent the opinion or judgment of OUP or CUP (or of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge), and this is true of publishers generally; for example, a book published by Harper Collins does not represent the opinion of Rupert Murdoch. An advisory board of statisticians "from Universities around the country" isn't automatically of high quality (they might be the best in the US or they might be the only ones in the US who'll work with that organisation) and the extent to which advisory boards influence an organisation's work and output varies massively. NebY (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is even The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion. All the top Universities call it a reliable source period you do not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely your personal opinion from your own original research. Foorgood (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Foorgood, note that the sites you have linked merely list ARDA among other sources, and the blurb is likely a self-presentation. They are not critical researches; critical assessments are those like the ones from which I have excerpted the quotes reported at the beginning of the discussion (Liedhegener et al. 2013, Hsu et al. 2008). Also please note, and I repeat this for the umpteenth time, that the ARDA acquired all its data from the WRD only by 2021/2022, and before then it hosted completely different data. As already expressed before, the first problem here is the WRD, and the ARDA is the secondary problem as it functions as the dissemination platform of WRD data. Æo (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And as you saw Harvard calls World Religion Database a good source so do yourself a favor and stop humiliating yourself trying to make it seem deprecated and pretending you know better than Harvard Stanford and Oxford. Even the Yale and Princeton Library websites suggest World Religion Database. Foorgood (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That's better, at least to start with; you clearly identify those mentions as being from university libraries. But then you veer into saying "all the top universities", as if the libraries are the universities, as if those samples do call it a reliable source, and as if your sample proves that all "top" universities or even their libraries call it a reliable source. And then you tell me that "you do not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely your personal opinion from your own original research". You do not know what my opinion is; my comment above on your statements was my first. NebY (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That first sentence from Stanford Library, "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world", is also in our article Association of Religion Data Archives and has been since its origination in 2006. The Stanford page appears to be comparatively recent - note that this Jan 2022 list of guides from the Wayback Machine doesn't mention a religion page. The Stanford statement might be copied from Wikipedia, which is not a WP:RS, or both might be taken from a self-description of ARDA, whose website currently has "now including American and international collections submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world."[1] (I notice that's not such a strong statement, not making a claim about all the data.) It does not appear to be Stanford Library's independent appraisal of ARDA. NebY (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct, as I wrote above the blurb is a self-presentation copied and pasted here and there, including on Wikipedia. Also note that the self-proclaimed "foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world" are fundamentally the same people of the WRD alias Gordon-Conwell and of the John Templeton Foundation (another organisation about which we could report plenty of criticism). Æo (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that you'd found it on wikipedia too! NebY (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Foorgood (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that much of the evidence presented so far by User:Foorgood indicates that ARDA is a reliable source. The set of references that were provided 12, 3, 4, 5 indicate that there is scholarly usage of such a database. Keep in mind that all major surveys have their limitations and none are really the final word - especially on atheism. Estimates of atheism are particularly problematic e.g. estimates from China differ between surveys (WIN-Gallup International vs Pew Research Center) and China and well... Asia alone shifts the global estimates of atheism considering that just China by itslef has the greatest number of atheists in the world. From wikipedia's stand point there is no issue using ARDA. It is not a depreciated source. It has limitations and problems like all other surveys. Attribution may solve the issues of putting any results from any particular survey in wikipedia's voice.

From the arguments presented against ARDA, none indicate that it is a depreciable source. ARDA has notable sociological researchers like Roger Finke in its board [2] and peer reviewed articles on it are also available [3]. Also, there are many hits from other scholarly sources on google scholar using the database too [4].Ramos1990 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In my view it is not ARDA that is in question but rather one of the databases it archives, World Religion Database. ARDA itself says that the source should be cited with ARDA just being the repository.

If I modify the google scholar search for just "World Religion Database" I get 559 results though some of them aren't exactly supportive. For instance

one article reviewing the database states

Second, the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals

and

[things which] would radically improve the usefulness and face-validity of the data:

• Documenting how each estimate was calculated. A Webbased format is ideal for revealing this kind of information: most users would not be interested in the details, and costs to print such information would be exorbitant.
• Providing some measure of uncertainty with each estimate (e.g., standard errors or even a qualitative evaluation by the editors). Researchers could then integrate uncertainty into their statistical models or exclude cases with uncertain estimates. As it is, estimates for Afghanistan, Algeria, China, and North Korea appear as precise as estimates from Canada and Germany. (Woodberry, Robert D. (2010). "World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable". International Bulletin of Missionary Research. 34 (1): 21–22. ISSN 0272-6122. Retrieved 2022-11-02.)

I also noted that many of the other cites were in articles authored by the database creators.

I also did a search on jstor which tends to be a bit more selective than google scholar on what is scholarly though some recent stuff (3-5 years) may not yet be available on it. There were 31 results (with at least 3 of those by people directly involved in the database). One is by Hsu et al. 2008 mentioned above which is not favorable to the database. One article had the statement

"Relying on the 2010 estimates of the World Religion Database (WRD), this method is used in instances where no better data than the religious composition of the birth country were available" (Henning, Sabine; Hovy, Bela; Connor, Phillip; Tucker, Catherine; Grieco, Elizabeth M.; Rytina, Nancy F. (2011). "Demographic Data on International Migration Levels, Trends and Characteristics". International Migration Review. 45 (4): 979–1016. ISSN 0197-9183. JSTOR 41427975. Retrieved 2022-11-02.)

This seems to show a reluctance to use it if anything better was available. Also

"At the extreme high end, the World Religion Database puts the percentage of Christians in China at 7.76 percent, or a just above 100 million, but this number is most certainly an overestimation" (Marsh, Christopher; Zhong, Zhifeng (2010). "Chinese Views on Church and State". Journal of Church and State. 52 (1): 34–49. ISSN 0021-969X. JSTOR 23922246. Retrieved 2022-11-02.)

WRD seems to be on the edge of acceptability. At most it should only be used if no better source exists (I still can't imagine how they calculated the so very precise numbers for North Korea). Erp (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

WRD is not on the edge of acceptability. It is clearly used in the sources you cited above. Brill, which is an academic publisher, publishes the database [5] and it comes from Boston University by the way so it is RS by that measure alone. I see no reason to object to it from wikipedia's policy standpoint. The sources you brought do not show that it is a bad database, because clearly peer reviewed sources do use it. Google scholar also produces peer reviewed articles and books that use it too. I got more than 800 when looking at "world religion database (WRD)". How is this a problem for it? It is used quite a bit. Bad sources do not get used this often to build on research. So clearly it has value for academics.

Now, there are studies that do sloppy work on atheism such as WIN-Gallup which showed global atheism rising way too fast in 2012, and magically declining by half in the subsequent WIN-Gallup surveys within the same decade. This of course is preposterous - that atheists would double and then decline in 10 years. People, on a global scale, do not change radically one way and then change back in a decade. And some researchers have advised caution on WIN-Gallup's data set (e.g. Oxford Handbook of Atheism) since their numbers on atheism in China are way too large - compared to all data sets on religion and atheism available. But none of this makes WIN-Gallup an non usable or depreciated source on wikipedia.

That is because all studies have their weaknesses and they usually contradict each other in the literature (Pew vs WIN-Gallup vs WVS vs census data, etc). Wikipedia just presents what certain data sets have come up with. We as wikieditors do not psychologize or make assessments or judgments on how one database is good or bad methodologically. As long as WRD has an academic standing in some way in the literature, there is no real reason to discount it over any other. Attribution should take care of placing the weight on the database being cited for the numbers.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

As it has already been written and amply demonstrated, the ARDA is a repository of data which at some point between 2021 and 2022 changed all its datasets with those of the WRD/WCD alias Gordon-Conwell. It is the latter that is in question in this discussion, and judgment on the ARDA follows judgment on WRD/WCD. As it has been widely demonstrated, the WRD/WCD is a Protestant Christian encyclopedia, dataset and missionary tool. Its sources are Protestant Christian missionaries, for the most part, as stated in its own methodology paper (pp. 13-14: ... The WRD taps into knowledge from contacts in every country of the world who inform us on what is happening in non-traditional forms of Christianity, such as churches and insider movements ...; notice that some of these firsthand informers, "insiders", are sometimes completely out of reality: for instance, in 2013 some Protestant churches predicted that 10% of Mongolians would be Christians by 2020, yet between 2010 and 2020 (census data) Christians in the country have declined from 2.2% to 1.3%).

As for the sources you have listed (which are the same links provided by Foorgood), the respectability of the publisher or hosting site does not necessarily imply that the content is qualitative and reliable. Cf. WP:RS: WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "POV and peer review in journals": Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs...; cf. Drmies above who has contacted one of the hosting websites: One of the librarians listed on one of the pages you linked confirmed to me what academics already know: a note on a library guide on a university library's website should NOT be taken as any kind of official endorsement for the reliability of that database.

Regarding more in detail the sources you (and Foorgood) have listed, I repeat once again: #1 is a book dedicated to a particular Protestant Christian view and project which is ultimately the same one of Gordon-Conwell; #2 is written by one of the compilers of the ARDA itself (Finke of Pennsylvania University); #3 simply lists and comments the ARDA among other resources, and, note it well, goes back to 2011 when ARDA had not yet switched to the WRD/WCD (it says that at that time its sources were mainly the World Value Survey and the International Social Survey Program); #4 is just the list of references used within the book; #5 is not a source of a good quality and in any case I don't find any reference to the ARDA. Æo (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S. O.T. Regarding atheism/irreligion and WIN-Gallup, which are not into question in the present discussion, notice that the definition of "atheism" and "irreligion" can vary according to the context, and that these categories overlap and are not as well definible as belief in a specific Abrahamic religion. Also notice that "atheism" and "irreligion" can overlap with the categories of Eastern religions: Buddhists could be considered atheists, while the notion of "religion" in East Asia does not traditionally apply to non-Abrahamic religions (or to forms of East Asian religions which have adopted an organisational form similar to that of Abrahamic religions), especially to East Asian diffused traditions of worship of gods and ancestors, and the same could be said for certain non-Abrahamic religions and unorganised beliefs which are emerging in the Western world. Æo (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Part 2

Worth observing the Foorgood has repeatedly canvassed editors to this discussion; that's how Ramos1990 got here, for example. --66.44.22.126 (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nowhere did he/her or anyone else reach out to me prior to me making a comment on this thread.

Back to the program, to the comments of AEO, I see that most of the discussion is not on whether it is academic (clearly it is - has peer review, Brill is an academic published with peer review, Boston University, notable academics head the project, many peer reviewed publications widely use it, etc). On this alone it is a RS per wikipedia. The stuff about WP:Scholarship applies to fringe publishers, but not Brill (which uses peer review).

Most of the issues that mentioned in this thread relate to methodology and the papers cited in the top of the thread (Liedhegener (2013) and Hsu (2008) both show generally positive views of WRD despite any shortcomings). This has nothing to do with the fact that it IS an academic source, is used by academics to advance research and that it used as a tool in academic research on religion worldwide. As far as I have seen, no major objections have been provided on this latter front. If bias or fault is perceived (this is not agreed upon and the uses of it in peer reviewed publications show its wide utility), this would not be a problem for wikipedia either because even WP:PARTISAN states that sources do not need to be neutral and that these sources may be better sources for numerous contexts and that attribution would be appropriate.

On top of that I see that researchers on Islam use it too The Oxford Handbook of Politics in Muslim Societies, and apparently Pew uses WRD data for some of its numbers in Africa for instance The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa. (interestingly it mentions that census data have design problems as well so no dataset is without its problems - which is true since censuses have inconsistent terminology and metrics on religion and some censuses like the American one do not ask about religion). Also, the Liedhegener (2013) paper mentioned at the top of this thread says WCD was used for Encyclopedia Britannica numbers too. Here is another paper using WRD in combination with other sources to get a comprehensive demography [6]. Here is another on Islam in combination with other studies [7]. Also here is one that compares WRD numbers in New Zealand on the nonreligious along with other datasets and is comparable to Pew. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 7

The more I look into this the more I find that it is used quite a bit in the literature along with other datasets either As Is or in a supplementary fashion. I don't see it being used in a depreciative fashion. I see no issue with it being cited with attribution (most studies get attributed either way) and scholars generally do not have a problem with it either (which is why they use it in the first place including general positive comments on it from Liedhegener (2013) and Hsu (2008) which were cited at the top o the thread), and there certainly is no wikipedia policy basis against WRD.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

"...As far as I have seen, no major objections have been provided on this latter front". What needed to be said has been said, about the use of the source in certain books and about the publishers of either the source itself or books which have made use of it, and academic assessments regarding its non-neutrality and dubious methodology (with one such assessments even affirming that they "seem to have constructed their estimates... from surveys of denominations and missionaries") have been provided (please see WP:IDNHT).

Moving forward, please notice that there are various precedents of sources sponsored by or affiliated to religious organisations which have been deemed unreliable: Catholic Answers, Catholic News Agency, Church Militant, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, and, most significantly, the academic CESNUR and its journal Bitter Winter, which are listed among semi-deprecated sources for being "an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits". Also the Annuario Pontificio of the Catholic Church is not used in Wikipedia for statistics about Catholics in every country of the world, so I don't see why Wikipedia should be filled with statistics produced by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Æo (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we have brought up our points on the matter and when you look at the sources, they show more than what you constantly present in your quotes. The sources you presented here usually support WRD too. For instance, its own methodology paper you cited clearly shows that WRD's sources include Censuses, surveys and polls along with denominational data (see p. 4-5) methodology paper. So just isolating "from surveys of denominations and missionaries" is incorrect on methodological grounds and even this quote misrepresents the source you extracted this from (Woodberry, Robert D. (2010). "World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable") because after reading it, Woodberry is very positive to WRD overall and acknowledges its comparativeness with other datasets and even says "Still, despite my criticisms, I will eagerly use these data in my research. I do not know of any better data available on such a broad scale and am amazed at the editors’ ability to provide even tentative estimates of religious distribution by province and people group." Plus the fact that WRD is used by Islamic researchers, nonreligious researchers, Pew Research Center (actually integrates it as part of Pew's methodological design per Barton in Palgrave Handbook), CIA estimates (per Woodberry), and Encyclopedia Britannica (per Liedhegener) show that it much more reliable and trusted than you are willing to give credit. But since all datasets have their problems - including censuses, attribution would solve any issues. And its academic status with Brill [8] which is a peer reviewed publisher helps too.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Another edition of WRD/WCD data has been the Atlas of Global Christianity (produced by the same Gordon-Conwell team). I have found negative critical assessments even for this edition, this time coming from an "insider" (Christian missionary) source, even though through an academic publisher, written by Anne-Marie Kool of the Evangelical Theological Seminary of Osijek, Croatia:

• Kool, Anne-Marie (2016). "Revisiting Mission in, to and from Europe through Contemporary Image Formation" (PDF). In Charles E. Van Engen (ed.). The State of Missiology Today: Global Innovations in Christian Witness. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. pp. 231–49.
  • p. 1: 《... [the resource] seeks to give “as nuanced a picture as possible” of the history of Christianity over the last 100 years showing an “unmistakable” general pattern, that Christianity experiences a “severe recession” on the European continent that once was its primary base, while it has undergone “unprecedented growth and expansion” in the other parts of the world.》
  • p. 2: 《... widespread caution is raised with regard to the accuracy of the figures and not to engage in statistical analysis with the data, “without robustness checking… they contain random error and probably some systematic error” ...》
  • p. 9, containing a self-criticism from Kool for having herself made uncritical use of the data: 《The World Christian Database and the World Religion Database serve as sources for the data of the Atlas. With regard to the methodology used, Woodberry is right in emphasizing that “more transparency is needed”. It might well be that the great quantity of details easily silenced possible critical voices. It is peculiar that hardly any serious critical interaction and discussion of the underlying methodology of the Atlas has taken place, neither of its two data providing predecessors. The data are simply taken for granted, as I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades.》
  • p. 12, about systematic overestimation of Christianity in Europe, with allusions that there might be financial reason behind such overestimations: 《The statistical image of Europe that is now communicated only re-enforces the image of Europe as a Christian continent, by not giving insight in the internal diversification and erosion. So why is only this broad definition used? Is it for fear of losing power? Or for maintaining the image of the numerically strong “World C” that provides the human and financial resources to “finish the task”? Are matters of Christian finance playing a role? Out of a sense of empire building? Or of a sense of hidden resistance to accept that Europe also is now also a mission field? Is it out of fear of becoming a minority? Fear for ending up statistically weaker than the Muslims? Or an attempt to cling to the influence of the “Western” over the “non-Western” world, based on an image of Europe as still a massive Christian continent?》
  • p. 13; it is a missionary tool designed for a specific strategy of aggression towards what in American missionary Christianity has been conceptualised as the "10/40 window": 《Eric Friede’s sharp analysis points us to the fact that the Atlas is ultimately written from the perspective of the so-called Great Commission Christians, Christians who engage in and support Christian missions, as many essays address the issue of “how to grow Christianity” in a particular region. The mission strategy invoked is then one of identifying within Global Christianity the resources needed for the task, the human resources, the GCC Christians, as well as the Christian finances that could make this enterprise work. An assessment of major tools needed for finishing this task is offered in subsequent sections, like Bible translation is followed by a section on Evangelization, with a division of the world in A, B and C, according to the level “being evangelized”. Statistics are used to motivate missionaries and national workers to mission action with Christian mission being reduced to a manageable enterprise with a dominant quantitative approach and a well-defined pragmatic orientation, “as a typical school of thought coming from modern United States”.》 Kool makes largely reference to: Eric Friede, "Book Review. Atlas of Global Christianity: 1910-2010, by Johnson, T.M. & Ross, K.R. (Eds.), 2010", Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, Theological Librarianship 3(1), 2010.

Among other sources, some of which we have already analysed, Kool makes reference to:

• Brierley, Peter. (2010). "World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!". International Bulletin of Missionary Research. 34 (1): 18–20.
  • I can't access the paper at the moment. However, it is a critical assessment, once again coming from a missionary journal, that raises doubts as to the reliability of the WRD on the basis of the mismatch of the latter's data (purportedly based on censuses) with actual data from censuses, in particular those of the UK. Judd Birdsall and Lori Beaman, in Faith in Numbers: Can we Trust Quantitative Data on Religious Affiliation and Religious Freedom?, Transatlantic Policy Network on Religion & Diplomacy, 22 June 2020, at p. 3 say that the WRD, despite being widely cited and impressive, "comes with limitations. In his review of the Database, the statistician Peter Brierley pointed out that for the United Kingdom the Database used denominational reports, such as Church of England baptismal records, rather than the UK census figures to calculate affiliation. A tally of denominational reporting showed that 82% of Britons were Christian, whereas only 72% of them claimed to be Christian in the UK census". (n.b. Brierley makes reference to the UK 2001 census data, showing that already in 2001 the WRD overestimated Christianity in the UK by at least 10%).

