Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:30, 3 January 2024

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

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

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

RFC: Electronic Intifada

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus in favor of deprecating this source, as most all participants voted options 3 or 4, those who voted 4 strongly advocated their position, and few option 3 voters differentiated their position from those favoring deprecation Mach61 (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliability of Electronic Intifada?

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Deprecate

The last discussion was in 2018 and can be found here. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2: The previous discussion on the Electronic Intifada (EI) was not a particularly sophisticated discussion and needs revisiting: it was not a formal RFC, and the opening statement was somewhat rambling, but one key takeaway is that EI does not appear to have generated serious concerns about its adherence to factual accuracy. Media bias fact check is not a reliable source, but is a usefully indicative resource, and it "could not find any instance where EI directly failed a fact check from major fact checking sources". The site goes on to note that only rates "Mostly Factual" as opposed to "High" in terms of its reporting "due to a lack of transparency regarding funding, as well as strongly loaded emotional wording that may be misleading – so again, pertaining to bias, not factual error. EI is distinctly biased (as all media sources are) – this is certain – and this was the principle charge laid against it in the previous discussion, but bias ≠ unreliable, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, but merely demands attribution. In the case of EI, the direction of its bias, and its specificity to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning, but option 2 allows for the formal caveating of the source and noting the attribution requirement. I would note that the first naysayer in the last discussion was the now notorious sock puppeteer User:Icewhiz wielding a Huffington Post opinion piece as the only evidence of factual issues, and, per WP:HUFFPOCON, Huffington Post contributions have themselves been deemed unreliable (in a subsequent 2020 RFC). Many of the following votes merely cite the source's bias, which again, should be addressed through attribution, but does not relate directly to reliability. There are a couple of editorial issues that are drummed up, including a piece from 2008 with a misleading quote that has since been caveated at the bottom of the piece, and another quibbled-over piece regarding a statement and its attribution dating to 2002. However, that in 2018 the best evidence of EI's unreliability that could be drummed up are some relatively isolated poorly attributed statements from 2002 and 2008 suggests to me that the evidence of factual inaccuracy is very threadbare indeed. WP:GUNREL means "generally" unreliable, not demonstrably unreliable once every decade or so. I'm not sure I've seen a bar as high as this applied to any source. To maintain the GUNREL rating for EI, a more serious discussion is required, and some significantly more substantial and damning evidence needs to be provided sustaining the charges of factual inaccuracy or manipulation, as opposed to merely lambasting it for its bias, which is utterly transparent – if only in its name alone, with which it really wears its heart on its sleeve about its leaning. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MBFC is not a useful way of gauging source reliability. It is the opinion of one random guy, no different to the opinion of the average Wikipedia contributor. That said, I have no opinion on the reliability of this publication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4: Existing consensus is that the source is generally unreliable for facts, as discussed, for example, in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#Electronic_Intifada_(Again). This source is not only extremely biased but also has a very poor reputation for fact-checking. There were plenty of examples brought up in previous discussions. The fact that the website is cited in existing articles, usually for opinions with attribution, has no relevance to its tendency, or lack thereof, to provide accurate and trustworthy facts. Citing these kinds of sources for matters of fact would compromise Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy reference. There is also strong consensus that The Electronic Intifada is a partisan source, although this is independent of its reliability. If something is worthy of publishing in Wikipedia, then there will surely be better RS options. Marokwitz (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz: If you are saying it is generally unreliable, why have you said option 4, which is deprecation - something else. To deprecate a source, you need to provide some justification, not just your impression based on old, very outdated evidence, part of which was countered in the prior discussion, and which was further discussed in my statement. You have not progressed the discussion on the detail in and way, but merely opined in it. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Al Mayadeen and Press TV are very similar to Electronic Intifada. In comparison, the tabloid Daily Star (UK), though not a top-tier source, is considered more reliable. These three have been deprecated due to their one-sided reporting and loose approach for fact checking. Examples I saw recently in EI include coverage of Israa Jarbis where Electronic Intifada fails to mention she has seriously injured a police officer; relying on a debunked community-noted tweet by Twitter user SyrianGirl as a source in a recent article; and reporting on helicopters shooting at Nova partygoers based on a Haaretz article, while failing to disclose the police's rebuttal of this claim that was published on the same day.