Æo (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the references. However, again these do not impact WRD much at all. The Kool source on the Atlas mentions that WRD data is used by the Atlas, not that WRD is the Atlas or that the goal of the Atlas was the same as WRD. Just like Pew uses WRD, it makes no sense to associate Pew's agendas with WRD's database just because one uses the other. The Atlas' goal and interpretations numerical data is different than WRD and Kool rightly focuses on the contents of the Atlas, instead of WRD (WRD is not mentioned much throughout the paper). WRD is one data set and is not the only one and attribution solves any issues here on wikipedia. You keep on thinking that these papers are calling for the removal of WRD when they are actually trying to improve it and they continuously praise it overall. They all agree that it is very valuable and merely say that there are limitations to it - just as the same applies to Pew, Gallup, and censuses all around the world. This is nothing new in this and if you ever look at the numbers of nonreligion, for example; from Pew, Gallup, and Cenuses, there are significant discrepancies to be found there between these datasets (easy examples include China, Japan, and numerous countries in Europe like Netherlands and Sweden). They are all flawed and limited. None stands as the authority. Stuff like "spiritual but not religious" messes up the numbers because religion is not perceived in Western sense in most of the world.

If we want to criticize census data, there are papers showing the limitations and issues with that too [9]. Censuses get quantity - but they do not guarantee quality of course. In fact Pew's methodology mentions the limitations of surveys and census too (America has not asked on religion for 70 years, for example). Pew clearly states that "Censuses and nationally representative surveys can provide valid and reliable measures of religious landscapes when they are conducted following the best practices of social science research. Valid measurement in censuses and surveys also requires that respondents are free to provide information without fear of negative governmental or social consequences. However, variation in methods among censuses and surveys (including sampling, question wording, response categories and period of data collection) can lead to variation in results. Social, cultural or political factors also may affect how answers to census and survey questions are provided and recorded." Its pretty obvious that big variations exist between just these datasets alone. Anyways, Pew also mention that they used WRD data for 57 countries as a supplement in their methodology in that same section. Furthermore, Pew acknowledges that statistical reports from religious groups are also valid measures. "In cases where censuses and surveys lacked sufficient detail on minority groups, the estimates also drew on estimates provided by the World Religion Database, which takes into account other sources of information on religious affiliation, including statistical reports from religious groups themselves."

So I don't see much of an issue in light of this. So all of this thread on equating a critique of a dataset = bad dataset is preposterous when you see that all datasets have problems and issues. In fact, there is research indicating that "religion" is invented in surveys and polls (if you are interested see Wuthnow, Robert (2015). Inventing American Religion : Polls, Surveys, and the Tenuous Quest for a Nation's Faith. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190258900.) We know that WRD is used by Pew, CIA, Encyclopedia Britannica, Islamic researchers, and nonreligious researchers among many others. But most importantly it satisfies wikipedia's RS criteria since it has peer review, and is from Brill, an academic publisher.

You cited Brierley, Peter. (2010). "World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!". International Bulletin of Missionary Research. 34 (1): 18–20.. Cool. It says the same thing - that there are limitations. But keep in mind what he also clearly states "It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it." And after reading it, the overall view is positive to WRD, not negative on WRD.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDNHT:

• You write: "...these do not impact WRD much at all". This is your opinion, not that of Kool, and not my opinion or that of other editors for whom the WRD's reliability is questionable.
• "The Kool source on the Atlas mentions that WRD data is used by the Atlas, not that WRD is the Atlas or that the goal of the Atlas was the same as WRD". Kool is clear: "The World Christian Database and the World Religion Database serve as sources for the data of the Atlas", and the Atlas is produced by the very same Gordon-Conwell team.
• As for the rest of your message, it is completely off-topic and diverts from the main theme. Censuses, Pew, CIA, Britannica (of which the latter two are not statistical organisations and only cite figures taken from other sources) are not what is being discussed here. Indeed, Pew-Templeton's Global Religious Futures is affected by the present discussion since it, just like ARDA/WCD/WRD, is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL (pseudodata projections based on Pew's 2001-2010 cycles of surveys, which are being presented throughout Wikipedia as hard data for 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050). The fact that Pew used the WRD for some of its data only detracts from Pew's own quality.

Æo (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Atlas uses WRD as a source for its data, like you mentioned. So does Pew, Muslim researchers, nonreligion researchers, etc. None of this means that WRD is equivalent to the interpretations, contents, views or arguments presented in the Atlas, Pew, Muslim, nonreligion sources. It is just a dataset. In terms of projections, I am sure you already know that ALL projections are wrong. In the last quarter century it was projected by numerous sources and studies that significant parts of the world would not be religious, due to secularization. But this never happened. Projections are usually wrong. But that is a different discussion.Ramos1990 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Not being sure, whether it is the right place, I am repeating my comment regaridng sources for membership data in religious bodies. They should be used according this priority ranking: 1. Data of the religious body itself if officially counted like in Austria and Germany 2. Census data like in India, Indonesia and many other contries 3. Data from high quality independent surveys like in Spain or US 4. CIA data may fill the remainig gaps 5. Data from missionary sources should be avoided! Nillurcheier (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Nillurcheier, in the next days I will proceed with drawing up a summary rationale and a RfC for the deprecation of missionary and projected data. Æo (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Summary of general consensus

According to authoritative assessments provided hereinabove:

• The following ARDA/WCD/WRD alias Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary datasets are WP:SPONSORED by Christian missionary organisations, are therefore WP:PARTISAN and are ultimately WP:QUESTIONED; moreover, they are WP:CRYSTAL, since their data are projections from the past (1900) to the future (2050) made on the basis of unclear and non-empirical methodologies (i.e. they lack concrete grounding in data provided by actual surveys of populations):
  • https://www.gordonconwell.edu/
  • https://worldreligiondatabase.org/
  • https://worldchristiandatabase.org/
  • https://www.thearda.com/
• The Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures dataset (n.b. not other studies made by the Pew Research Center) presents problems similar to those of ARDA/WCD/WRD/GC datasets as to the reliability of projections (WP:CRYSTAL; from 2010 to 2050, and sometimes to 2070 and 2100), although in this case the methodology is somewhat clearer (their projections are based on censuses of the early 2000s and Pew's own surveys conducted prior to 2010, the year from which the GRF data were projected; however, note well that Pew's surveys conducted after 2010, focused on religion demographics of the United States in 2014, 2019 and 2021, have already disproven previous GRF projections):
  • http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/
  • https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projection-table/
  • https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

N.b. the links may not be exhaustive, as the data have been replicated on various other websites.

The problem with these datasets has arisen since they have been passed off in various Wikipedia articles as hard data (which they are not, as they are projections). In any case, there is general consensus, both in the discussion hereinabove and in past discussions on other Wikipedia talk pages, that projected data and data produced by missionary organisations should never be used to replace census data and data produced by professional (non-partisan) statistical organisations.--Æo (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Correction to the "summary of general consensus"

Parts 1 and 2 of the whole discussion clearly show massive disagreements among editors on everything mentioned in the "Summary of general consensus". There was no consensus.

• The sources used "authoritative assessments provided hereinabove" generally support the use of either of the 3 databases they discuss (ARDA, WCD, WRD). These sources do not depreciate theses databases and some specifically mention that they use these databases themselves. I extracted more quotes at the bottom of some of these sources to show context since it looks like ignoring the positive things they say would distort their assessment. Context matters and transparency is important.

• Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures was not discussed much either and even here there were clear disagreements among editors.

• The notion of using projection data was not discussed much throughout this whole discussion and in the little that was mentioned, there were clearly disagreements among editors.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Replying to your points,

• 1) There is a general consensus that the sources are questionable, both from the present discussion and past ones. In the present discussion, 5 users have raised concerns, while 2 (i.e. you and Foorgood) have continued to repeat the same things to support the datasets. The consensus, from both the present and past discussions, is that these sources should never replace censuses and surveys from statistical organisations; it is not about deprecation, as we have not reached that point yet, and it will require a RfC.

• 2&3) About GRF and projections, I mainly referred to past discussions. In any case, they are against WP:CRYSTAL and passing them off as actual data is very simply an untruth.

--Æo (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

We should leave it up to an uninvolved editor to summarize this whole discussion, not you or me. Other editors have not agreed to your points. Most just provided very few comments early on on what makes the source relaible or not per wikipedia criteria. None of which look like they mention your points one methodology at all. And none said these were unreliable explicitly either.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ramos1990, I agree about an uninvolved closure. However, my summary was not meant to close the discussion, it was meant to provide a rationale for a RfC as the next step. In any case, I have taken part in various discussions concerning this topic over the years, in many of which Iryna Harpy also participated and supported my views; my idea of consensus is built on those past discussions too.--Æo (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S. The issue about methodology was first raised by Erp, then further investigated by me, and is mentioned in particular in one of the excerpts from Anne-Marie Kool's paper.--Æo (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC: deprecation of Gordon-Conwell's WRD/WCD/ARDA & Pew-Templeton's GRF

QUESTION: Should we deprecate the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary's World Religion Database/World Christian Database, also published by the Association of Religion Data Archives, as WP:SPONSORED, WP:PARTISAN, WP:QUESTIONABLE & WP:CRYSTAL, and the Pew-Templeton's Global Religious Futures dataset as WP:CRYSTAL, thus as unreliable sources in the field of religion statistics and demographics?

Please see:

• The summary of general consensus as a rationale for deprecation, with the main links to the datasets in question.
• The entire discussion above, and in particular the authoritative critical assessments that have been collected.

Further considerations:

• Note well that this RfC for deprecation is unrelated to the "general consensus" elaborated hereabove, which is built on the discussion further above plus the fragmented consensuses about the same issue reached over the years in various Wikipedia talk pages (according to which the datasets in question should never replace data from censuses and statistical organisations, as they are built largely on Christian missionary sources and/or speculative projections, not yielded by actual surveys); this RfC will only enforce that consensus through deprecation, in case the community will express itself in favour of deprecation.
• A RfC for deprecation is needed because, despite the aforementioned fragmented consensuses collected over the years, the datasets in question are periodically re-added to Wikipedia articles about countries and religion demographics and passed off as results of actual surveys, and this could be better curbed with a deprecation warning.

Nom:--Æo (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey (GC's WRD/WCD/ARDA & PT's GRF)

• I suspect that there has been some WP:CANVASSING here, given that an account with no previous involvement with either this discussion or noticeboard has suddenly returned after weeks of inactivity specifically to express a vote here, and that Foorgood has been provocatively counting the votes. Better to remind everyone that this is not a ballot (WP:POLL) with the tag above, and to Foorgood that he has not "won the dispute" as he has been claiming on some talk pages.--Æo (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• N.b.: Foorgood was banned on 3 December.--Æo (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Please respond Yes or No.

• No. I'm not seeing reasoning in your arguments here or in past discussion that are compelling. WP:PARTISAN does not affect the reliability of the source, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. I think we can all agree that census data should be used where it can, but when we don't have it, we used the best we can find. Unfortunately, humanity has had to rely on religious sources for centuries, across many fields, because they were often the only institution with the means or authority to collect the data. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper, the problem of reliability is not that these datasets are "religious sources" (there can be datasets provided by religious organisations that are neutral, such as the membership registers published by churches in Germany and Austria). The problem with these datasets is that they have been widely questioned by academic critique as being driven by a systematic bias. Besides the bias, the main problem for Wikipedia is that these datasets are projections and are periodically re-added to Wikipedia articles, passed off as hard data, often even overwriting data from censuses and reliable surveys held by statistical organisations (e.g. [10], [11], [12]), so even in those cases (and they are the majority) where there are better and neutral sources (censuses and reliable surveys). A good comparison, and precedent, is the CESNUR, which is currently deprecated because it was ascertained to be driven by a systematic bias in favour of various new religious movements. In any case, deprecation is not a complete blacklisting, and in this case it would only be a warning that these datasets are questioned by RS and there are better sources to use. Æo (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• No Below is ARDAs impressive resume from their about page https://www.thearda.com/about/about-the-arda

Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) strives to democratize access to the best data on religion. Founded as the American Religion Data Archive in 1997 and going online in 1998, the initial archive was targeted at researchers interested in American religion. The targeted audience and the data collection have both greatly expanded since 1998, now including American and international collections submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA is generously supported by the Lilly Endowment, the John Templeton Foundation, Chapman University, Pennsylvania State University and Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

ARDA Advisory Board: Renata Curty (UC Santa Barbara), Joel Herndon (Duke University), Nathaniel Porter (Virginia Tech), Ruth Tillman (Pennsylvania State University), Andrew Tyner (Center for Open Science)

ARDA Affiliates: US Religion Census, Baylor Univeristy, World Religion Database at Boston University, which is part of Brill publishing: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/

Here is The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion.

Below are multiple book sources that call ARDA and the World Religion Database "Reliable", including the Oxford handbook and Cambridge University: 12, 3, 4, 5

Foorgood (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• No. Having read through all of this, I think that while some individual sources do question the databases noted above (unsurprising given the controversy of religious topics in general), I think there is no basis for deprecation. Given the number of well-respected institutions that recommend the sources, as noted above, I'm inclined to think these are reliable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. --Jayron32 19:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• No… but: I don’t think deprecation is the right answer here… but… Perhaps in-text attribution should be required. This would prevent the data being presented in Wikipedia’s voice, and alert the reader that there might be bias in its compilation. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. For details, see my previous reply to Pyrrho the Skipper, plus my previous discussions with Nillurcheier and Lipwe ([13], [14]), and Erp ([15]). Moreover note that, as it has been pointed out by NebY in the discussion above, the fact that the datasets in question are listed on the websites of academic institutions (Foorgood has copy-pasted the very same message which started the entire discussion) does not imply that they are reliable and that said academic institutions support them (Drmies even contacted one such institutions and they confirmed this). The solution invoked by Blueboar ("...alert the reader that there might be bias...") would be possible, in my opinion, only through a deprecation warning.--Æo (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Aren't users who initiate RFCs not supposed to make a vote? In any case User Ramos1990 would make 5 NOs to your RFC.. Do you not give up when you have been denied?Foorgood (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    • At WP:RFC I have not found a precise rule that forbids the nom to express his vote (if there is such a norm, I will strike my comment). In any case, it's certainly not a double vote. Æo (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Foorgood, don't be silly. Of course the nominator has a say here. Why shouldn't they? And Ramos1990 does not count for five. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes--meaning, the numbers simply cannot be accepted at face value, and I'm somewhat more critical here than Blueboar, whose opinion I value, is. If scholars agree that for instance the number of Chinese Christians is inflated, then the basic facts supplied by the database are in question. If I read one more time that "Below is ARDAs impressive resume from their about page" or some such thing I'm going to cry--it is very unfortunate that Foorgood keeps repeating the same points no matter how much scholarship Æo cites. I was pinged here because I contacted one of the librarians on whose page the database was linked, pointed them to the discussion (weeks ago), and they told me they would rephrase the "recommendation" on their website--and noted of course how linking something is HARDLY the same as giving a wholehearted endorsement. Foorgood seems to be deaf to such arguments. Randykitty, I'm wondering if you have an opinion here--and the time to read through this long, long thread. I'll add that for me this is a tricky decision, because Brill is one of those publishers that I tell my students are eminently reliable--and not just because they published my book, haha. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Ah yes I will take your word about the librarian. Maybe I will call another librarian and get a statement that they still recommend WRD.. in any case Ramos already stated he will come respond with a NO so the majority will overrule such an absurd request for deprecation. At that point maybe we will finally stop hearing of such "repetitions" you allude to.

  Foorgood (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• No These databases seem to be respected sources by demographers and are NOT partisan. Brill publishes these and it is academic. These databases are actually used by a diversity of scholars and authoritative sources such as scholars of Islam (e.g. The Oxford Handbook of Politics in Muslim Societies), scholars of nonreligion / irreligion (e.g. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 7), Pew Research Center's uses it in own methodology and database (see Pew's methodology and The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa), is used for CIA estimates (per Woodberry in " authoritative critical assessments" link in RFC), and is used by Encyclopedia Britannica (per Liedhegener in "authoritative critical assessments" link in RFC).

I extracted more quotes from the "authoritative critical assessments" link in RFC because upon closer inspection they do not really support the claims in the RFC. They actually show deep respect for these databases, not depreciation:

- Hsu, Becky; Reynolds, Amy; Hackett, Conrad; Gibbon, James (2008). "Estimating the Religious Composition of All Nations: An Empirical Assessment of the World Christian Database" - here is their overall conclusion: "In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups." Even in the abstract of the paper they state that World Christian Database highly correlated with 4 other databases: World Values Survey, Pew Global Assessment Project, CIA World Factbook, and the U.S. Department of State.

- Woodberry, Robert D. (2010). "World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable" - "Despite these criticisms, we can appreciate the editors’ achievement in applying a relatively consistent methodology across the world. Furthermore, the WRD estimates are highly correlated with other cross-national estimates of religious distribution, a conclusion supported by an article by Becky Hsu and others." and also "Still, despite my criticisms, I will eagerly use these data in my research. I do not know of any better data available on such a broad scale and am amazed at the editors’ ability to provide even tentative estimates of religious distribution by province and people group."

- Brierley, Peter. (2010). "World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!" - "The WRD is a truly remarkable resource for researchers, Christian workers, church leaders, religious academics, and any others wanting to see how the various religions of the world impact both the global and the local scenes. It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it."

As others and I have mentioned, ATTRIBUTION would resolve any issues since it would not put anything from any demography source in wikipedia's voice. All sources should be attributed since none are the last word on religious demography.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes on World Religion Database with a caveat. In my own examination of the database, I think the detail is beyond belief and I think they fail the Accurate part of CRAAP (https://guides.library.illinoisstate.edu/evaluating/craap) in that they (a) fail to list their sources or describe how they got their numbers in at least a few cases (e.g., North Korea), (b) they are precise to single digits in cases where that is extremely unlikely to be accurate (again North Korea), (c) they don't give error bars. I also noted very few peer reviewed articles that use the data outside of Christian mission related articles. The caveat, no scholar has taken them to task in a public take down. I note that Johnson and Grim are aware of the issues of getting accurate data; it just isn't reflected in the data. If it is determined that World Religion Database is a 'reliable' enough source, I strongly suggest an article on it so readers can make their own evaluations. However, I think it is better to say we lack information on religious demographics rather than use what might not be good. On ARDA, it is a database repository and each database within it must be evaluated on its own merits; ARDA itself is not a source and explicitly says the actual source should be cited. --Erp (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  The CRAAP test is really relevant. I think something similar, or the CRAAP itself, should be adopted as part of the WP:RS policy. Æo (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• No As already mentioned by a few here, Brill is an academic publisher for these databases : see [16] and [17] and do not look partisan as is claimed in the RFC since their databases extensively use empirical data from secular sources like general censuses, polls, surveys in addition to the field records which are quite unique (see for example [18]). On top of the that, the "criticism" sources mentioned in the RFC as "authoritative critical assessments" are overall constructive criticisms that are friendly to these databases to the point that yes, they either show eagerness to use these databases themselves or give praise to it despite any quibbles. The Hsu 2008 paper clearly states positive vibes "We test the reliability of the WCD by comparing its religious composition estimates to four other data sources (World Values Survey, Pew Global Assessment Project, CIA World Factbook, and the U.S. Department of State), finding that estimates are highly correlated." and also "Religious composition estimates in the WCD are generally plausible and consistent with other data sets." This should not be ignored since that supposed "criticism" paper clearly shows the opposite of the RFC. Like others have mentioned, attribution would be a good practice when using demographic data from any source since no one source is the authority in religion demographics either way. Wareon (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  They do not use census data. That description is misleading. Compare ARDA/WRD Australia to Australia 2021 Census; ARDA/WRD Canada to Canada 2021 Census; ARDA/WRD Switzerland to Switzerland 2020 Census; ARDA/WRD Estonia to Estonia 2021 Census, and so on.