Overall, evidence shows that the site has a non-existent approach to fact-checking and publishing formal error corrections. Publishing the truth doesn't seem to be a priority compared to advocacy of a specific narrative, thus I believe it should be deprecated to save our editors' time. Marokwitz (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence stands taller with some actual links for verification. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. No statements made by the source have been given by the opener of the RfC. What are we supposed to evaluate here? jp×g 🗯️ 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - it publishes mostly opinion, and where that opinion is by an expert in the field it should be able to be used. But for its news reporting, it is reporting on other outlets reports. I would say, as I did in the last discussion, that when they report something it will usually be found in other sources, otherwise I place it basically on the opposite end of Arutz Sheva and would not use it as a source for facts. nableezy - 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 - A) Electronic Intifada is a partisan news site that has a recent and long history of biased partisan reporting and appears to be pursuing political goals through its newspapers.

It also appears that it seems to support armed struggle and removal of organizations deemed terrorist by Western countries from terror lists.

In August 2020, Electronic Intifada published an article by Samidoun coordinator Khaled Barakat, there they wrote “Association with the Palestinian armed resistance and its political parties is not a cause for shame or a justification for repression…boycott campaigns and popular organizing are not alternatives to armed resistance but interdependent tactics of struggle. Any meaningful defense of the Palestinian people must clearly uphold the right to resist colonialism by all means, including armed struggle – and support efforts to remove Palestinian resistance groups from lists of ‘terrorist organizations.’”

Ali Abunimah, the site’s co-founder and current executive director, stated the following regarding Zionism : “one of the worst forms of anti-Semitism [sic] in existence today” and claims that it is the “continuation in spirit” of the Holocaust. Abunimah has compared Israel to Nazi Germany [1] , he also commented the following on a Holocaust survivor (called Elie Wiesel a “moral fraud and huckster”).

Furthermore, from an article in 18 January 2023 it appears the EI supports the incorporation of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, considered terrorist organizations by US, EU... into the PLO.

"But for that storm to sweep away the old, it needs direction. So far, Palestinian discontent with their leaders has not thrown up any clear alternative strategy behind which parties and new political forces can agree to unite.

Any such strategy needs to answer several crucial questions, notably what outcome to seek and how best to get there, how to unite the main factions behind a new vision for Palestinian liberation and how to ensure that Palestinians in occupied territory can endure under different political conditions.

It will also need to find a way to incorporate Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions considered “terror groups” in the west into the PLO while managing the diplomatic and financial fallout."

In November 2022, EI hosted a podcast called “How Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.” in the podcast, “Zionists during that time not only were not bothered about the Holocaust, they actively tried to stop anyone who wanted to provide a refuge from doing so.”

In August 2022, Abunimah has said the following in an interview : “Israel always has to kill Palestinians because it is an illegitimate settler-colonial regime that faces constant resistance from the people whose land it is occupying, colonizing and stealing…the regular shedding of Palestinian blood is a necessary component of maintaining the existence of Israel.”

In June 2021, EI Associate Editor Nora Barrows participated in a conference, “Challenging Apartheid in Palestine: Reclaiming the Narrative, Formulating A Vision,” hosted by the Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University. It was reported that sponsors, participating and conference , were linked to various terror groups, including, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

In conclusion, Option 4 is the most relevant, considering EI's published content both historically as concluded in previous Reliable Sources discussions as well as recently as shown above; therefore one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Homerethegreat: I'm sorry. What is the point behind the quotations above? You just quote passages without making any points about how they relate to reliability. "one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation." - don't assume: assumption was the problem with the prior discussion, and now you're copy-pasting the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. All the above shows is that EI's ideological leaning is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Opinions are always a matter of debate and can't be used for fact anyway (given WP:RSEDITORIAL) and you haven't shown any evidence of getting the facts wrong. VR _talk 15:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 Features section only, anything else only if it is a subject matter expert, and always with attribution. I don't believe that this source is guilty of falsification but some material is fairly heavily biased, so use with due care and attention.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. They don't seem to do much original reporting. I give them 3 rather than 4 for the odd story that might serve as a useful justification for a statement, but I cannot see that happening very often. Most of their articles seem to be either one-sided reinterpretation of the news reported elsewhere or personal opinions. Epa101 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RFC Where is the prior discussion? Why is this going to a RfC without a recent discussion or a discussion of how this source is being used? We need examples of misuse before starting a RfC.

Springee (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 (possibly 2): There are a number of major issues with EI, which it is better to see as a group blog rather than a news site. First, it does not adequately distinguish between opinion and news (it has a category "features" which has /news in its URL and a category "opinion and analysis" with /opinion in the url; both of these are mainly opinion).The simple additional consideration would be to treat all articles as opinion pieces and therefore attribute. Second, it rarely presents new factual information. The "features" pieces by guest contributors in Palestine count as reportage, which are the most useful and fact-based articles, but the "features" pieces by their own (mostly US-based) team are second-hand analysis of material reported elsewhere. I would say that this secondary material should not be used citing them but rather that the original source should be used if and only if it's reliable (many of its sources are very unreliable, e.g. deprecated Grayzone), and that EI is not sufficiently reliable for it to count towards assessing noteworthiness. (Unsurprisingly, disinformation and conspiracy sites also republish EI articles. E.g. David Icke's website carried an EI article "How the Israel lobby fakes anti-Semitism" by Asa Winstanley.[2]) Third, I think that this is one of those cases where bias and reliability bleed into each other: EI frequently goes into conspiracy theory territory (this is especially true of its associate editor Asa Winstanley).[3] For instance, its support of antisemitic conspiracy theorist David Miller has led to its reportage being described as antisemitic by the Community Security Trust (CST),[4] and CST and anti-fascist researchers Hope Not Hate have described its reporting of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party as conspiracy theory.[5] Winstanley frequently appears on Iran's PressTV, on a show produced by David Miller dedicated to antisemitic conspiracy theories.[6] Fourth, I think there might be instances where it can be seen to have been actively dishonest. In 2011, along with the Guardian, it falsely claimed that the CST had made up some quotes; the Guardian corrected their story but EI didn't.[7] Several right-wing monitors (CAMERA, HonestReporting, etc) have presented further examples, but I'm reviewing those as I don't see them as reliable sources either. I'll come back here when I have, and if these claims are compelling I'd say option 3 for definite, otherwise option 2 might be fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Couple more data points. 1. Here are three biased (right-wing), probably unreliable and slightly outdated sources itemising several issues with EI: NGO Monitor,[8] HonestReporting,[9] CAMERA.[10] It's hard to disentangle political criticisms from exposing inaccuracies there, so I'll leave these for other editors to review themselves. 2. I hadn't realised the extent to which EI is integrated with sources that we deprecate. For instance, it heavily uses Al-Mayadeen as a source,[11][12] it is in turn hosted by Al-Mayadeen,[13] it gives a frequent platform to Max Blumenthal of Grayzone,[14] its staff also contribute to Sputnik, ZeroHedge, Russia Insider, MintPress, etc,[15] and are used as talking heads by Sputnik.[16] In this PolitiFact fact check of a fake news story circulated in the current Gaza conflict, by a far right anti-vaxxer, EI was one of the sources he shared, but the fact check does not actually describe the EI article as false. 3. On the other hand, I've found a couple of instances of its use as a source by reliable sources: Columbia Journalism Review from 2010,[17] Associated Press from 2013,[18] and India Today recently.[19] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly interested in if EI has been guilty of false reporting or antisemitism, and I tried following your first few links and I didn't get the sense. First, I'd take CST's allegations against EI with a grain of salt; given that CST believes anti-zionism=antisemitism they are the ideological opponents of EI. And as you correctly pointed out, HonestReporting, CAMERA etc also have an axe to grind against EI. VR _talk 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per Nableezy and Bob above, and Alaexis below. While not outright lying (as far as I'm aware), and while yes, all sources are biased, EI's partisan to the point that its usefulness can be heavily questioned (see exaggeration, loaded language, reliance on questionable sources, omission of certain details, and so on) and most if not all of its factual reporting can be found in far more reliable, less-outright-partisan sources. I'm also not sold by the proposer's usage of MBFC, which they themselves bluntly state isn't entirely reliable. The Kip 08:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would also like to emphasize the latter bits of what Bob's written - the heavy reliance on already-deprecated sources such as Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen is worrying, and I could probably be convinced to vote for deprecation here as well. The Kip 05:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, see my comments below re the lack of separation between opinion and news and various outrageous claims made by the source. No evidence has been presented that changed my opinion in either direction. Alaexis_¿question? 08:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3