  Indeed, among the critical sources provided in the discussion above, you find, for instance, that:

  • Woodberry 2010: ...the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals....
  • Liedhegener & Odermatt 2013, p. 9: ...a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism....
  • Hsu et al. 2008, p. 684: ...Figure 1 shows that the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. ... On the other hand, the WCD likely underestimates percent Muslim in former Communist countries and countries with popular syncretistic and traditional religions....

  The WCD/WRD correlates with other datasets for statistics about certain religions but not others; in particular, there is a systematic overestimation of Christianity in every country of the world (e.g. the statistics for Estonia, where Protestants are 10% according to the national census, and 24% according to WCD/WRD projection). Æo (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  6 no's to 3 yes's. I want to know at what point will AEO accept the wiki community's decision and stop griping for his opinion to be accepted? Foorgood (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• No: I do not see any reason for a witch hunt. The database is used often by religionists (religionistic = scientific viewpoint on religions, reached on universities, etc) for a quick orientation and to get exact information, which is almost not possible to get elsewhere therefore it is a valuable source. Comparison with other cases on the noticeboard is improper as each case is simply different and the consensus could change over time. So, quickly looking at the case, it looks like there could be some political agenda behind the proposal, but I do not know the case in detail, nor the editor, so I could not tell. But in my opinion, religious intolerance, like other intolerances, should not have any space on Wikipedia. --Dee (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  There is no "witch hunt" or "political agenda" here, certainly not from my part. The WCD/WRD, otherwise, has been proven by WP:RS to have a precise agenda. This RfC for deprecation is precisely for the sake of "exact information" and facts, which the WCD/WRD has been abundantly proven not to represent, and has been driven by past consensus and discussions. Exact information is not "...almost not possible to get elsewhere...": official censuses yield exact information on religions and other demographics for most countries. Æo (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  Notice not only demographics in the database, but religion-related info as well, which is not at all available in the official censuses. Pls, check that there are trees in the forest. --Dee (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  P.S. Further evidence: compare ARDA/WRD Manx 2021 data (84.1% Christian) with 2021 Manx Census data (54.7% Christian). A 30% overestimation. Æo (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  9 nos to 3 yes's. This is exactly a witch hunt against a supposed "Christian" source yet AEO has already been told World Religion Database is not even currently affiliated with World Christian Database in any way. Does he not understand the word NO? No idea why Drmies joined this witch hunt either but it's embarrassing. Foorgood (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• No but Pew-Templeton has to be treated with greater caution than I often see. Two examples from my experience, quite apart from the discussion above: editors seeking statistics use figures for 2020 without noting (or maybe knowing) that they're old projections. Their methodology tends to minimise irreligious numbers, which I do see as in accordance with an aim to emphasise that religion is compatible with science and the modern world. If deprecation was a milder term in Wikipedia, I would say yes. NebY (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• No. These databases are used by researchers in politics, sociology and demography. Brill is known as a reliable publisher and ARDA seems to be a usable resource and does have many academics from numerous institutions running it. From wikipedia policy, I see no issues on it a reliable source and I don't see why it would be seen as problematic. Just attribute like another editor has mentioned.--عبد المسيح (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that عبد المسيح (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — عبد المسيح (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• This user had been inactive for weeks before voting here on 30 November (and making another comment on the talk page of an article I had been working on), wherupon they became inactive again. This account was suspected to be a sockpuppet of Jobas in May 2021, but never checked (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jobas/Archive#26 May 2021). Tagging Acroterion and Doug Weller, to whom I have already reported concerns about this.--Æo (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the false accusation, I saw an unusual amount of activity in Religion in Bulgaria on my watchlist by User:AEO [19]. I noticed the RFC on sources in his history. And since it peaked my interest, added a comment to this RFC. Anyone can comment on an RFC and no one has to edit a particular amount for it to matter. Plus it was posted in numerous RFC lists: Religion and philosophy, Society, sports, and culture, and History and geography and other noticeboards by User:AEO himself. So obviously he wanted more attention from other editors. With respect to the sock puppet stuff, I will essentially say what I said there, I have no connection with the named users. If you need to investigate to confirm this, feel free. Please ping me when you are talking about me too. It is rude otherwise. Regards.--عبد المسيح (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

User:AEO, SPI investigation was completed [20] showing that I am not related to any of these users. Since both investigations now show (via [21] archive check and [22] IP check) that I have no relation to any of these users, please desist from further accusations. I may take it to an admin if this continues in the future.

Also please stop WP:Canvassing. Numerous editors you have pinged (I see about 5 or 6) to this whole thread have voted on your side because you already know they support your views. Especially the ones you have pinged multiple times to try to get their votes. As is clearly seen here when you requested their vote knowing how they would vote beforehand [23]. RFCs are supposed to get multiple different opinions, not only the opinions of editors who already side with your views. It disturbs the open process of these types of discussions.--عبد المسيح (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• No per Wareon, etc. I see no reasonable basis for taking the extreme step of deprecation for these sources. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes following the arguments already made by others. ThePew-TEmpelton is pure glassball and often missleading since many authors take it for a survey or poll, what it isn't. The other source is biased or at least not from a neutral source. If the nos have a majority, I recommend to use these 2 sources as last fallback only. Nillurcheier (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Behind the Voice Actors

See the most recent previous RfC on this source here. There is another "RfC" on this page created by me; this is because this is my first time starting an RfC and was confused on how to do so.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the website Behind the Voice Actors?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting

Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply

Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting

Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Behind the Voice Actors)

I believe BtVA should be reclassified to Option 3. How on Earth did it manage to get listed as reliable this year? That they claim to do research does not make them reliable, since we have no way of checking that they did indeed do research and they are quite happy to list credits without any sort of public source. That their response in their FAQ to "your credit is inaccurate" is to defend their honour rather than provide information on a correction-submitting process is not a good sign, in my opinion. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no correction-submitting process, which is a severe problem for any source hoping to be considered reliable, especially as I know for a fact, using actor's websites as sources, that their credits for at least one video game are wrong. If we have no means to know if they are actually doing research and fact-checking, yet keep them as a reliable source, why shouldn't we allow every random website that claims to have a fact-checking process as a source? I know someone will bring up the green tick, but if a credit has a green tick that means there's another, almost certainly better, source we can use. I appreciate this comes very soon after a previous RfC on the same site, but I wasn't aware of that until today and it seems to have been waved through based simply on its own claims of accuracy.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC: 9to5Google.com reliability?

Which of the following best describes 9to5Google's (9to5google.com) technology articles?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

-- Yae4 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Option 3: Generally unreliable: In two citations at GrapheneOS, written by a "Videographer" they mostly un-critically re-publish material from the subject's website[24] or from their Twitter[25]. Although their contact list[26] has some Editor titles, it looks like another ad-infested group blog site, intended to advertise and sell Google products with affiliate links.[27]

To my knowledge, 9to5Google has only been mentioned in passing once: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#PhoneArena_et_al at WP:RSN. Apologies in advance if this RfC is somehow incorrect. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 They are reliable for basic facts, X was released on Y, but not for anything contentious and certainly should be considered a biased source. See their about page that starts "9to5Google believes that Google is one of the most important companies shaping the future.". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yae4, why are you bothering with this? If it's only been mentioned in passing once, then why do we need to spend hours of editors' time to evaluate it now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

An attempt was made to discuss it at Talk:GrapheneOS in August 2022. It was archived already, with no responses: Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive_2#XDA_source_on_Camera_and_PDF_Viewer,_and_9to5Google_source_on_"early_12L_release"_parrot_Twitter? It has been used in many other articles.[28] -- Yae4 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally unreliable. Another technology rumour site, along with sister projects 9to5mac.com, 9to5toys.com and others. Not that they don't get things right; they most often do. But they also present gossip and speculation as facts or announcements. A businessperson, I'd never make any investment decision based on the content of these sites. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Came here from WP:VPM. I'd be wary of using a site like this. Their about page says, "We only run reviews of hardware and software that we deem interesting to our audience and worth looking at. This is the reason you don’t often see poor reviews on 9to5 sites: If we review something we don’t like or find interesting, we usually won’t post it." That's kind of a non-neutral bias. On the other hand, that's not really any different from, say, the New York Times' Wirecutter service, so maybe that's a silly complaint. I suspect they're accurate for non-controversial statements of fact. To pick one more or less at random, "Founded by ex-Googlers, Flatiron Health was acquired yesterday (via CNBC) for $1.9 billion by Swiss medical giant Roche".[29] I have no reason to doubt any of the facts in that statement, but it's really just a rehash of what CNBC said, so why not just cite CNBC directly? IMHO, sites like this are valuable as aggregators and filters of industry-specific news. They're a great place to start to research a topic, but it's not what I'd like to see a good wikipedia article based on. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Their "about us" page states that they use and publish sponsor-provided content and also accept training and equipment in return for some of their reviews. Definitely not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable Mishmash of unasked for opinions, sponsored writeups, low quality rewrites of content posted elsewhere, and basic stat data. Nothing useful can't be found from a higher quality source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Strong option 1, since no good evidence of unreliability has been offered. So far, the discussion falls far short of the rigous we should have when determining reliability. The "uncritically republished" material in the first two links are a set of release notes. "Uncritically" is simply false: the author points out ProtonAOSP is not the "stable update path", and recommends against using GrapheneOS altogether for "all the but the most privacy-conscious people". No proof has been offered that any of those articles' contents is factually incorrect, which is normally de-rigeur in such WP:RSN discussions. 9to5Google itself has been cited in numerous published books, including scholarly books: [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. See WP:USEBYOTHERS. Importantly, they have done some good exclusive reporting, which seems to have good quality, and it would be a shame if we couldn't use it (if due, which is a big if for all WP:RS). They've been cited by the Financial Times[39], among others. The people behind them have credible prior journalistic careers.

Keep in mind that even reliable sources sometimes make factual errors, or take things out of context; in those cases, evidence should be offered on the talk page, and consensus may decide to ignore a given article, per WP:RSCONTEXT. Declaring a source unreliable or biased is a blunt instrument. DFlhb (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: Re "uncritically republished": the actual statement was "mostly un-critically re-publish". They mostly republish something said in another source, and add a comment. In my opinion, the comments are not critical, and they do not add insight of significance. I checked your first 3 examples of "scholarly books" citations, and the same comment applies to them, except in the first example, 9to5google may have independently observed the Youtube and play store outage; however, they added no further significant insight. The 3rd example had a typo in the citation URL ("toassistant" versus "to-assistant"), which does not support the book's reliability either. I checked a couple of the "exclusive reporting" articles, and they also look like mostly brief rehash of information from others, with minor comments. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Extending RfC for another month, but may stop it a week or so after the last comment someone adds. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC on sources of West Herzegovina Canton symbols

Are the following sources reliable sources to determine the constitutionality of the West Herzegovina Canton symbols? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

After discussion at the DRN, the discussion at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton § Flag concerning West Herzegovina Canton's coat of arms and flag (referred to as "the symbols" below) has been moved here. The arguments for and against the sources below are presented on the aforementioned pages. In summary, there were provisions in the canton's constitution defining the symbols that were deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court in 1998. After that, the canton amended the constitution to remove said provisions in 2000 and passed laws that define and regulate the usage of the symbols in 2003. It might be helpful to note that this RfC was created from an archived discussion here at RSN with no discussion.

Answer Yes or No or the equivalent to each following question:

1. Are Livno-Online, Mayor of the local municipality, RTRS, Federalna RTV, and SrpskaInfo reliable sources to verify that the symbols are currently unconstitutional?
2. Is Interview with an "expert in the field of constitutional law" and "former judge of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia and president of the Constitutional Court of FBiH" (Avaz, June 2018) a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently unconstitutional?
3. Is page 123 of this ombudsman report a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently constitutional?
4. Is page 63 of this ombudsman report a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently unconstitutional?
5. Is a page from a blog belonging to Željko Heimer, a claimed vexillology expert, a reliable source to verify that the symbols are currently constitutional?
6. Are the law on the usage of the symbols and the law defining the symbols reliable primary sources to verify that the symbols are currently constitutional?

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Given the acrimonious prior discussions on the issue, I hesitate to weigh in. I don't think that this discussion can or will resolve the dispute because I think that the question of the current constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the flag and symbol are not something resolvable here based on any of these sources. What I think that Wikipedia can report based on these sources is that there is a dispute over the constitutionality of the current official flag. As for the sources themselves, here is what I think:

-1 and 2. The sources cited in the first two questions: livno.online, centralnews.live, rtrs.tv, federalna.ba, srpksainfo.com and avaz.ba, all appear to be ordinary reliable news organizations that may be used to report news or what interview subjects said on a subject. So, these sources can certainly be used to report the fact of the court ruling and the statements of interview subjects like the delegate, the mayor or the the retired judge that they claim it is unconstitutional. That does not necessarily answer the question of whether or not the flag and symbol is currently constitutional or not - just that some prominent people believe that it is not.

-3 and 4. I have no idea whether this report is a reliable source or not. I can't read it. Sometimes publications of government agencies are reliable sources, sometimes not, sometimes primary, secondary or tertiary.

-5. It does appear that Mr. Heimer is a recognized subject matter expert on flags, is president of an international society on flags, is frequently cited in other sources, and has been previously published by an independent publisher of at least one book on the subject. (another book was self-published through Lulu) So he is a reliable source on flags and can be used as a reference that this is the "official" flag of the canton. He's clearly not an expert on constitutional jurisprudence of Bosnia-Herzegovinia; so whether or not the flag is "constitutional" or not is not something I would cite him for.

-6. The statute itself is a primary source, and should not be used as a source all by itself. But, coupled with Heimer, it can be cited to support that the flag and symbol are "official". it does not establish whether or not they are "constitutional" or not. Banks Irk (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Banks Irk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Nova24tv.si

Hello! I would propose that the Slovenian news portal https://nova24tv.si/ is put on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (with the possibility of whitelisting individual pages). The Slovenian fact-checking site Oštro found it to be "among the most significant contributors of misinformation in Slovenia". It summarised Breitbart (blacklisted here) over 550 times,[40].[41] At the moment, it is used approximately 100 times in the English Wikipedia, but I have started to remove the links.[42] Other sites are also mentioned in a recent report, but this one is the most topical. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I support this motion, Nova24tv is not considered a reliable media in Slovenia. Tone 09:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: A discussion is also being held at sl:Pogovor o Wikipediji:Brez izvirnega raziskovanja. --TadejM ^{my talk} 01:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

In view of the discussion, I consider that it will be best to leave Nova24tv.si out of the blacklist at the moment. However, the links should be carefully checked.

The left-wing media Necenzurirano[43] and Mladina[44] are not much better. Their links ([45], [46]) should also be carefully reviewed. --TadejM ^{my talk} 02:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Particularly Mladina seems spammy.[47] (almost 200 links). I mean, how can a clearly left-wing magazine be used to reliably source an article on Far-right politics in Slovenia? --TadejM ^{my talk} 02:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I've now tagged two articles – Far-right politics in Slovenia and Slovenian Democratic Party – as using unreliable sources and therefore most probably biased (please see the discussion there). --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

A request for a third opinion has been posted at Far-right politics in Slovenia. Please see Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Necenzurirano is an online investigative journalism outlet founded by veteran investigative journalists that have previously worked with major mainstream news organisations Delo, Dnevnik, and Siol.net. Their original reporting is high-impact and regularly picked up by prominent media organisations. Necenzurirano has a business collaboration with the print news daily Svet24. I don't think the factual accuracy of Necenzurirano's reporting itself is in question. However, the outlet's team has recently established close working ties with the country's current liberal government/ruling party, leading to accusations of political bias, as I have explained in the SLO wiki article about Necenzurirano that TadejM has referrenced.

Mladina is an established left-wing political, cultural and current affaris weekly magazine with a 100 year history. It has a very clear and explicit editorial stance. However, it does also publish investigative original reporting which adheres to relevant jounalistic/editorial standards and is separate from commentary etc. Mladina's original reporting is often picked up by prominent news media. I find its reporting to be factually accurate. Reporting is occasionally somewhat polemical with editorial opinion spilling over into objective reporting a bit, however, I find one can still easily distinguish facts from any potential editorialising. It's ownership is rather opaque, however, it must be noted that opaque or otherwise problematic media ownership is a rule rather than an exception in SLO, and there are documented instances of political/ownership pressure/intrusion on editorial/journalistic independence with many prominent SLO media publications of which Mladina and Necenzurirano are not one.

Mladina has published a lot of prominent original reporting about far-right movements in SLO. I've extensively worked on both articles mentioned by TadejM and have answered TadejM's objections to my selection of sources on the respective talk pages.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You're painting a very rosy picture here. Mladina and Necenzurirano are not really credible. I have explained the criticisms of Mladina with the relevant sources at the page under consideration. The editorial process is fully nontransparent, there are problems with undisclosed ownership, they often use hate speech and they are also frequently (and successfully!) sued for their incorrect claims. As to Necenzurirano, it is of higher quality than Mladina but has also lost a lot of credibility recently. Two interesting articles: [48], [49]. They also tend to report inaccurately and do not owe up to their mistakes.[50] --TadejM ^{my talk} 06:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: I don't know what "the editorial process is fully nontransparent" means (would you care to explain which news publications do have a transparent editorial process and how you ascertained this fact). Which SLO publication has an ownership structure that is to your liking (as I've mentioned, problematic SLO media ownership is rather a rule than a exception, which uncomfortable fact you conveniently - and quite dishonetly and hypocritically - keep ignoring)? A batchlor's thesis based on close reading of articles to reaveal supposed subliminal hate speech towards opponents of gay rights is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. "they are also frequently (and successfully!) sued for their incorrect claims" You have furnished only one such example which was - according to Mladina - a default judgement after a failure to deliver the court summons, meaning that the veracity of their reporting was not evaluated by the court. By the way, I'm guessing Mladina's recent bombshell revelation that PM Golob is being investigated by the two police departments whose chiefs he wanted replaced (prompting the resignation of the serving police director and of the Interior Minister) is not to be believed, and all publications that reported Mladina's revelations as credible journalism aren't to be trusted, either, right?

Well, I am deeply honoured that you find the wiki article about Necenzurirano that I wrote "interesting". And the interesting N1 article that you mention I used as a source in the wiki article. As to Necenzurirano's "inaccurate tweeting" about the pope's visit (clearly not their original reporting):

   Francis originally had planned to visit Budapest for only a few hours, before continuing on for three full days to neighboring Slovakia, which is led by a young, pro-environment woman.
   Hungary’s top clerics and government officials lobbied the Vatican for more time, while Mr. Orban’s allies in the news media, where his party holds great sway, applied less polite pressure, excoriating Francis for insulting Hungary and “behaving in an anti-Christian manner,” and for “causing extraordinary damage to the Christian world.”
   The Vatican tried to lower the temperature by knocking down the notion — first floated by Francis and later amplified in conservative Catholic media outlets — that a meeting with Mr. Orban was ever in doubt. The visit to Hungary was of layover length, the Vatican said, because it was spiritual in nature, with the pope there to preside over the final Mass of a weeklong Catholic Congress.
   But the disparity between the duration of the trips to Hungary and Slovakia, Francis’ allies suggested, was perhaps no accident.[51]

But as the dear former Interior Minister and veteran SDS politician himself complains in his blog post that you've referenced, Necenzurirano's reporting is picked up by all major SLO news publications on a weekly basis. So does that mean Necenzurirano is a reputable source after all - since all prominent media in the country seem to think so - or are they republishing reporting from an untrustworthy publication and consequently not to be trusted, either?

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the editorial process, I would expect something like [52] or [53]. The ownership structure is not always non-transparent. It is known for example for Finance (newspaper)[54] or sl:N1 Slovenija or Delo (newspaper), while for Mladina it has remained obscure and has been a subject of intense journalistic debate. For a review, see this report by a research institute (pp. 64–68) or this governmental report, where obscure ownership is only mentioned for Mladina. Hate speech in Mladina is well known and you're completely misreading the thesis in order to belittle its significance. See also e.g. [55] or [56]. Regarding the damage claims, it is not hard to find other such cases.[57], [58], [59]. As to Necenzurirano, in addition to what has already been said, it is clear that they jumped on the wagon as it suited their political stance and incorrectly reported there would be no meeting whatsoever between the Pope and Orban. Which also goes against the quote that you have provided here. Later they did not report about the true event as it happened and did not apologise for their incorrect claim. --TadejM ^{my talk} 21:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: Again, I quite frankly do not know how else to construe your replies other than as lies by omission since you conveniently again and again neglect to address uncomfortable facts that undermine your case.

And which prominent SLO publications have published such "editorial process disclosures" - why do you apply one standard to Mladina yet not to other publications? Furthermore, you'll note that the NYT explainer has been published only half a year ago as part of their Behind the Journalism series. So am I right to assume that NYT had hitherto had unclear editorial standards and was therefore an unreliable source until mid-2022? Are all publications that have not published such an explainer suspect - and all that have legit regardless of their track record?

Funny that you mention Delo - as I've repeatedly noted, Delo's "taikun" owners have repeatedly trampled Delo's editorial and journalistic independence for corrupt political dealings and influence peddling. Similar concerns have been raised with Media24 group, Planet TV, Večer, Dnevnik, POPTV/24ur ... I must again ask you if you're really oblivious of this fact, or are you intentionally playing dumb?

"Hate speech in Mladina is well known [...]" Oh, OK then, if you say so. But to play the Devil's advocate - how does supposed "hate speech" in the commentary section undermine reliability of the reporting section?

See also? One reference is a statement by a right-wing media association (BTW are you willing to accept them as honest actors and their criticism as legitimate when levelled against any and all parts of our "leftist media establishment"?) and mainly addresses a satirical column, and the other is a study authored by a Mladina employee (are you suggesting it's an admission of guilt? Are you really suggesting Mladina is a xenophobic magazine? How much of the study did you even read?).

The "damage claims" again refer to a satirical column with the plaint currently awaiting appeal at the constitutional court and the European Court of Human Rights based on freedom of expression grounds, to articles (not clear if opinion/commentary) published 25 years ago where the court agreed with the plaintiff that his taking part in Gestapo propaganda training courses as a German auxillary did not constitute working with the Gestapo which Mladina implied, and the third example is the same one as the one you mentioned before.

Regarding the pope-Orban meeting, it's clear from the quote that the pope himself suggested the meeting may be off and that this was reported by other foreign media organisations which was then pointed out by Necenzurirano in a tweet. The fact that the Vatican later changed course is entirely irrelevant. But are you really suggesting that all of their reporting is suspect because they didn't issue an update (or did they - did you even check?) for a social media post (!!!) that summarised contemporaneous foreign media reports that weren't even false? By the way, here's a headline from The Independent about the matter "Unlike Boris Johnson, Pope is refusing to meet Hungary’s Viktor Orban, reports suggest"[60] - so is The Independent an unreliable source now? And here's Necenzurirano's response to the blog post that you reference, if you care to know.[61]

Look, I have no interest in continuing this discussion any further because I do not intend to continue wasting my time with a plainly dishonest interlocutor. I'm not sure if you have some sort of personal animosity against these publications in particular or are just loathe to admit when your arguments have no merit out of pure gamesmanship, and I don't really care. But if no other editors weigh in, I will be removing the templates you added to the above mentioned articles as per Wikipedia:Consensus#In_talk_pages since you're clearly not engaging in an honest and consistent line of argumentation.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I could reply in detail here, but let me just say the same: I have no further will to argue against a "dishonest interlocutor" who is unwilling at any cost to admit when they are mistaken. There are not only individual criteria questionable with Mladina, but the whole set of these intensely red flags, significantly more than with other sources, disqualifies Mladina as a single trustworthy source. Constructing a major part of a controversial article based on such a spurious source and claiming that Slovenia is an "extremist heaven" on such a basis is not what I call honest and dependable reporting. I don't consider this to be in line with WP:RS. Now as you see we will not be able to resolve this on our own, so I posted a request for a third opinion and am waiting for further input from the community. --TadejM ^{my talk} 01:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: Right, you've given a bunch of weak examples, ignored my rebuttals, and now declare that even if they're weak arguments taken individualy, the fact that you've managed to list so many makes them valid on the whole. At the same time, because you didn't try to find or acknowledge any examples that may similarly impugn publications that you personally approve of means that those on the other hand are reliable. I see ...

Yet you still have not explained what claims in the article you find controversial, despite my repeated requests to do so. If anything, its the neo-Nazi - SDS connection, but most reporting on that topic comes from Delo (articles penned by Delić - now at Oštro). The only specific substantive objection about content that you've mustered beyond vague aspersions about sources is the one regarding a quote from a parliamentary investigative committee report cited by Mladina that you apparently still don't (or won't) understand (it refers to foreign attendance at far-right events/social gatherings which are forbidden in some neighbouring countries but tolerated in SLO - a preceeding sentence clearly states the far-right to be on the whole no more numerous in SLO, as does the very introduction), and which is backed up by other sources that I've kindly provided you. Again, the fact that you don't even acknowledge that I've clearly addressed this objection before and just keep repeating this clearly misleading claim leads me to doubt you're being an honest actor here.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and let me finally just point out one more crucial fact: editor-and-chief of Mladina Repovž served as president of the Slovene Association of Journalists (DNS) for 10 years, having been re-elected with overwhelming support,[62] whereas editor-and-chief of Necenzurirano Cirman is currently serving as vice-president and board member of said professional association. The heads of both publications clearly enjoy the trust and support of their collegues from other publications. How can you reconcile this fact with your accusations?

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Your rebuttals are far-fetched and you find something wrong with any evidence, so I don't have any will to argue this further. It is clear that outside people and organisations have validly raised their doubts about Mladina and Necenzurirano. I have clearly stated what claim is the most pressing in the article. It is also written at WP:3O. I don't care about Repovž and Cirman at the head of the DNS, as it only confirms that DNS is a leftist society. And regarding your doubts whether I'm being an honest actor here, please note that you should assume good faith. -TadejM ^{my talk} 03:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: At this point, I'm mostly addressing any third parties that may wish to evaluate your claims and mine.

"as it only confirms that DNS is a leftist society" Alright, so the bulk of SLO journalists are dishonest political actors that overwhelmingly choose unprofessional and untrustworthy collegues as their highest representatives. You must then obviously agree that most established/prominent SLO media organisations and their newsrooms are in fact leftist political activist institutions and are therefore not reliable sources, either. Just be honest and go ahead an say so and stop gaslighting us so that your overarching claim can be evaluated on it's merits. By the way, on the other hand, you yourself cited ZNP as one of those "outside people and organisations have validly raised their doubts" - ZNP is quite unabashedly a right-wing counterhegemonical journalists' association (which also claims that Nova24TV is a legitimate news organisation and that most SLO MSM aren't - so be consistent), so you clearly don't mind ideological "societies", you just personally agree with right-wing ones.

As to the good faith principle: I did assume it, but you've since proved again and again there isn't any on your part, and I think this will be evident to any neutral observer.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

P.S.: Here's a recent statement from ZNP about the state of the SLO media space:

   [...] The media sphere is characterized by strong political unbalance since the majority of the journalists and editors more or less openly favor the political left option.
   [...]
   [...] It is a fact that in Slovenia the political forces which were in decision making positions in the times of Yugoslavia along with their ideological followers, (re)emerged after the Independence war and after the fall of the dictatorship from the previous Communist regime. It is not uncommon that the journalists, who were before 1991 formally in the service of the only authorized party - the Communist Party- during the previous undemocratic regime, became journalists, editors, and executives of many media after 1991. Some of them who took over were even agents of the former Yugoslavian secret police.
   Another specific of the Slovenian media space is that the left-wing political forces control most of the country's capital and therefore directly influence media policy, to which the public broadcaster RTV Slovenia is no exception. It has become increasingly evident that the dominant media have been following as closely as possible the political agenda of the left-wing parties and those that were in control in the previous undemocratic system.
   [...]
   [...]One common practice is the orchestrated dominant media launching of so-called "new faces", introduced by the left-wing political parties. Another is the uncritical willingness to support the interests of the left-wing political leaders, which is particularly outstanding in the Electoral confrontations. Topics discussed mostly follow the agenda-setting of the left-wing option. Another anomaly in the Slovene dominant media is the selection of guests on political TV and radio programs. The choice is in the strong disproportion between left and right-wing and independent political orientation of the guests.
   It is a rather common practice that the editors from dominant media tend to harass or even dismiss journalists, including members of our association, who act autonomously and professionally. On the other hand, those who are committed to the mainstream agenda are rewarded and gain more influence, despite severe slips and they are often in risky positions prone to corruption. The dominant media, under the control of the political left, have been often (ab)used for battling their opponents using false or fake news, which is very well documented in Jančič’s book.
   The profound lack of journalistic impartiality in the dominant media has become even more evident when in difficult times due to the outbreak of the COVID – 19, the government of Mr. Janez Janša took over. Much to our surprise the radical left-wing journalists along with the editors (including some of the most influential editors and journalists of national service RTV Slovenia ) frequently displayed their political views against the present government, mainly on the social networks and openly agitated against the new government. Least to say that such conduct is not very professional since we were in the middle of the government crisis (the previous has suddenly and quite unexpectedly stepped down) and health crisis.
    The work of those journalists and editors has not been focused on informing the public and offering impartial information, but they prefer to use spinning and other means, such as amplifying small slips of the government's officials or exaggerating unimportant information. Unfortunately, their media agenda is directed against the government and not so much to disseminate important information in the present situation regarding the health and economic crisis.
   The low professionalism of journalists and media producers in the dominant media has been mentioned already. Besides that, they are often highly politicized or even radicalized, many of them act as political activists or /and ideological agitators, promoting a particular ideology or political agenda, usually from the left political spectrum, on the various social media. It is also rather often that so-called dominant media, including public service RTV Slovenia, often respond in an orchestrated manner to events that ally them to left ideology. In that manner , they strongly affect the citizens' perceptions of the political and social situation in Slovenia and their evaluation of the policies, political actors and other stakeholders. The orchestration of dominant media and the lack of media pluralism consequently project a distorted media picture to the broad public. In the mentioned context it is particularly problematic the biased attitude of the public media, RTV Slovenia, the national broadcaster, which activities are funded by all of the taxpayers, regardless of their political or worldview.
   At the present moment, the broad public and the experts follow with the great interest strong polemics between the political actors who have been the victims of the dominant media lynch and the media workers that were actively involved. ZNP is not in favor of such polemics but emphasizes that to understand the media situation in Slovenia it is necessary to understand the historical events in Slovenia.
   The media ownership, lack of pluralism and low professionalism are not the only causes of the biased media in Slovenia. The anomaly is also in the System. For example, the Ministry of Culture has paid no or scarce attention to supporting independent media or independent journalists. In the previous one-party regime the journalists were classified as political workers and the pluralism was not allowed or it was sanctioned. Therefore there was no independent media.
   [...]
   The anomaly in the Slovene media space is a burning issue and to overcome the present situation several changes have to be introduced, but as expected most of them are not to the dominant media liking.[63]

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I was specifically critical ahout Mladina as it is the topic in question. However, it is true that there is a left-leaning stance in the Slovenian media landscspe and ZNP is quite right about what they have written.

If you really believe I am acting against WP:AGF, you should report me at WP:ANI. Let the community judge. Otherwise you should continue to assume good faith.

Please note that I may also report you if you continue with tendentious editing and insertion of unreliable sources. --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: Yes, and as I've said, this is blatant hypocrisy and lying by omission on your part since you're assailing the credibility of particular sources you apparently personally dislike based on criteria that can just as soon be generally applied, including to sources that you do like.

OK, well, it's settled then. You agree with the SLO right-wing criticism that all prominent SLO publications are unreliable leftist political activist publications. Nice to know where things stand.

Yes, please go ahead and report me and let's be done with it. I eagerly await a boomerang.

P.S.: I'm deeply disspirited by the fact that an editor such as yourself has admin credentials since you clearly don't merit them.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Jay, I'm used to personal attacks. Just go on and remember that this can be used as evidence in any potential discussion of user behaviour. In any case, if you really suffer so much, you may always request the privileges to be revoked as described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship. --TadejM ^{my talk} 15:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: As a matter of course, I try to abstain from lodging complaints myself as much as possible, however, I do strongly encourage you to do it yourself. I am quite confident I would be vindicated.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Jay Hodec. No. --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Jay Hodec. Another nice case of Mladina's standards of reporting.[64] Therefore as we see again and again, Mladina has been reporting untruths, using hate speech, and finding itself liable in court cases. Mladina on the left is quite comparable to Nova24 on the right. It can't be trusted as a single source for controversial claims and constructing a major part of an article. No amount of bashing Wikipedia administrators can change that.[65] --TadejM ^{my talk} 20:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: So they were convicted for protecting their anonymous source in SLO intelligence who would obviously be held liable professionally and criminally for leaking to the press if identified? Good for them. Though I do agree they may have been in breach of journalistic ethics if they didn't seek comment from the trio (I would like to hear Mladina's response to this, though).

By the way, this wasn't the last time Krkovič was "baselessly" implicated in an arms scandal. He successfully sued the state for damages for his "wrongful" conviction in the Patria affair (he was ultimately proved innocent by the statute of limitations). It's really sad to see how the Depala vas boys have been unjustly maligned again and again, I'm sure it's all without merit.

I'll be waiting for other editors to chip in. But you're free to let us know if you dig up any other 20 year old damages claims against Mladina.

Oh, and tell me when you get around to checking the additional sources for the "controversial claim" I provided you.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Jay Hodec, a number of other cases and discussions of Mladina's hateful speech were already brought forward above. That is enough for any reasonable person to understand that Mladina finds itself in breach of journalistic ethics again and again. For you, of course, citing the defense used by its lawyer is the most natural and convincing thing to do even if the judge found it had no merits.

I will have a look at the source that you mention and will use it to edit the article if it is of any good. However, I will add the following to the article to make it more balanced:

• There is no strong far-right party in Slovenia.[66]
• An expert on extremisms stated that people associate such politics with Janša/SDS, which limits its reach.[67]
• The youth intensely dislikes extremism in Slovenia.[68]

Cookie for Jay

I hope this will make the article better represent the actual situation in Slovenia. I understand though that the said will cause you great anguish as it goes against what Mladina says, so please have a cookie to soothe yourself. You know, the world does not start and end with Mladina. Though it certainly seems it does for you given your excessive citation of Mladina in articles and far-fetched defense here.

To state the unavoidable, I wonder if there is some financial incentive about Mladina on your part. You should disclose if it is. --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: Yes, you haphazardly pasted some links to documents that I don't think even say what you think they say, let alone prove what you think they prove.

Mladina has from the very beginning stated it obtained the information from sources in intelligence that wish to remain anonymous. This was not a post-hoc justification:

   Po naših podatkih pa je Sova pri svojem delu v zvezi s to zadevo na prisluhih prepoznala tudi Darka Njavra in Toneta Krkoviča. Robert Suhadolnik pa je bil v tistem času zadolžen za varnost vojašnice, iz katere so orožje ukradli.[69]

I totally endores the additions you suggest making to the article, and also think they are completely consistent with the present content of the article. I do however somewhat question the use of an interview as a source, since it still expresses only the opinion of the expert, and I tried to stick to statements of fact. I should also just reiterate I purposely abstained from covering party politics as such when writing the article (otherwise a section could be dedicated to parties with far-right leanings: SNS and DOM, and the role of SDS in coopting far-right movements which you have yourself alluded to). And finally, for the n-th time, the "far-fetched passage you find so objectionable refers merely to the regular attendance of foreign nationals at far-right events/social gatherings organised by their Slovenian counterparts due to the permissiveness of the authorities to such events (as compared to e.g. Germany/Austria) - that is all; the sentence even explicitly states: "Though neo-Nazi groups are not on the whole more common than in other countries and represent a relatively low security risk, [...]". The claim is further corroborated in other sources, and the quote itself is from a parliamentary investigative committeee report, not Mladina itself. I have already explained the "overreliance" on Mladina (open archive at the time of writing, and extensive coverage of the topic).

Ah, yes, of course I am well compensated for my efforts through an Udbomafia black budget funded by corrupt sales of medical supplies. Look, you'll see I worked on wiki articles about SLO media quite extensively because I find the subject interesting (are you suggesting I'm being compensated by Necenzurirano, too - including for the not so very flattering section I authored in their wiki article which you yourself cited?). In fact, when I get around to this expanding wiki articles on this topic in the future, I may use some of the sources you've cited to expand the articles, including litigation concerning Mladina (some of which you'll note I had already mentioned in on their wiki entry).

And, if I deign to address your false equivalence with Nova24TV:

• Mladina is a left-wing magazine that does investigative reporting; Nova24TV is a de facto party publication that does propaganda toeing the SDS party line.
• Mladina publishes satirical columns comparing family photos of a propagandistic SDS politician and propaganda minister Goebbles; Nova24TV publishes openly antisemitic[70][71]/homophobic[72][73]/racist[74]/violent insurrectionist[75]/.. content as news.
• Mladina is owned by shady holding companies; Nova24TV was first owned by SDS politicians, members, and allies, and later additionally also by Orban's business cronies (until just after SDS lost this year's parliamentary elections).
• Mladina's reporters are journalists in goods standing with their peers; Nova24's journalists are often just about 1 rung higher than Macedonian fake news factory workers.

Oh, and as to "admin bashing"; I'm refering specifically to your line of argumentation, and to your endorsement of the lying liberal mainstream media narrative which flies in the face of all wiki source standards. This narrative is familiar in other countries where most English-language news sources recognised as perennial on wiki are being discredited by with this same argument. I would expect a veteran admin to know better.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's examine this.

"I don't think even say what you think they say, let alone prove what you think they prove." Could you please be more specific? I don't get what you're objecting to. Are you saying that the judge did find their defense to have merit? The judgement certainly does not show that. And regarding your claim that "this was not a post-hoc justification," did you notice that this defense about an anonymous source from SOVA was only brought forward after the claim had already been brought to the court?

"It still expresses only the opinion of the expert, and I tried to stick to statements of fact." Fine, but this is a published scholarly opinion of a notable expert in a reliable source and we obviously should cite such statements (by attributing them). See WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I also find it strange not to include party politics when reporting on politics in a certain country. Political parties are an indispensable part of politics.