EI is an overtly biased outlet and as pointed out by other editors, it deploys conspiratorial websites as its sources. This makes that website unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4. Mostly-opinion sites that cite debunked tweets should not be used in WP. All the true info EI has is better reported by other sources. It should not be used. Zanahary (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One debunked tweet has been mentioned - if there are others; perhaps you could make mention of them. However, one embedded (not even voiced) debunked tweet alone does not demonstrate repeat inaccuracy and is far from approaching cause for deprecation. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4, unreliable and slanted beyond repair. if EI is the only source where someone can find something covered, it has likely been fabricated. ValarianB (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3. The outlet has the word "intifada" in the name. That alone makes it clear this is an option 3. Cursory reading of the sources provided by Homerethegreat makes it obvious this is far too biased to be trusted. Citing it in an article would be like citing Stormfront. The reason why we don't cite biased websites that support violent terrorists is because they have a very strong incentive to lie. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2. Per Iskander323's discussion point below it seems like at least some of the content EI publishes is well-sourced and journalistic and given that reputable journalists publish with EI it seems unlikely that they publish outright fabrications as if they are news. The organization overall has a clear agenda, but it is important to recognize that that many other sources taken as reliable are likely either to lack coverage of Palestinian issues or to (intentionally or not) have coverage slanted against Palestinians. Groceryheist (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 based on publishing stuff like this. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the specific point of inaccuracy that is being pointed to here that is indicative of unreliability? An uncommon, but by no means isolated headline take, regardless of the level of controversy is not – in of itself – anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mondoweiss (your link) isn't a reliable source either. The mass rape claims are agreed upon by all the reliable sources I could find. The BBC, NBC news, The New York Times, AP news, and The Washington Post agree that there is evidence that rape happened. When extremely pro-Palestinian biased sources such as Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada construct fictional realities where Palestinians didn't rape Israelis, because that is inconvenient for their POV, that's when we consider those sources unreliable due to their ideological bias. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compare like with like. Mondoweiss is fine with attribution (they don't make stuff up) and your links do not support "mass rape" (and are in addition hedged about with one caveat and another) which is what M. is saying there is a lack of evidence for. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this isn't a discussion on Mondoweiss I'll avoid encouraging the tangent further, but EI lied that it was the Israeli govt that did October 7th. [20] [21] There's also the borderline Holocaust denial where EI lauds a book that blames Zionist Jews for the Holocaust. [22] EI also supported the October 7th attacks. [23]