Could you please elaborate on the relation between "gatherings/parties/concerts" and "international activity and cooperation of extremists"? I'm opposed against any extremisms, but to me, this sounds solely as a statement to malign somebody. If they use parties for making political plans and plans for action, how is it then possible that such groups and gatherings represent low-security risk? If they don't gather to make plans, why is it then even necessary to report it in such a way and mention this as part of politics as we certainly don't care about private people having parties. Politics is "a set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups".

"Overreliance" is hard to understand when there are other news sources and scholarly articles available online. I've found them with a quick Google search. So you're saying there was no other incentive for using such a number of links to Mladina of all the possible sources than "interest in far-right politics in Slovenia"? Could you please be precisely clear on this?

"Mladina is a left-wing magazine that does investigative reporting". It also has a strong political stance, occassionally reports disinformation and uses hateful speech. I have already provided the links to the many claims where they lost precisely for this reason, but can gather them in one place if required. The satirical columns about Grims that you mention have been found by the Constitutional Court to have crossed the permissible boundaries. Mladina certainly is no angel.[76][77]

Can you find an independent reliable source for the claim that Nova24 is a "de facto party publication that does propaganda toeing the SDS party line"? I would not be surprised if this was true in view of the recent change of ownership but remains only a speculation as long as there is no source. The company still presents itself as an independent media. [I've now added the claim by Milosavljević]

As to the Mladina's and Nova24's journalists, there are good and bad apples in both media. As is written here: "Do Mladina's journalists often vioate the ethical code? This can be only partly confirmed. All investigative journalists are by no means heroes, nor are they all villains." or here: "For me, there are only good and bad. I do not mind if I know that I am reading a left- or right-leaning media, there is nothing wrong with that, but I do mind if I am reading a bad, flat, false and manipulated journalistic story."[78] For example a recent one from Mladina:[79] "Article 1 of the Code obliges journalists to verify the accuracy of the information they have gathered and to avoid errors. [...] The Arbitral Tribunal finds that the journalist did not properly verify the information gathered. He also failed to apologise for the errors, as required by Article 1. The Tribunal therefore finds a violation of Article 1." or this one: "The journalist violated Article 3 of the Code of Conduct, as the claim that the Lafarge d.d. cement plant is "the biggest polluter in Zasavje" is unconfirmed information and speculation, to which the journalist did not draw attention." (The claim was found untrue.) There are other cases both for Mladina and Nova.

Regarding my endorsement of ZNP's statement, I don't know whether it is true that there has been a continuity from the past regime. For the most part the media report correctly, but they have a noticeable bias regarding certain topics: in reporting about the government, covid-19, Ukraine, etc. In addition, I don't think there was any good reason for daring me about my status or calling me a liar. And I find it incongruent from you to call me a "veteran administrator" and thank me in such a context. Have a nice day. --TadejM ^{my talk} 04:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

In conclusion, I would agree that Mladina is a level or two higher than Nova24. Perhaps Insider would be a better comparison (it was also criticised by Oštro,[80][81], but I can't find the articles at the moment - were they deleted?). However, in view of above, Mladina is by no means a very reliable magazine and using solely Mladina to construct the majority of an article risks introducing severe factual mistakes and bias. In addition, the sentence mentioned at WP:3O needs to be rephrased and complemented with information from other sources as it currently raises eyebrows and questions. --TadejM ^{my talk} 07:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow this discussion as I'm interested in far-right (and far-left) sourcing, but the formatting is making that difficult. User:Jay Hodec, the code font on quoted sections is not easy to read; consider using Template:Talk quote inline and also translate to English where applicable. User:TadejM, I think I'm reading your replies correctly but they are consistently unindented by 2 spaces, making it appear that you're adding multiple replies to Jay Hodec from days before; you should always add 1 more colon (:) when replying, or simply turn on quick replying in your preferences (Preferences > Editing > Enable quick replying) and use that instead. Woodroar (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@TadejM: I was saying that your sources on purported hate speech may not say what you think they say; am I right to assume based on a cursory overview of the college theses etc. you provided as evidence of Mladina's penchant for "hate speech" that your overview was even more cursory than mine before you adduced them as definitive proof?

The claim about the SOVA source was from an article published when the filing of the lawsuit was announced; it recapitulated the previous (ostensibly libelous) reporting. I hope we can safely assume they really did mention this in the reporting in question and didn't make this up out of full cloth there and then as a defense strategy - or am I supposed to pay for the access to the archive and hunt down quotes about sourcing from the original articles? As to the court's decision - I do think Mladina was very likely in the right here by not acceding to unmask an anonymous intelligence source, thus putting journalistic ethics above legal risk. And I'm sure you're disposed to think that Mladina just did some sloppy reporting (or even made the whole thing up) and then tried to cover up after the fact, but I hope we can at least agree a ruling hinging on a court's demand to interrogate an anonymous source from intelligence (who probably broke the law by leaking to the media and is therefore the least likely to concur to testify on Mladina's behalf) is a poor gauge of the veracity of Mladina's reporting.

I'm not categorically opposed to including the claim from the Delo interview or anything, I just have a predilection for avoiding interviews as sources and thus mixing opinion (even from experts) with dry matter of fact statements from secondary sources. Once you lower the bar to allow opinions (even from experts), the article can quite quickly get clogged with competing takes from this expert or the other.

As I've said, I've been contemplating revisiting the article, doing a more comprehensive review of sources and also including a /* Political parties */ section. However, the issue of far-right parties is rather more fraught and controversial than focusing on groups and movements, so it might be better to defer this content to the /* Ideology */ sections of the parties' articles and just include a brief general summary on the "Far-right politics ..." articles, if mentioning party politics at all.

Extremist groups/movements are not necessarily actively violent extremists; the far-right has/had hitherto not engaged in significant extremist activity in SLO. Even so, you can also interpret the passage to imply that continued cooperation can eventually lead to increased risk of violent extremism if it is allowed to continue simmering (consider the recent German examples regarding Reichsburgers/Day X). Gatherings can also facilitate the exchange of ideas and strategies - including on recruitment and "meta-political" strategies (as the "European New Right" likes to call it), and help them consolidate the groups/movements and their cooperation, strengthening them in the long-term. The passage is actually structured in such a way as to directly address your previous objection: while private neo-Nazi events/gatherings have been common in SLO, however, neo-Nazis themselves are not more numerous (as you seemed to (mis)construe the sentence), nor have they proved a significant security risk.

Regarding the use of "far-right politics": wiki uses the standard title of "Far-right politics in [country]" for the series of articles about the global far-right; the articles can encompass an overview of social movements/groups as well as political parties and prevalence of far-right actors in institutions. Perhaps a better title would be "The far-right in [country]" or "Far-right groups and movements in Slovenia", but I thought it better to stick to "tradition".

Look, I didn't have any hidden agenda and in fact feared this objection. These were simply the sources I came across when writing the article, and I don't think there's anything wrong with Mladina as a source so I didn't go about looking for a second source for every piece of information from Mladina. Mladina may be less prominent in Google searches now than at the time of writing as is has since paywalled its archive. Your free to add additional references to existing content as well as add additional content based on extra sources.

A strong editorial stance does not disqualify a publication from being a reliable source. The WSJ also has a strong editorial stance, for example, yet it's recognised as a perennial source. US publications recognised as reliable sources regularly endorse candidates. And I'd be a bit more circumspect about using the term disinformation (since that implies deliberate false reporting).

Yes, I'm sorry, you're correct, the SLO Constitutional Court already adjudicated the Grims v. Mladina case, so it's awaiting appeal at the ECHR (which has already ruled in favour of Mladina in a remarkably similar previous case). However, this is a disagreement about the definition of freedom of speech in the European context. I'm sure the New Yorker would be free to publish a satirical cartoon e.g. comparing Trump's family to a Nazi's family without it being taken off the perennial sources list on wiki. Mladina's stance on freedom of expression should not be pertinent to a discussion of the reliability of it's journalistic work. I do however find it highly ironic that you try to back up your "no angels" claim by citing statements from a right-wing party (including Grims himself - surely not an impartial arbitor here) as reliable sources on this matter, while at the same time complaining about Mladina's partisanship.

Didn't you previously object to Mladina's editorial standards? Isn't it the editors' (and ultimately the publications') job to correct/weed out bad journalists or at least their bad practices? Anyway, I completely agree that NČR rulings are a good indicator of a publication's reliability, and I tentatively accept the rulings that you adduced. However, to actually arrive at a comparative reliability for various publications, we would first have to establish how much original reporting they publish - more precisely, how much investigative/watchdog reporting (since comparing e.g. clickbait summarising social media posts of prominent personalities to muckracking reporting is comparing apples to oranges), and if their infractions are thus more frequent and/or more severe than those of comparable publications in a set time period, etc. You'll also notice that there have apparently been 3 cases where NČR ruled against Mladina in two decades, whereas Nova24TV accrued considerably more condemnations in only 5 years.

I'm sorry, but the ZNP statement clearly makes the sweeping allegation that that the "dominant media" organisations engage not only in deeply biased and politicised reporting (for which alone you deemed Mladina fit to be entirely disqualified as a reliable source), but even that they regularly engage in intentional, politically-motivated false reporting (see excerpt below). This is tantamount to saying that e.g. Trump is "quite right" about the lying liberal mainstream media being fake news, and, in so doing, effectively going against most wiki community decisions about ENG language Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. And I still hold that such a contention is/should be beneath an admin.

It is a rather common practice that the editors from dominant media tend to harass or even dismiss journalists, including members of our association, who act autonomously and professionally. On the other hand, those who are committed to the mainstream agenda are rewarded and gain more influence, despite severe slips and they are often in risky positions prone to corruption. The dominant media, under the control of the political left, have been often (ab)used for battling their opponents using false or fake news, which is very well documented in Jančič’s book.

I don't find that SLO media has been less willing to publish critical reporting about left-of-centre goverments than about Janša's government. However, a certain swath of SLO right-wing media has consistently pushed the narrative that critical reporting about left-of-centre governments is fair game because they're "actually bad", whereas reporting critically about right-of-centre governments is unjustified because they're "doing good work" and reporting anything else constitutes partisan propaganda, media activism, and "media assassinations" - the media should ostensibly instead focus on what the (right-of-centre) government is doing right - especially in such difficult times.

Unfortunately, their media agenda is directed against the government and not so much to disseminate important information in the present situation regarding the health and economic crisis.

Personally, I found SLO media's reporting about COVID-19 and the conflict in Ukraine to be generally in line with expert opinion and reporting of foreign media.

I specifically accused you of lying by omission and dishonesty/hypocrisy after you repeatedly failed to address inconsistencies or faults in your line of argumentation that I repeatedly pointed out, instead just reiterating the original assertions. I still don't think you've addressed most, e.g. why Mladina's ownership structure is disqualifying, yet not that of e.g. Delo (despite evidence to the same effect from the same Pod črto investigative project that you youself cited to back up your claims). You just moved on.

Just to reiterate, I think Mladina's original/investigative reporting is generally reliable and does not need to be cross-referenced with additional sources as a matter of course. Still waiting for you to check the additional sources for the 3O passage (or even find some corroborating evidence yourself).

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding hate speech and Grims, see e.g. [82] where experts describe such reporting as hate speech. As stated by the communicologist Peter Lah, "As regards the use of the photograph, it can be said that it was used in a completely different context from the one in which it was taken, and that the authors of the Mladina article intended to defame Grims," he said. He also pointed out that both Goebbels' and Grims' children had been abused - Goebbels by their father and Grims by Mladina magazine. Even the Ombudsman in Slovenia started a process against Repovž at the Journalists Court of Honour and won it.[83] I'm sure though that the ECHR will adjucidate completely differently (sarcasm). (Or this report on private doctors. Though it is not aimed at a certain person, I still find it highly ideological, objectionable and insulting.).

Regarding Krkovič etc., the High Court even raised the damages from 5000 to 8000 euros.[84] "It should be noted that this is a precedent in our judiciary, as the courts have not awarded such high damages to victims in media cases before."[85] Here is some more content on the judgement.[86] It is for example stated that they did not ask for comment the defamed persons and did not use conditionals (as would be expected in such reporting). I find it funny that you say Mladina was "very likely in the right here" and also don't believe that the ruling was "hinging on a court's demand to interrogate an anonymous source", or there must be something severely wrong with Slovenian courts.

Regarding media bias, there has been a report about left-wing media being significantly more prominent in Slovenia. Please see this report by the Faculty of Media in Ljubljana. I guess the researchers must be Trumpists too. Regarding Ukraine and covid, in my opinion certain media give too much prominence to Russian views [87] [88] and have by politicising the pandemic contributed to non-complaince with precautionary measures at the height of the pandemic.[89] [90] Anyway. This is not precisely on Mladina, so I will not further delve into this.

Regarding the ownership, the ownership of Mladina is non-transparent while the ownership of Delo is known. The ownership transparency is one of the factors that contribute to the general trustworthiness of media. I consider Delo a reliable source though they have fail occasionally too. Of course if there is some known conflict of interest regarding Delo, it should be taken into consideration when choosing the relevant source for an article. Here, we were discussing Mladina, so I did not focus on Delo. I would prefer this conversation stays focused on Nova and Mladina. Regarding editorial standards and the editors' (and ultimately the publications') job to correct/weed out bad journalists or at least their bad practices. Yes, of course this is their job. Mladina has evidently failed to do so on several occasions.

In short, due to the editorial standards, the often inflammatory manner of Mladina's reporting, and the already mentioned judgements (by courts and the honorary tribunal), I consider Mladina's investigative reporting to be generally less reliable than for example Delo's and believe it should be cross-referenced with additional sources. As I have stated above, it is better than Nova but still not very reliable. I will appreciate if you revisit the article, do a more comprehensive review and include diverse sources and also include a /* Political parties */ section. However, you should preferably cite academic articles and the opinions of established experts, cross-check Mladina with other sources and be particularly careful regarding the sourcing of any accusations against living persons while doing so. Interviews are a reliable source if the claims are attributed to the interviewee and of course they can be put forward as a view of a significant minority as per WP:NPOV unless there is evidence the view is more widespread. The far-right in [country] would certainly be a better title. --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me, as someone who is generally familiar with the Slovenian media landscape but who only speaks Slovenian very poorly, that we are discussing a bad source and an imperfect one. It is my impression that Nova24tv is comparable to Fox News at best and more likely to Breitbart/similar, and that it is between "use with great caution" and generally unreliable. Mladina appears to me to be more generally comparable to Vox, or perhaps Mother Jones. According to WP:RSP, these comparison points are both reliable sources, but require care for political topics. I suggest that the same may apply to Mladina. As usual, opinion pieces should be considered separately from news pieces. Delo has also been mentioned above. I regard Delo as being the paper of record for Ljubljana and more generally for Slovenia. One should keep in mind that the greater Ljubljana area has a population of about half a million, while all of Slovenia is around 2 million. Thus, Delo might sometimes bear more resemblance to the Youngstown Vindicator (another newspaper serving a metropolitan area of about a half million) than to the New York Times. Further comment that notable topics are generally covered by _multiple_ independent reliable sources, so it should not ever be necessary to build an article that is sourced solely to Mladina (nor to any other single source). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Russ. Thank you for chiming in. This is a reasonable and fair assessment. I agree that Nova24 should be used with great caution, as they have a poor record of hate speech and fabricated reporting. However, we should also be cautious with Mladina. It has surprised me upon the review of claims against them (both in the court and at the journalists honorary tribunal) how many times they have been found in violation of journalism ethics due to poor fact-checking. For this reason, I believe it is much good to cross-check them. While this may not be critical for some general reporting, it certainly is when discussing accusations of various people and organisations. --TadejM ^{my talk} 11:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@TadejM: Yet again: a satirical column is NOT "reporting". But I'm glad we at least aren't adjudicating the reliability of Mladina based on Lavrič's comics. And as repugnant as one may find a (counter)cultural publication's satire, or comics, or culture, or even comment section, this should not impact one's judgement of it's journalism section - I would gladly advocate the same for e.g. Nova24TV if they had a reputable and clearly delineated straight news section. And I remember the brouhaha about the "amphibian" Mladina cover page - I seem to recall various physicians' professional organisations that expressly advocate for the interests of both public and private sector physicians (bringing them in conflict with the stance of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption which has condemned such employment arrangements as representing a conflict of interest while using the exact same term[91]) being the loudest in condemning this in my opinion rather inocuous cover, but I digress (see above argument). Once more, I must point out the irony of you condemning Mladina by referencing a piece by a (former) Nova24TV journalist (though Perš was admittedly someone who most approached something resembling an investigative journalist there - his chumminess with the very subjects of the wiki article in question notwithstanding[92][93]).

Regarding your sarcasm:

"Ustavno sodišče je pritožbo Mladine zavrnilo, zato se je tednik obrnil na Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice (ESČP) v Strasbourgu. [...] Sodišče je razsodilo, da bo morala Slovenija Mladini povrniti znesek, ki ga je ta plačala Prijatelju, in tudi vse nastale sodne stroške."[94]

I have said that I did find the part about Mladina ostensibly not asking the defendants for comment troubling (I assume the lack of conditional clauses may be a second-order infraction hinging on the court's ruling that the reporting could not be proved factual), however, I haven't seen Mladina's response to the court's ruling, and don't really understand how determining professoinal ethics infractions can be in the purview of both the judicial system and the professional association (NČR) (is the court competent to adjudicate this here?). Let me also remind you that Anuška Delić was herself meanwhile prosecuted for publishing reporting about neo-Nazism in SLO ostensibly based on leaked intelligence information and pressured to reveal her source(s), so I'm sorry if I don't have that much faith in the SLO court system's respect for journalism and journalists' professional ethical obligations.[95]

The "Media landscape study" you cite was indeed conducted by the political right's counterhegemonical warriors (some of the same that head the ZNP) - the report was commissioned by Janša's government, and one of the trio of "media experts" that coauthored the study quoted in the piece you adduced is a regular contributor to Nova24TV. The report has been criticised as methodologically flawed. Anyway, anyone who is half-way up to date on SLO politics knows that the private university and the study's authors are allied with SDS, and that this "scientific study" served not only as a cudgel for the Janša gov't to bludgeon the "oppositional media" with, but morover also as the government's crude pork-barrel 24.000€ reward to its allies in "civil society" (how many authors of the study have been appointed to the board of the public broadcaster by the former gov't again?). For more on the study and its authors, let me recommend you this Necenzurirano piece:[96]. As to the authors of the study and Trump - I'll just leave you with this 2016 piece where one of the coauthors reveals his preconcieved notions about media bias in SLO and the U.S.:

"Kdor je v obdobju pravkar končane predvolilne kampanje spremljal ameriško medijsko krajino, se je počutil, kot da je v – Sloveniji. Če so do zdaj tisti mediji, ki izhajajo iz liberalnih nazorskih izhodišč, vzdrževali vsaj načelno korektnost pri obravnavi političnih tekmecev, tokrat o njej ni bilo ne duha ne sluha.

V eminentnih dnevnih časopisih, kakršna sta New York Times in Washington Post, je bilo pravzaprav vsak dan objavljenih nekaj člankov, v katerih se je neusmiljeno udrihalo čez Trumpa.

Elektronski mediji pri tem niso bili prav veliko drugačni. Brez kakršnekoli distance so se postavili v službo vladajočega demokratskega esteblišmenta. Medtem ko so vsako Trumpovo napako, vsako nespametno dejanje, vsako bedasto izjavo, četudi je nastala pred več kot desetletjem, napihnili do nezavesti, so sporne besede in dejanja Clintonove ignorirali ali jih celo opravičevali."[97]

On COVID, you again cite Nova24TV as proof (not really an impartial source here), as well as a "civil iniciative" of anti-vaxxers and health conspiracy theorists complaining about hate speech directed against COVID "skeptics" (again leading me to wonder whether you've actually even checked what you're adducing as your evidence). Anyway, I don't really think anyone expressing COVID/vaxx "skeptical" views should be banished from appearing in the media - especially interviews and the yellow pages however much I may disagree with them (and I don't think they were in other countries, either, nor that they were particularly more prominent in SLO), but this can in any case be chalked up to sensationalism and yellow journalism rather than unreliable reporting (since it's still presented as opinion while straight news is in line with the scientific view). And critically covering a government's stewardship during a pandemic should obviously be fair game.

And, regarding the Ukraine conflict coverage, I don't think an honest investigation of Russian allegations regarding neo-Nazis in Ukraine is tantamount to endorsing the Russian line (though I have been rubbed the wrong way by Sajovic's pieces before), or even a dishonest one if you can only point to a single piece/journalist (or even a couple), and not a systemic practice. And Putin's pronouncements etc. are obviously newsworthy and regularly reported by foreign media, too. I have however come across instances where e.g. RTV regurgitated reports from the Russian press that materiel donated by SLO to UA had been swiftly destroyed, which is obviously just Russian government propaganda intended to undermine support for further materiel donations (I'm sure they make bespoke reports for every individual country that donates materiel).

Delo's ownership structure has allowed its various owners to interfere with its editorial and journalistic independence on multiple occasions - this has been widely documented. And Delo is far from the only major publication where it's ownership structure is a concern - here's just one recent example:[98]. So, if you're trying to disqualify Mladina based on it's ownership, surely the reliability of Delo, POPTV/24ur, Večer, Dnevnik, Media24 etc. must also be brought into question. If not, Mladina shouldn't be, either. If you wish to conveniently sweep this fact under the rug as not pertinent to the discussion at hand, that's hypocrisy and lying by omission - as I've repeatedly noted.

If I'm not mistaken, there are 3 instances where the NČR ruled against Mladina in 20 years, and you've mentioned 3 such court cases (I leave the latter to be judged on their merits); it might be good to do a similar review for other prominent publications to put this in context.

As a general rule, I try to either leave out serious "accusations" against individuals or organisations that are not widely reported, or at the very least do in-line attribution of the source of infomration.

I'd finally just like to note that even Jacobin is recognised as a reliable/perennial source, even though they - as far as I know - do little original reporting (mostly publishing reflective essay-style articles) and as far as I can tell their opinion/commentary is not clearly delineated from reporting.

I obviously agree that first-tier publications are e.g. Delo, Dnevnik, Večer, STA, RTV, Finance, N1, Žurnal, 24ur, SiOL (though with big apostrophes for many of these due to evidence of editorial non-independence from ownership). I'd say Mladina, and Svet24 are second-tier; Reporter, and Slovenske novice being third-tier (or 2nd-3rd); and Nova24TV and Insajder bottoming out the list/barrel.

I hope/think I will eventually get around to refurbishing this article, though I don't know when exactly this will be. Your concerns are duly noted - I like to add multiple unrelated references to individual claims in wiki articles anyway. I'd of course prefer to use more scholarly sources (excluding college theses), but for current affairs you'd be hard-pressed to find any.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Since you've cited countless opinionated pieces to bolster your claims, let me just leave you with this commentary from Boris Vezjak in Mladina about the first time a Janša's government commissioned a "scientific study of the media landscape" from the "usual suspects":[99] (I hope you'll enjoy their scientific recommendations about how to remedy the unfortionate situation as much as I have).

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A satirical column is not reporting. Ok, true. However, this column that was adjudicated to be insulting and below the journalist standards does show the general attitude of the magazine towards the people that have different political views than the editors. I don't believe it is possible to fully separate reporting from other sections. There is only one Mladina and it has only one board of editors. Mladina's reporting and satirical writing reflect the same house mentality.

Regarding the "amphibian" cover, you evidently are not acquainted with the general medical situation in Slovenia where private medical work has been alleviating at least partly the burden of state healthcare which is unsustainable as it currently stands. In my opinion, it will not be possible to reform Slovenian medical system without allowing doctors to also work in their private practices. Yes, there may have been some abuses that were highlighted by the KPK but it was focused on specific groups such as doctors using the public healthcare equipment and those that advertise their business at their public post, not on all who are also active in private practices in their free time as Mladina did. The KPK mentioned that "the task of regulation is to seek a modus vivendi between public and private interests." Mladina's claim that private doctors cause queues in the public system is nonsense as the truth is just the opposite.

I find it shoddy that you are equating a photo depicting an opposition's politicians, wife and children as Goebbels and his family with a journalist's statement "Prijatelj je svojo imenitno domislico pospremil s kavarniško mimiko, ki naj bi verjetno nazorno ilustrirala pravoverno pojmovanje nekega tipičnega poženščenega in prenarejenega pederuharja, v resnici pa je izpadla kot normalni domet cerebralnega bankrotiranca" [Prijatelj accompanied his brilliant quip with a café mime, which was probably meant to illustrate the orthodox conception of a typical effeminate and overworked faggot, but in reality came off as the normal range of a cerebral bankrupt.]. These two are not moral equivalents. The first is a direct journalist attack on some family, while the other is an expressive condemnation of someone's insulting statement. It is also subpar to compare the Krkovič and co. case to Delić's case. Delić's case was brought forward by the prosecutor's office due to alleged disclosure of confidential documents and the process was stopped before any conclusion.[100] In Mladina case, the court never requested Mladina to reveal some name, but only adjudged that there were no verifiable sources for the published allegiations, that the claims were not checked with the claimants and that some unverifiable statements were published as facts. As the historian Grieser Pečar said:

"Among the ethical principles, truthfulness must be paramount: the journalist must check the facts."[101]

It is regrettable that the conflict of interest was not disclosed, however can you provide some research or independent confirmation showing that there is no prevalence of political bias in Slovenia? See for example also this report by the independent Mirovni inštitut which support the view that the media do not report neutrally:

"When asked whether they think that the media in Slovenia are impartial when reporting on political developments, only 13.3% of respondents answered in the affirmative and 61.7% in the negative."[102]

Or see for example this comment by the former US ambassador in Slovenia Johnny Young::

"The mainstream print media clearly express and acknowledge a left-of-centre bias. Slovenian history, the combination of communism and Tito's concept of 'self-management' have shaped journalists who generally distrust governments and who are quick to label information as propaganda, jealously guarding their independence, and who perceive the adoption of highly critical positions as natural in their supervisory role and, in a sense, as an opportunity to make a name for themselves."[103]

See also the above-cited article by Griesser-Pečar.

Anyway, these people must all be Trumpists.

I find it out of scope to further discuss covid and Ukraine under this heading. If I ever get to writing on this in the article Mass media in Slovenia, rest assured I will look for better sources. I insist though that the media have not contributed positively to the adherence to the recommended measures for covid. In a statement by M. Krek, the former head of the National Institute of Public Health:

"The opposition refuses to work with the current government. On the contrary, it is doing everything in its power to prevent a successful confrontation with covid. Virtually every measure meets with opposition resistance and is negatively evaluated, portrayed in public as inadequate, currently the PCT approach or the public invitation to Parliament of a man who has publicly mocked the wearing of a protective mask on television."[104]

PCT was found to be highly efficient by the Institute "Jožef Stefan".[105]

Similarly for Ukraine, I frequently notice sympathy for Russian viewpoints (Insider being the most extreme here, but also STA and others).

Regarding the ownership, the fundamental difference between the ownership of Mladina and the ownership of Delo or other media is that the former is unknown and the latter is known.

"It is impossible to take steps to address excessive media concentrations and conflicts of interest without the tools to identify the owners."[106] This "prevents citizens from adequately understanding the content of the posted information and from critically accessing the consumption of certain media content."[107]

For the said reasons, I would assess Mladina as third-tier. I am glad that we agree regarding the first-tier media (Delo has recently lost some credibility in my opinion though particularly as they have reported on some fringe science).

I look forward to you getting around to refurbishing the articles as discussed and adding multiple unrelated references to individual claims in the tagged wiki articles. Also including a /* Political parties */ section in 'Far-right politics in Slovenia' and preferably citing first-tier sources and the opinions of established experts. Also cross-checking Mladina with other sources. This will be a major step forward. Some 3 months should be enough time to get this done, otherwise I may take it up. --TadejM ^{my talk} 05:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@TadejM: Satire, cover page illustrations and cartoons have nothing to do with "journalistic standards" or journalism in general. At this point, you're basically saying that you don't trust Mladina because you personally find them uncouth (what respectable journalist would associate with such filth?).

Neither your opinion about the state and workings of SLO healthcare system nor mine is of any concern here. I'm just pointing out to you that if using the "amphibian" analogy should in itself be considered some sort of racist hate speach against physicians or whatever, then the KPK and many others should be equally faulted.

As the article you cite clearly explains, the court did not dismiss the Delić; instead, the state prosecutor did so after public outcry. Therefore, we don't know which way the court would have ruled, however, the fact that the court did not dismiss the charges outright can be indicative in itself. In the Mladina case, I read it as the court quite likely punishing a publication for sticking to their professional ethics by not burning their source(s) (who could then face professional and criminal repercussions) to the court.

You're again citing a piece by a conservative commentator in a conservative opinion magazine (Griesser Pečar) that claims that the SLO dominant media are actually political activists spreading "fake news" to undermine right-wing governments and support left-wing governments (see the Časnik piece you've cited). The (two decades old) embassy cable similarly claims that SLO media are unreliable and unprofessional in general. So again: which one is it - are the major SLO media generally reliable, or are they the lying liberal MSM spreading fake news???

And as I've said at the very beginning, I do think that in SLO as well as in most other developed countries, journalists tend to lean to the liberal/left side politically, but I still think their reporting is generally reliable and in line with journalistic standards.

Not gonna go into an abstract/vague general discussion about Ukraine/COVID coverage.

The fundamental difference between the ownership of Delo and Mladina is that Delo's owners are known to have repeatedly interfered with editorial and journalistic independence, whereas there is no evidence this has been the case with Mladina's owners. I'll let others be the judges as to which is worse - opaque ownership, or known "concentrated" owners with known political and economic conflicts of interest who expressly dictate a publication's coverage. I recommend you go ahead and read the rest of the investigations from Pod črto's media ownership poject.

The science sections of non-scholarly periodicals are not reliable sources for wiki anyhow.

I rate Mladina as less reliable mostly for their editorialising and somewhat polemical writing style which can occassoinally make it hard to discern what the dry facts are (though the "first-tier" publications have also been known to occasionally write in such a manner).

Look, as I've said, I don't really have time for editing (anything other than MED related articles) right now, and I certainly don't intent to work on your time schedule. As said - you're obviously free to expand and improve the article starting today if you like, I just don't agree with removing content because Mladina is used as the source.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Great. It will be enough for you to leave the articles alone while they get fixed. The issues have been tagged. Of course some content may get removed if it is dubious and only sourced to Mladina. Thank you for confirming that journalists tend to lean to the liberal/left side politically. I also think their reporting is in general reliable but as you say, not all media are of the same quality and there is not only reporting. Though Mladina is better than Nova24, it remains dubious as a source due to its editorialising and occasionaly insufficient fact-checking. Which has been confirmed in the court and in front of the journalist tribunal. --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@TadejM: I mean, I said as much at the very outset of our discussion (you free to check).

Of course there's not only reporting - but it's the only thing that's pertinent here in regards to source reliability. A good counterexample here would be the Wall Street Journal (re: "general attitude of the magazine towards the people that have different political views than the editor").

Again, court and professional association's rulings are a good indicator of reliability, but must be examined on their merits (specifically the court rulings) and taken in context (compare frequency and severity of infractions to other publications).

I'm just a bit concerned about your judiciousness as to what constitutes dubious claims (3O demand is still unanswered I think, and you clearly misconstrued the passage you specifically point to as objectionable).

Since I don't think we'll get any further here - how about we call it quits for now? I look forward to revising your revisions during the summer. Anyway, I'm off to try to somewhat improve the abominable state of WP:Anatomy articles - you're welcome to pitch in.

Take care. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

New York Times (Medical Claims)

While recently looking through the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page, I notices this under The New York Times summary:

"The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims."

My question and, depending on others opinions on the matter, request is that The New York Times have a warning about avoiding the source for scientific referencing and citations as we see with the likes of news and op-ed outlets such as Fox News (where we see a "(news excluding politics and science)" label, as well as a separate field for both exclusions), HuffPost (an "(excluding politics)" label and separate field), Insider (an "(excluding culture)" label and separate field), and Rolling Stone (a "(politics and society, 2011–present)" label and separate field for culture), as well as many more listed under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources?

I feel that, as Wikipedia is intended to be a fair an unbiased online encyclopedia, as it is overall, that NYT be treated in the same manner as other outlets? I'm sure this is a simple oversight, but I wanted to bring it to the forefront and see what more experienced editors than myself have to say.

UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

No mainstream newspaper should be taken as the ultimate source for novel scientific claim, but can be taken as reliable when covering science published in peer reviewed journals. Masem (t) 00:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed, but the question at hand is why NYT isn't labeled in a similar fashion to others of its likeness (separate fields/rows, warning symbols, etc.) UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Because the same thing applies to every such newspaper and news organization. The New York Times is being used as an example only because it is a typical mainstream newspaper: it is not being singled out as especially unreliable for medical claims. The same is true for the BBC, Times of India, Washington Post, Reuters etc. etc. We don't (or at least shouldn't) use any mainstream news organizations for medical claims. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). CIreland (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Generally, we rely on peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, etc. for medical claims, for a variety of very good reasons. But note, of course, that not everything touching on healthcare or science is a "medical claim." So that would be a judgment call based on the situation. Neutrality^talk 02:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Medical claims and science are two different arenas. Presumably a reason that Fox has a warning about science and NYT doesn’t is because Fox has so many climate denial claims. Anti-vaccine as well, but that’s medical, depending on how it's reported. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  I meant medical, not science... I don't know why I wrote that. That said, should there not be a warning or separate field for this, as we see with the other outlets? UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem that no newspaper should be the lone source for a medical claim. Usually newspapers such as The New York Times cites a source for the medical claims in their articles (excluding opinion pieces). If the NYT isn't citing a source for a medical claim it most likely doesn't belong on Wiki. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree as well, but I feel that every source of their level should be treated equally. For example if, say, Fox News has more warnings that NYT for similar violations, it should have the same restrictions and warnings. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fox News has more warnings because per community consensus, it has restrictions that don't apply to good media sources. The NYT currently does not have any such restrictions on its use. It only has the restrictions that apply to every other media source. It's unlikely to be useful to repeat these restrictions as warnings for every single media source we list. Actually I'm certain it will make the table more confusing if we add a new column for every single green media source we currently list to mention limitations on their use for medical information. If things change then yes, we should make clear that NYT has additional restrictions that do not apply to other media sources probably by adding a new column, but until that happens there's no point in discussing it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  But it DOES have a "warning", so I fell that, like other listed sources, it should have a no consensus/Marginally reliable, at the very least. Again, it's all about neutrality. I get that most of us seeing this understand what to do with this, but most editors are very novice, and any visual aid helps. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, it does not have any specific warning. Can you show me where a specific warning for the RfC was established in the RfC? I'm not going to read the entirety of the RfC, but from what I can tell it did not establish any specific restriction on the use of the NYT. The only thing it did establish is that we have existing consensus on the use of all media sources that was likely relevant to the particular issue being discussed. Note that the RfC is somewhat atypical of many RfCs on media sources. Although it was about the NYT, it was about a highly specific issue. Because it was about the RfCNYT it was felt useful to mention it in RSPS under the NYT summary which I'm not going dispute but this does not establish there is any warning unique to the NYT. As I said, as far as I can tell itthe RfC didn't establish any particular restriction or "warning" on the use of the NYT, instead it only established that we had existing consensus on limitations surrouding the use of all media sources for certain issues. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC) 09:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  @UnorthodoxyAC I agree that this would mostly help novice editors. However, I believe that most Wiki articles that contain medical claims are usually watched over well and other editors can help with any facts added and with reliable/unreliable sources. Like I said before, I would find it hard to believe that the NYT is not citing a source such as a medical journal, case study, etc. for a medical claim. I believe leaving it how it currently reads on WP:RSP suffices. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting on the Ukraine war

fair.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I'm a bit concerned about FAIR's reliability for topics related to war reporting in US media, particularly in this December 1 article about alleged warmongering on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The article seems a bit alarmist on the motives of US media companies, and FAIR has published similar articles in the past. While there are plausible concerns about the US media's stance on war topics, the red flag for me is that this page uses mostly left-wing sources, some of dubious reliability, to back its claims. The end, in particular, seems to veer toward a conspiratorial-style accusation that the US media are deliberately perpetuating the Ukraine war by acting to "censor and poison public discourse".

At this page, the following websites are linked in relation to the anti-war narratives on the Ukraine war and US media censorship of the matter, along with their status as listed on WP:NPPSG:

• Al Jazeera (RS)

  [108] About the Azov Regiment; FAIR accuses US media of omitting information related to AR's involvementin the Ukraine crisis, but does not give a source directly supporting this claim.

• Antiwar.com (not assessed)

  [109] About United States Strategic Command head Charles A. Richard warning that "the big one is coming"

• Axios (RS)

  [110] Speech by Antonio Guterres warning against "nuclear blackmail"

• Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (not assessed)

  [111] 2022 release about the most recent update to the Doomsday Clock

• Caitlin Johnstone's blog (not assessed, but definitely not RS)

  [112] Conspiratorial spin on an NBC News report about US officials admitting to using information warfare, even in the lack of hard evidence; says that the US aims "to shore up narrative control to strengthen its hegemonic domination of the planet".

• Common Dreams (not assessed)

  [113] About US media "cheerleading for US escalation in Ukraine"; FAIR article includes screenshot of lead

  [114] Narrative about alleged US involvement in the 2014 Ukrainian coup

  [115] Quoting the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

  [116] About anti-war protests against the Ukraine crisis; cited regarding climate change and the Ukraine war

  [117] Opinion piece about the necessity of a diplomatic solution

  [118] Poll by Data for Progress on behalf of Quincy Institute that most Americans are opposed to the US stategy on the Ukraine war

• Consortium News (non-RS)

  [119] Accuses Western media of "atrocity propaganda" by repeating an unverified story from a Ukrainian government official who was removed from her position; republished from blog of "rogue journalist" Caitlin Johnstone

• Declassified Australia (not assessed)

  [120] about a "covert online propaganda operation" from an unknown US-based entity

  [121] About an anti-Russia campaign by Twitter bots, "likely by pro-Ukrainian authorities", that emerged at the beginning of the war

  [122] A similar campaign

• Democracy Now! (no consensus)

  [123] Interview with Stephen F. Cohen criticizing NATO's foreign policy of relentless expansion toward Russia

• The Diplomat (RS)

  [124] 2014 report about threat of nuclear strikes to protect Crimea

• FAIR (no consensus)

  [125] Demonization of Putin by Western media

  [126] Similar to above; cited at same place as above

  [127] Similar to above; cited in same place as above two

  [128] About media censorship of narratives not consistent with pro-war US government officials, including anti-war narratives about how actions of NATO-aligned governments provoked what would eventually be the 2022 invasion of Ukraine

  [129] Most of the internal links to FAIR postings are similar to the above, so I won't commant any further on these.

  [130]

  [131]

  [132] About largely one-sided US media coverage on nuclear weapons (in general)

• The Intercept (RS)

  [133] About the capabilities of weapons sent by the US to the Ukraine war

• Los Angeles Times (RS)

  [134] Described as "moment of sanity" for this outlet

• Monthly Review (no consensus)

  [135] Accuses Google of censoring alternative news sites and reinforcing the establishment narrative, and thus the capitalist establishment itself, by downranking search results.

• The Nation (RS)

  [136] Article accusing both sides of threatening nuclear war

• The New Yorker (RS)

  [137] Describes John Mearsheimer's perspective that NATO-aligned actions are primarily responsible for the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion

• Newsweek (no consensus post-2013)

  [138] Ukraianin official removed from office over publishing unverified stories

• Real News Network (not assessed)

  [139] Accuses Ukraine of refusing to engage in diplomacy or otherwise de-escalate; screenshot of lead used by FAIR

• Reuters (RS)

  [140] A letter by progressive US Congresspeople calling for peace talks was withdrawn. According to FAIR, this indicates "the severity of the lockdown on public debate about war in the US", but I am not convinced that the official statements about the withdrawal reflect this claim.

• TomDispatch (not assessed)

  [141] Opinion piece by sports writer Robert Lipsyte about US cultural tendencies toward "home run" solutions, and is quoted in the article

• Twitter (non-RS)

  [142] Series of tweets by self-described entrepreneur Arnaud Bertrand, who runs a blog on traditional Chinese medicine, repeating the anti-NATO narrative of the attacks

  [143] A tweet by a James Melville (who does not match any Wikipedia article about people with that name) resharing a 2015 anti-NATO commentary by John Mearsheimer

  [144] Tweet by Ben Norton, for journalist with The Grayzone (deprecated), that the US is threatenign to use nuclear weapons.

• World Socialist Web Site (no consensus)

  [145] Accuses Google of censoring alternative news sites and reinforcing the establishment narrative by downranking search results, with a specific focus on official comments regarding WSWS itself. Most of the article links this to US imperialism, then devolves into anti-capitalist propaganda.

• YouTube (non-RS)

  [146] Video from The Hill (RS) about US efforts to derail the Minsk II agreement

• Print publications

  [147] Publisher listing for the book The Greatest Evil Is War by Chris Hedges

Prior RSN discussions about this source, which seems to be mixed but slightly leaning toward marginal reliability status:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#FAIR.org (July 2008)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_59#Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting,_Media_Research_Center,_Media_Matters_for_America,_Newsbusters (March 2010 RfC)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_the_F.A.I.R._website_and_reporters (April 2010)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_112#FAIR.org (December 2011–January 2012)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• FAIR definitely can't be used unattributed; i.e., it can't be used to support statements in Wikivoice. Conceivably, it could be used for statements of opinion given in-text attribution; in that context, due weight (rather than source reliability) would be the issue. In almost all contexts, FAIR's take would probably be undue weight. For example, the FAIR articles that are apologia for the Russia invasion is really not something that would not be appropriate to note, except perhaps in the articles on FAIR itself. Neutrality^talk 03:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a well-known and established organisation which has been criticised by the conservatives for having a liberal bias.

As with any other source, the decision whether the content sourced to FAIR has due weight and whether it should be attributed should be made on case-by-case basis. If a statement is not controversial, it can be stated in wikivoice ("Liberty Media has a dominant position in podcasting" [148]).

In your example FAIR says that "NATO Narratives and Corporate Media Are Leading to ‘Doorstep of Doom’". This statement is controversial so we should act per WP:NPOV, mentioning all the views in proportion to the coverage they receive in RS: "According to X, Y and Z corporate media are leading us to the glorious peaceful future while according to FAIR are leading to the doorstep of doom." Alaexis_¿question? 10:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The aim of FAIR is to point out where the mainstream newspapers have been biasing the news. By weight Wikipedia should not just take them on face value, but they don't seem to have more than the usual number of inaccuracies one gets in newspapers. They have a definite bias okay and I don't agree with a lot in that article but I believe Wikipedia should included that as a secondary viewpoint with attribution. THere's no need for Wikipedia to accentuate mainstream bias. NadVolum (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Mainstream bias does not exist. That's not an opinion, it's not an empirical observation, it's not a political stance. It is the definition of central Wikipedia policies, V and NPOV. It's no revelation that there are biased or erroneous narratives in the world, but all we do here is to summarize the central narratives. You may be on the wrong website if you cannot accept that constraint. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably u:NadVolum referred to the US mainstream media (which is what FAIR focuses on). Collectively they can certainly exhibit some bias, just like the mainstream media of Germany, India or South Africa. Alaexis_¿question? 19:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikimpedia saying the mainstream media has no bias. On the contrary we have articles on that precise business and guidlines saying what the bias of the newspapers seems to be and WP:WEIGHT talking about alternative viewpoints and how they should be treated. I haven't the foggiest where you got that funny idea from. Have a look at gravity for instance, where it has a big list of historical and current alternative theories to Einstein's theory and Wikipedia has articles on them. There's practically nothing in the newspapers or the soft sciences that anywhere approaches how thoroughy Einstein's theory has been tested or how accurate it is so why people go on fooling themselves about their level of knowledge or certainty of things I don't know. NadVolum (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There really, really, really is such a thing as "mainstream bias" when we talk about politics and news organisations. I am not aware of a single unbiased source of news, and if any user is editing on the basis that one exists, they should probably reconsider how they do things. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Just because a position is "mainstream" does not mean it can not be biased, as long as we have another standard which we can reasonably to compare to. Here on Wikipedia we clearly can and do accept a distinction between the best and most reliable sources, which are often little-known, specialized academic sources, and those sources which represent the most commonly held beliefs of people in various countries during various periods (e.g. mainstream media). Furthermore, there can be multiple positions which are mainstream at the same time, and so it can be meaningful to say that, for example, mainstream media in a certain country is biased in the sense that it under-reports some other mainstream positions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03, is the source being used or proposed for use in any particular article? I can see it as a potential weak secondary source on what other US media outlets are saying, but would not use it as a source on anything happening in e.g. Ukraine or as giving weight to the fringe viewpoints it sometimes promotes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to downgrade FAIR's reliability based on the presented evidence. The idea that American "mainstream media" has a bias in favor of U.S. geopolitical objectives is utterly prevalent within American leftism (not centrism/Democratic Party). It's a central idea in Noam Chomsky's political works, and has been espoused by a number of leftist, socialist, anarchist, or Marxist scholars. Going back to FAIR: reliable sources are not required to be unbiased; if they are biased, they simply need to be attributed. Whether their views merit inclusion is better covered by WP:DUE than by reassessing the source's general reliability.

Further, given the well-documented advantages that right-wing media have (see: Facebook favoring right-wing outlets, and the large-scale takeover of local media outlets by right-wing conglomerate owners), it seems quite vital that we not eliminate left-wing outlets from Wikipedia altogether; FAIR is a high-quality and pretty vital voice for American leftism, especially with their focus on social justice issues, which can sometimes be treated as an afterthought in other outlets. DFlhb (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Usage of government references

Is there any policy for usage of government sources? WP:RS doesn't even have the word "government". Specifcially, I am talking about using government of India and US references for Geography of Arunachal Pradesh. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

They are kind of covered by both "has a reputation for fact-checking" and wp:sps. So generally they would be OK for non-controversial claims. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The status of being government funded/supported or not is basically irrelevant to WP:RS concerns, which is why it isn't mentioned. As noted, reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, editorial control, citation by other reliable source, broad agreement with other reliable sources that get their own information independently, etc. etc. are all far more important than if the source is or is not a government-supported source. A good example to understand the difference would be RT (TV network) vs. the BBC. They are both government supported sources, but have a very different editorial reputation. The governmental support is irrelevant to the discussion. --Jayron32 16:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Irishcentral.com a reliable source?

It's used in quite a few articles so one might assume it is,[149] but then we have Could DNA prove that ancient Egyptians visited Ireland? Perhaps its reliability should depend on the author? This is by "staff". Doug Weller talk 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

removed incorrect comment Boynamedsue (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The DNA feature looks like it takes the subject seriously ("By contrast, the genomes of three men who lived during the Bronze Age 4,000 years ago showed one-third of their ancestry came from the Pontic steppe on the shores of the Black Sea."). I've had a look over the site and whilst some of the articles are quite light-hearted, I can't see anything that raises any major red flags. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite The Irish Central piece draws heavily from the fringe Ancient-Origins.net opinion-guest-authors/thoth-s-storm-new-evidence-ancient-egyptians-ireland-005187(blacklisted} which seems to incorrectly argue that the DNA shows something new or unexpected. The faience claim and its link to Egypt is wrong and outdated. See [</nowiki>http://thetipperaryantiquarian.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-tara-prince-egyptian-princess-and.html], eg "[http://thetipperaryantiquarian.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-tara-prince-egyptian-princess-and.html "It should be added that Ó Ríordáin’s (1955, 173) claim that the beads had been imported from the eastern Mediterranean around 1400 BC can safely be discounted, given our present understanding of the dating and spread of faience use (Sheridan and Shortland 2004)." Doug Weller talk 15:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Like every source in existence, it's reliable enough when it stays in its lane, but less so when it doesn't. It is not an archeology journal, a human genomics journal, nor does it represent (nor cite) any recognized experts in the field, so this one article can be safely dismissed as a misuse of a non-expert source. I don't think one article taints the entire source, however. In short, don't use that article, but given that you've only given us one article to assess, there's nothing more to be said on the matter. --Jayron32 16:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Just Facts and Just Facts Daily: Reliability for Wikipedia?

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Should Justfacts and it’s subsidiary be used for citations? (Since it’s Covid article is rather questionable; in spite of it’s claims of authenticity) – 2601:183:4A80:E570:F1C9:E148:56C9:4F3C (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The about us says all the right things, but the site has my bullshit meter stuck at the top of the scale. The COVID article shouldn't be used anywhere, and directly contradicts what reliable sources state. It's over pieces of "research" are nearly all conspiratorial political essays. Not a reliable source for anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Reason I asked is cause it went after Media Bias/Fact Check. (Side note: All Sides regards it as “Center”) – 2601:183:4A80:E570:F1C9:E148:56C9:4F3C (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't put much faith in media bias or allsides either, but "Just Facts" is just nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I read three "articles" and all of them contained either completely false statements or was heavily biased to a single viewpoint. The COVID article is particularly egregious. However, it's quite clever at presenting what the reader might think is a "balanced view" by providing counter-arguments where those don't really scupper the main viewpoint it is trying to push. It should be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So similar to this article? (Along, with it’s source?) – 2601:183:4A80:E570:F1C9:E148:56C9:4F3C (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Worse than that actually, because the CCHF makes no pretence to be unbiased, as simply browsing the titles of its podcasts ("Was Covid-19 a Pre-Meditated Pandemic?", "Hippocratic Oath goes Woke") [150], will show. Black Kite (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Reason being, it’s labeled Right wing by Sourcewatch. – 2601:183:4A80:E570:F1C9:E148:56C9:4F3C (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

justfacts.com   justfactsdaily.com   shows that these sources are almost unused on Wikipedia (only 1 ref for the first and none for the second). Depreciation seems like overkill for such an obscure source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to formally deprecate… but lack of official depreciation does not mean we consider the sites in any way reliable. Blueboar (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but more to the point, we don't need to make official pronouncements on every source in existence. WP:SOFIXIT applies just as well to assessing the reliability of sources, and the OP, or yourself, or anyone can freely remove any reference (and if needed, the associated Wikipedia text) for anything which is patently unreliable, and doesn't need to seek any prior permission to do so. This board is most useful for dealing with legitimate conflicts that exist where multiple editors are taking opposing positions on the reliability of a source; clogging the board with discussions over WP:SNOW-type issues with sources no one would ever consider reliable is not useful. --Jayron32 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Time to reconsider CoinDesk

CoinDesk, a news site about cryptocurrencies, has been discussed so many times that it has its own shortcut: WP:COINDESK. After the following five (!) discussions concluded that it was not a reliable source, I'm proceeding with a sixth, because I think the site has become appropriately skeptical and investigative.

1. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_190#CoinDesk (2015)
2. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_212#CoinDesk_and_CoinTelegraph_on_the_article_Ethereum (2016)
3. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#CoinDesk (2018)
4. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk (2018)
5. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273#RfC_–_CoinDesk_as_a_source (2019)

In the past, CoinDesk has been deemed unreliable because of its tendency to publish promotional and non-investigative material. In 2022, though, CoinDesk broke the story of misbehavior at FTX, which led to the exchange's bankruptcy and to Sam Bankman-Fried's arrest. Looking at the site today, I see a mixture of news reporting and opinion, each clearly marked, and with the news being critical and well-written. Each article includes a disclosure both about CoinDesk (which is owned by a digital currency firm and which offers cryptocurrency as compensation) and about the author (e.g., about their holdings of crypto). This is a similar level of disclosure as with other financial news sites that we consider to be reliable. (Personally, I hold no cryptocurrency or derivatives, I am unaffiliated with CoinDesk or its parent, and I am still curious about these alternative investments/instruments.)

I feel that our current blanket ban on CoinDesk as a reliable source does a disservice to its reporting work; we can cite other sources that credit CoinDesk as a source themselves, but I don't think it's fair that we shun CoinDesk and its reporters. I propose that for recent news (since 2022) but not opinion articles, CoinDesk be permitted as a source. White 720 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Their purpose appears to be advocacy and promotion. I'd be very concerned about trying to change past consensus without a great deal of independent coverage demonstrating a major change in their approach. --Hipal (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the Intelligencer post linked above, The Verge published an article on CoinDesk's change of style here: https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/8/23498823/coindesk-ftx-dcg-barry-silbert-grayscale-genesis White 720 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional coverage from The Economic Times (India; via ProQuest, since it's paywalled on the web) mentioning CoinDesk as a source: "From FTX's Collapse to "the Merge": Top Crypto Developments in 2022 [Tech & Internet]." The Economic Times, Dec 30, 2022. https://ezproxy.spl.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/pqrl?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/ftxs-collapse-merge-top-crypto-developments-2022/docview/2759060221/se-2. Quote: "The trigger for the collapse was a CoinDesk article that revealed serious issues in FTX's financials. Soon after it was published, the CEO of Binance offered to bail out FTX as investors dashed to retrieve their funds from the platform." White 720 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Coindesk broke the FTX story (which was due a leaker giving them access to internal financial information), and this was cited by more mainstream sources, but having a single major scoop does not make a source reliable. If you look at mainstream financial journalism outlets like FT, Bloomberg, WSJ etc, these tend to cover crypto news now, so there's really no reason to use any of these cypto-focused news sites over them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, the scoop was in CoinDesk because Allison - a freelancer - brought the story to CoinDesk, rather than any of the other outlets he writes for - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

That Verge article in no way claims a change of style. What wording did you get that from? - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• LOL no. The site still has no understanding of what constitutes a conflict of interest. I point out this editorial policy page (archive) announcing their plan to give employees equity-equivalent-rights in DCG, Coindesk's owner:

The reasons we initially planned to exclude content staff from the SARs program stemmed from our commitment to quality journalism: the potential conflict of interest, or public perception thereof, given that so many of the companies and assets we cover at CoinDesk are owned or partly owned by our parent company.

Writers given such rights would be required to disclose it, right? Well, no - CoinDesk explicitly does not want such beneficiaries to advertise their COI:

We are not requiring journalists who receive SARs to disclose this in their bios (as we do for crypto asset holdings above $1,000 in value). The main reason we do not require such disclosure in this instance is respect for their privacy: An employee's compensation, and how pay differs from person to person across a company, is an inherently private matter

CoinDesk specifically wants writers with a good solid conflict of interest:

Offering this incentive fits more with an emerging crypto community philosophy that trust is built by having skin in the game with high transparency rather than by rules and restrictions.

Note the bit where CoinDesk already allows writers to hold up to $1,000 of a crypto-asset without disclosing the fact at all. Compare non-clownshoes finance journalism outlets such as the Financial Times or Bloomberg - who require zero holdings of any company or asset a journalist writes about, except under appropriate editorial supervision.

CoinDesk has no understanding of COI, and doubling down with this editorial policy - and explicitly stating they want conflicts of interest - means everything in the discussion opinions summarised at RSP still holds.

There is no other source we'd put up with acting this way with regards to COI, let alone explicitly announcing they really, really want COI.

Ian Allison is a good journalist. He's one of the several CoinDesk writers I look out for especially. Allison freelances for multiple outlets, such as Insider. The Alameda story is a huge credit to Allison. That he brought the story to CoinDesk in no way mean the problems with CoinDesk are gone. 'Cos they aren't. - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• No Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut. There would need to be, essentially, a history of adherence to the principles of WP:RS and a singular story does not a history make. This is a single data point, and not a total view of the overall reliability. --Jayron32 16:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• No Basically what Jayron said. While I certainly think the FTX reporting is absolutely a point in their favor, at this time, for me, it is still swamped by the countervailing concerns regarding advocacy and conflict of interest. In theory they might get to RS status at some point, but I don't see them there yet. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• No. RS is about a source's long-term reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; one incident or story, whether positive or negative, can't usually decide a source's categorization. And in particular trying to use one well-received story to argue that a source is a RS runs into "but officer, look at all the people I haven't stabbed" problems - if a source regularly has egregious systematic problems with fact-checking and accuracy, occasionally getting a story right doesn't change that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Does a PhD or similar expertise obviate the need to supply reliable sources?

User:RogierBrussee argues that because he claims to have the qualification of a PhD he has enough expertise not to be required to support his edits in that topic with reliable sources. Do editors think this approach is acceptable? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC).

No. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone with a PhD should know that citing sources is always required. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

maybe, but not the place. 12:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear me, No. - Roxy the dog 12:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No Wikipedia editor, regardless of their qualifications, can be considered a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps suggest they take a look at WP:EXPERT (or On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog) DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• To be perfectly fair, I don't think that he was arguing that he need not cite sources. I read his comment to state that his edit was clarifying and non-controversial and that sources could be found and cited, but he hadn't gotten around to it, as real life intervened. I agree that reliable sources are always needed, though in highly technical areas, it is helpful to have editors who are expert and can actually understand those sources, and translate them into clear encyclopedic prose. Banks Irk (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is the impression I got as well. He mentioned that he has a PhD, he certainly didn't claim that it exempted him from ever needing to cite sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  +1 The opening post of this thread substantially misrepresents the situation. --JBL (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  I concur with the above. Having read the discussion, the OP claims seem to be a clear mischaracterization of the conflict. Nowhere does the user in question state that their PhD exempts them from having to cite their sources. From what I can see, their claims amount to the WP:CALC exemption. Whether or not the WP:CALC exemption to explicit sourcing is valid here or not is outside of the scope of this discussion, but the OP's complaint that started this thread is not true.--Jayron32 16:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, a user claiming to have a PhD is not a reliable source. However, I agree with @Banks Irk and @Thebiguglyalien that the user was not arguing that at all. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That appears to be true, still one cannot add material without a source and then hand wave the problem away. Personally I would first tag cn and if no cite forthcoming in a reasonable time, delete the uncited material. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They may not be, but it looks like others maybe trying to argue that we should allow uncited content from self-declared experts. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I had a recent experience with a so-called "expert". Of course them simply saying so is not enough for wikipedia - everyone is anonymous and impostors do exist too. The best way to resolve such issues is to provide sources making such a claim or derivation or show in source showing the final formulation. Other wise it is WP:OR. We are not in the business of advancing science, just reporting what the currently available sources say. What would help is letting them know about WP:EXPERT.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Opinion on use of map

I have this godsent book about the ethnic, religious and linguistic composition of the settlements in Mardin Province that I've been using in around 210 articles by now (and more to come). The book is Turabidin'den Berriye'ye. Aşiretler - Dinler - Diller - Kültürler by Tan. Now frustratingly, it does have omissions as it does not mention some villages at all. The book however comes with a detached map where these omitted villages are indeed shown with valuable info. I've been using this map in few articles and I'm planning on using it for settlements that are neither mentioned in the book or mentioned in other works.

I need opinions on the use of the map. How can I make sure that using this map does not create verification problems? It does have a title, but contains no page. I've cited it as such: Tan, Altan (2018). "Harita 2: Turabidin ve Berriyê mıntıkalarında yer alan aşiretlerin sınırları ile il, ilçe, köy ve mezralar" (Map). Turabidin'den Berriye'ye. Aşiretler - Dinler - Diller - Kültürler. Is this sufficient? Semsûrî (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just cite it to the map, if it was published with the book (and is listed in the book index) the fact it does not have a page number is not an issue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The map is not listed in the index. There are however many news articles about the publication of the book where the map is depicted[151], [152]. Semsûrî (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Would Template:Cite map help? It has fields for citing maps in larger works, including books, ISBN details, etc. Woodroar (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That is indeed the template I've used, but I could always add more to it. Semsûrî (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

the map

Thank you. Will be using it. Semsûrî (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: I advise caution in use of maps as sources. You can use the map to show what existed on the day of the survey but you can't make any dynamic inferences without sliding into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 27#ordnancesurvey references, where I was eventually (and reluctantly) persuaded of this need for care. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I use it only for villages that are explicitly depicted, so I'm not really worried about breaching OR/SYNTH. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point. For example, even though the position of this village is deep within the lightblue territory illustrating its affiliation to the Surgucu tribe, the author has chosen not to illustrate this village, so I refrained from adding that info to the article. Semsûrî (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I didn't intend to suggest that you had done (or were about to do) anything wrong, but just that there is a trap for the unwary. I got into trouble for inferring that a railway line was under construction when the (static) information on the map only showed a fence line and a partially built embankment; the next edition showed the line in place. So I guess that equivalent in your case might be to infer from a change of colour between editions that something specific must have happened in the meantime. Best wishes. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Carla Rossi and "Receptiogate"

See [153][154]. We have a few articles on medieval and early modern European literature that cite an author by that name; if the story turns out to be true, those citations may need to be reviewed to make sure they comply with WP:COPY and WP:RS. François Robere (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

English language source [155]. I agree that any works by Rossi are suspect and should be removed in preference to reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Just another +1 here. The whole thing has been just bananas to watch unfold. I was especially amused by Rossi's claim that she hadn't copied Peter Kidd, she had just drawn from the Sotheby's catalogue. To which Mr. Kidd replied that he wrote the Sotheby's description. Really something. Dumuzid (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Professor Rossi appears to be ignorant about the law of holes. That said, I agree that her scholarship is suspect and shall be replaced by better sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Rash Behari Bose

A user is frequently insisting that this book from 1966 published by "Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay" and written by Uma Mukherjee (credentials unknown) is reliable for a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim being made here.

The misinformation is question is the claim that Rash Behari Bose founded "Hindu Mahasabha" branch in Japan.

The source has a single passing mention, and the source makes a number of laughable claims such as "In any case , the role of the revolutionaries in the achievement of India's Independence is still today much too minimised , the official apologists claiming that the crown of martyrdom to the cause of Freedom rightfully belongs to the Congress." (full text)

In accordance with WP:HISTRS and WP:RS, this source appears to be totally failing the threshold for reliability.

There is no reliable source that can confirm this information. Even our page on Hindu Mahasabha is rid of this misinformation.

A good chapter dedicated to Rash Behari Bose here or in this CNN link, which also makes no mention of any "Hindu Mahasabha", let alone establishing one in Japan. Capitals00 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable. What happened was a single letter exchange with a Mahasabha leader Savarkar that "attempt should be made to create Hindu bloc"[156] but nothing more. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay or Firma KLM is a WP:RS, and has been cited many times on Wikipedia. Uma Mukherjee is a historian specialising in history of freedom movement, and biographer of freedom fighters. It's the best-known biography of RB Bose and cited by other scholars like Casolari, see page 115, reference 31. Also see Doug Weller's input.Chanchaldm (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Aman Kumar Goel:"What happened was a single letter exchange with a Mahasabha leader Savarkar that "attempt should be made to create Hindu bloc"". Please consult more. They had lively correspondence and there were multiple exchanges of letters. Check here. Chanchaldm (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Chanchaldm Savarkar said "Hindu sabha should take immediate steps for establishing branches of Mahasabha in Japan, China, Siam and other countries of the pacific". However, we can see that no branches were ever established. If they were, then the source which I mentioned above could make provide details on that. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• p67: "Savarkar maintained a lively correspondence with the aforementioned Rashbehari Bose in Tokyo. Bose, who had become a naturalized citizen in Japan and had married locally, was a pan-Asianist first and foremost, and his activities give little cause to think of his Asianism in a strictly Hindu or Hindu-Buddhist format.86 In writing to Savarkar, however, he had no qualms in adapting to the latter’s Asian cartography in writing: Every attempt should be made to create a Hindu bloc extending from the Indian Ocean up to the Pacific Ocean. For this purpose, the Hindu Sabha should take immediate steps for establishing branches of Mahasabha in Japan, China, Siam and other countries of the Pacific and sending their representatives for creating solidarity among the Eastern races.87 Although Savarkar was reluctant to devote Mahasabha resources to international activities, he had no objection to sympathizers expanding his organization on their own dime. The Bombay secretariat of the Mahasabha officially authorized the Japanese branch to be established.88 Privately, Savarkar wrote to Rashbehari Bose that his “scheme of building a Pan-Hindu temple in Japan is excellent." Aman.kumar.goel, you haven't mentioned total point.Chanchaldm (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

p161: Rash Behari, who retained contact with Savarkar, had established a branch of the Hindu Mahasabha in Japan.. Nothing exceptional about the views.Chanchaldm (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It provides a source for each claim except this particular passing mention. It seems to be some kind of misunderstanding like I said and would require clear-cut details but apparently those details don't exist. Capitals00 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Firma KLM is a quite reliable publisher. That said, it is stupid to hold that Bose was a member of Hindu Mahasabha; anti-colonial solidarities led to strange bedfellows. M. N. Roy, arguably India's first Communist, was not only awed by Savarkar since youth but also had correspondence with HM and remained a friend till death; does that make him a Hindu Mahasabha-ite? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, Firma KLM is reliable and I have used books from this publisher before on Wiki. Actually I was also a bit surprised to find the information in the article that RB Bose established a branch of Hindu Mahasabha in Japan. But since there was the source, I decided to keep it as I believe these are important details for an encyclopaedic article. Moreover I have got many other sources(some of which I have cited and gave quotations above) on this and about correspondence between Savarkar and Bose. Aren't those reliable? TrangaBellam, I have seen your editing practices on a number of articles; your ability to find out numerous sources on various topics is commendable; and you've very rightly said "anti-colonial solidarities led to strange bedfellows." Could you please add all around views about this correspondence in the article?Chanchaldm (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I use this website in citing one of my articles?

I am working on an article about symbolism of animals and I found this blog which belongs to a skull store and I'm wondering if I can use the blog post in citing my article. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The blog is part of a commercial website, so it can't be considered independent of its commercial concerns. Also the about us page gives no hint of editorial oversight. Sorry but this wouldn't be considered a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The Sun (Malaysia)

Someone told me The Sun (Malaysia) was unreliable but I think they may have been thinking of the other Sun, or something: I can't find much on this publication either way. Is this a reliable WP:NEWSORG or a tabloid? Andre🚐 02:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

To the extent that any publication out of Malaysia (a country that does not have free speech) can be considered reliable, I suppose the tabloid The Sun sort-of-kind-of-maybe is. It isn't state-owned (e.g., The Star) but Vincent Tan will never, ever rock boats in the Malaysian government, no matter what party is currently in power, so I would only use this source for decidedly uncontroversial/bland topics. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone have a word with David Gerard

User:David Gerard keeps removing a Daily Mail source I added to One Pair of Eyes (TV series). It isn't the only source for that episode either, and it follows the guidelines.

That's all David seems to do... Removing references from sources like Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, Daily Express, The Sun, Daily Star, News of the World, Metro, GB News etc which have all been listed as Generally Unreliable or Deprecated by this liberal community, without reading them.

Even though I see mistakes from left wing sources like The Guardian and The Independent every single time I read a story from them.

The reliable source guidelines [[157]] here says:

"The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context."

And then the linked About-Self Hashion section in those Daily Mail guidelines here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves which says:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:

• 1 - The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• 2 - It does not involve claims about third parties;
• 3 - It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• 4 - There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
• 5 - The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Danstarr69 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

DG is right and you should self-revert. That use of DM is not about the Daily Mail, but about an episode of a tv show. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur with FFF Andre🚐 03:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers and Andrevan.

What are you talking about?

The Daily Mail reference was written by Shirley Conran who presented one of the episodes, and was simply a brief mention that she made the episode.

As I've proven, it follows the guidelines.

The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion.

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

It does not involve claims about third parties.

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

The article is not based primarily on such sources. Danstarr69 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. What that means is that an article by Shirley Conran can be used as a source for information about herself. Not about the show she worked on. Andre🚐 03:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It is just a tv show, surely there is a better source than the Daily FMail. Zaathras (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Zaathras it is about herself.

She made a show. She mentioned she made that show in an article written by herself.

This is why Wikipedia annoys the hell out of me.

(Personal attack removed) who don't follow your own guidelines.

IMDB is much better, as at least factual information is never removed.

People like David go around being unconstructive removing proof of things.

Someone later down the line will see the information he's removed references from no longer have a reference, so will remove the information.

"The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." Danstarr69 (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A self-published article can't be used for "I made a show." It can be used for "I have 3 teeth." Claims about the show necessarily involve third-parties. Shows aren't made by 1 person. Andre🚐 03:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Andrevan I repeat:

"Usually in articles about themselves or their activities"

I'd call making a show an activity. Danstarr69 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is completely untrustworthy. They fake everything from interviews to bylines. And in this case there is no reason to use it - I just added a cite to the BBC's Programme Index instead. MrOllie (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie whereas The Guardian and The Independent can't even get simple facts correct, yet they're regarded as Generally Reliable.

If those two are Generally Reliable then all the right wing sources should be classed as Generally Reliable too.

Just last week I saw The Guardian and The Independent writing incorrect stories about the Newcastle United F.C. shirt thief, which they got from reading false information on Twitter. Danstarr69 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Every outlet gets it wrong occasionally, even the WP:GENREL, but that's not relevant here, it's an OTHERSTUFF/whataboutism type argument. There's a community consensus that the Mail is not reliable. If you want to start a discussion to reconsider the Independent we certainly could do that. Andre🚐 04:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What needs sourced, that "Danger at Work" was episode 35, or that it was presented by Shirley Conran? Gimmetrow 03:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Gimmetrow it already had a source for the date, just like every single episode.

That Daily Mail reference was just one of a few sources I could find talking about the show in general, which I added to some of the episode numbers when I created the article, as there aren't that many talking about that old show, as like most old shows, especially in the documentary category, they get forgotten about, even by the networks themselves.

Now someone has added the exact same reference which was already added to the episode date, so now it's been added twice.

Why is the Daily Mail reference uselful?

Because it gives a little bit more information about the episode, and where it can apparently be found.

Shirley Conran "The year after our launch, the BBC asked me to make a one-hour film about any subject I chose, for their series, One Pair Of Eyes. I made a film about the problems of the working mothers I knew personally; it was called, Danger, Women At Work!"

"Looking back, I can see this was a follow-on from the pioneering work we had started without realising it — on Femail. That film is in the historical Feminist Archives, where I believe the first copy of Femail Magazine should be." Danstarr69 (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Great - this is all about information that is not about Shirley but about the BBC, about the magazine, about the show, about the archives, about the working mothers. We can only use Shirley for info about her and her alone. Her activities, yes, but the instant you start talking about anyone external to her it's not reliable. Andre🚐 04:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My confusion was that the article text doesn't say anything more about Conrad other than presenter. None of the other stuff is in the article. Is the link like "further information" or an "external link"? And at least it's obvious the duplicated ref is the same ref. Gimmetrow 04:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's another source, also by Conran, with a lot of info about the film. Colorful stuff. The piece in the DM is not actually self-published, so there's a lot of misunderstanding above. There's a specific carve-out for using DM to say things about DM, and it doesn't apply here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm misreading it. I was reading it as a Daily Mail article is unreliable but may be used for about-self statements about the authors of the articles, essentially treating it as self-published. If it is meant to mean that the Daily Mail is only usable for sources about the Daily Mail that is an even narrower carveout. Either way, no good in this case. Andre🚐 04:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

in other policies, you're supposed to directly alert someone if you start a noticeboard dispute about them - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the title of this thread, here is a word for David Gerard. BRAVO. - Roxy the dog 10:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

David Gerard is absolutely right about this. This instance is not a DM usage about the publication itself, but rather about an episode of a tv show. As far as I know, the Daily Mail is not, itself, a tv show. (at least not yet, by the graces of fate). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The particular edit here doesn't fit the exceptions that the WP:DAILYMAIL1 closers allowed for, such as opinions and old stuff. Since it's true that "general" doesn't mean "always" and there's no reason to doubt the matter in context, I support the objection. However, I don't expect there will be enough support to overturn in this case. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Closed archived discussions

Just dropping a note that I have closed the discussions regarding the reliability of The Economist, The Times, and The Telegraph in their coverage of transgender and transsexual topics. The result was that all three are reliable in these areas. Extended explanations for these outcomes can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 393#RfC: The Economist, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392#RfC: The Telegraph, and my talk page. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Compassionate727: I regard this close as unwarranted and bad procedure. Closing an archived RfC is at best controversial, as evidenced by recent discussions e.g. in thread RfC closures after archiving. and RfCs not closed (my own take is that the item is already closed as Redrose64 long ago explained to me). Even if somebody comes up with the bad idea of closing what's effectively already closed, the procedure followed here is not what Help:Archiving a talk page recommends, and is against what is at the top of the archive page, in bold: "Do not edit the contents of this page." Plus (just my opinion rather than policy) by taking the despicable 4-way template seriously you are encouraging more use of it. I see that there was an objection on your talk page, where you only acknowledged your act is "unusual". Well, I wish it were so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, an archived discussion should never be closed. Once something is in the archive it should be frozen as archived. If the discussion needs to be closed it should be taken out of archive, closed and then left up so editors can review and if need be challenge the close. A serious problem with a closure within the archive is many editors don't have archives on their watch list. Thus a controversial close could be made within an archive. Later editors might treat it as an uncontested close because it would have no related discussion in the archive. At the same time editors who would disagree with the closing would be unaware of the closing. I would suggest reverting the close, restore the discussion to the noticeboard then close it there. Compassionate727, please note, I have not reviewed your actual closing rational so please do not take this as any comment on the quality of the closing itself, just the process. Springee (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware that people generally don't watch archives, which is why I drop a notice here. But since three people have now complained about me handling it this way, I'll just switch to unarchiving and closing. It's a little more work, but no big deal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Travelmath.com

Is Travelmath.com a reliable source to figure out the halfway point between 2 cities? 2600:100C:A210:2BB2:8CBF:4BCD:5816:C71A (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

19th-Century sources relating to the Swastika

On the page Fylfot, several 19th century sources are used.

Thomas Wilson (1896) The Swastika: The Earliest Known Symbol, and Its Migrations; with Observations on the Migration of Certain Industries in Prehistoric Times. Smithsonian Institution.

J.G Waller (1873) "The Church of Great Canfield, Essex". Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society. New Series. II(Part IV): 377–388.

Ernst Johann Eitel (1873, republished 1884) "Buddhism: its historical, theoretical and popular aspects."

• Wilson is stated to have suggested etymologies for fylfot, with his own publication as the source, but it is later stated in wikivoice that they "appear to be false".

• Waller is used to source the claim that a fylfot currently appears at a particular church.

• Eitel is used to source a claim the the fylfot was a symbol of the Norse god Thor.

There are also a large number of early-20th century (pre-WWII) sources on the page, so a general view of where a reasonable cut off might be with regards to WP:AGE MATTERS would possibly be helpful here.

17:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Boynamedsue (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Is there more recent scholarship that we can use? Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

For Wilson's etymologies (which are not stated in the article), there does not appear to be. There is a modern source which outlines an outdated 19th century etymology. For Waller, the existence of the Fylfot at the church is sourceable, but the viewpoints of Waller seem to be included without attribution, and I'm not sure whether they can be sourced or not. The Vital claim re Thor is very common in the 19th century, but doesn't seem to be mentioned in anything other than unreliable modern neo-pagan sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• In general I see no reason why a nineteenth century source couldn't be reliable for the claim that a particular symbol was associated with a certain Norse god, but Ernst Johann Eitel does not appear to have any relevant expertise, and if he were publishing a book about Buddhism today we would not consider that an especially reliable source about the history of Norse religion!
• Using an 1883 source to state that something is a particular way today is obviously suspect – it would be better to either find a modern source supporting that it is still the case, or be clear in the article that we are talking about the church as it was in the nineteenth century. (The next sentence cites the parish guide from 2000, which would be very helpful in demonstrating that it was still there rather more recently!)
• Wilson is obviously a reliable source for the fact that he discussed etymology, but doesn't demonstrate WP:DUE. A modern source does appear to have now been added for the idea that his etymologies are not accurate. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, the modern source doesn't mention Wilson, so there is an OR problem. My preference would be to just use the modern source to state the single older etymology (from Waller, strangely enough) it covers, stating it is now outdated. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Cinestaan ,Pune Mirror, Maharashtra Times, Lokmat , The Times of India Review

There are a total of five movie reviews in this draft Draft:Truckbhar Swapna. It has just been rejected. Lokmat news paper is 50 years old. it is considered reliable, but here editor consider it not reliable. The film 's review in the different languages of The Times Group is reliably considered but here the editor rejects it. Despite the source of cinestaan.com being reliable rejected it too ~ AShiv1212 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging reviewer @TheChunky:. VickKiang (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added a comment there on that draft. Please address the issue there. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 05:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)