IMHO it's pretty simple. This is an identical situation to The Daily Shoah or The Daily Stormer. EI pushes conspiracy theories, deny well-evidenced atrocities (mass rapes), engage in Holocaust inversion (especially by saying the Jews brought it among themselves), and even supported October 7th on that very day. That makes it an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is far closer to a misrepresention of those pieces than it is to an accurate summary of their contents. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 at least and probably Option 4. The specific falsehoods mentioned above aside, EI has a long reputation of providing misleading coverage, and if used, needs to be used with caution if at all. There's nothing, if at all, that EI would report on or cover that a more mainstream RS, even one that is biased, would not. When called out the outlet does not reliably issue corrections, but in some cases doubles down. For example, misquoting a misleading and incendiary quote from an Israeli official, then claiming others misquoted first instead of doing basic journalism and seeking to verify [24], mistranslations of Hebrew interviews that make exceptional claims [25] (then portraying it as reported fact instead of opinion on its Twitter [26]. It frequently relies on conspiracy rags like The Cradle and The Greyzone for single-sources and misleading reporting. There are many other examples. Editors voted to deprecate another activist outlet MEMRI for similar malpractice, even though EI pruportedly holds itself to a higher journalistic standard. I have no problem with biased sources, but there are far more and better ones than EI, which is more activist than journalist and misleading at best. Longhornsg (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any RS that have accused EI of false or misleading reporting? VR _talk 15:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 per Longhornsg. It's too biased and unreliable to be used. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 - Per @Marokwitz. Dovidroth (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 Biased, unreliable, advocacy website. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 - Hell no, for the reasons expressed above. Neutrality^talk 23:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per @Nableezy. Yr Enw (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: Biased website with blatant activism. Let'srun (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 One of the last American sources defending basic human rights. Fakecontinent (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources in context. What kind of content do you want to use and for which article? Alaexis_¿question? 20:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The regular discussions are about the sources in context, but the RFCs are general and a simple neutral question with the four options. See the other RFCs further up the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point stands. EI is cited as a source in several hundred articles, so its status at RSP has not presented an obstacle to its use. Is there an actual, live issue about its use or misuse as a source? Otherwise a new RFC is not in order. Banks Irk (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion was not a formal RFC with the four normal choices; Option 2, i.e. a halfway house was not presented; and the discussion was swamped by accounts now blocked as sock puppets/puppeteers. It was a not a level of discussion that should stand as the bar for this source. Obviously being labelled as GUNREL has a long-term impact on whether the source is deemed usable, with or without caveats. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, is there a way to distinguish opinions from news published by the EI? E.g., is this article an opinion piece or news [27]? Here are some of the quotes from it (a) But we are to believe the Israelis had no idea [of the October 7 attack that] was planned right under their noses? They probably knew. And they waited for it., (b) The vast network of Zionist organizations acts as appendages of the Israeli state that extend into all our lives around the world. Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the url from what I can tell, but other than by style, each piece has a short author bio at the end. The example you've shared has a conversational tone that betrays it as clear opinion, but beyond that it is attributed to an external party - the director of a literature festival. This analysis, on the other hand, is attributed to various contributors and "Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist and associate editor with The Electronic Intifada", so we know it's in-house. This colour piece appears to be not in-house, but from a journalist and presumably commissioned, but it's a colour piece, so not news. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume that the analysis is the kind of content you'd like to use on Wikipedia. It's long and uses all kind of sources which range from very reliable to complete garbage, but these are some of the highlights

Non-sequitur bordering on fake news. How is an opinion of a retired officer who did not take part in the fighting becomes a confirmation that Israel killed most Israeli civilians?

“

A retired Israeli army major has admitted [sic] Israel probably killed some of the 1,200 Israelis the government claims Hamas murdered on 7 October. The confession, discovered by The Electronic Intifada, is one of the highest level confirmations to date that Israel killed many, if not most, of the civilians that died during the Palestinian offensive.

”

Opinion-piece-style statements in the supposed analysis piece: [Josep Borrell] had no regard for the dead women, children and elderly of Palestine, not to mention the men.
Extreme bias: the hostages are described as detainees in the custody of Palestinian fighters
Usage of dodgy sources: they mention an anonymous letter published by Mondoweiss

I wouldn't support deprecating the EI, unless there are proven examples of publishing deliberate falsehoods, but it falls far short of reliable source standards. Alaexis_¿question? 11:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I set out by noting that its bias is clear. The question remains not one of its opinion, but one of factual inaccuracy. And, e.g., the "one of the highest level confirmations" statement, while clearly leaning into a viewpoint, is still couched. Any exceptional claims also remain covered by WP:ECREE. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph (UK)

I want to re-open the debate on the reliability score given to the Daily Telegraph as a perennial source. It's currently on "Generally reliable". Epa101 (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses (The Daily Telegraph (UK))

I know that there was a debate on the Telegraph in December 2022. This will focus on rulings by the Independent Press Standards Organisation since then. I have found seven cases when either the Daily Telegraph or telegraph.co.uk was given a sanction on a point of accuracy. I feel that its "Generally reliable" status is outdated. It has drifted outwith the mainstream with its vaccine scepticism. I know that their opinion on vaccines is outwith the considerations on this board, but I mention it to illustrate that this is not the "newspaper of record" of the past. I presume that there is only a realistic chance of its going down one rank, so I'll just put two options.

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations

Exhibit 1 They said that a court had overruled the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. This was not true.

Exhibit 2 They said that Sweden's spending on COVID-related interventions was less than a tenth as much as the UK's. This was not true.

Exhibit 3 They said that there is evidence that home-schooled children do not receive a good education, but then failed to produce the evidence when challenged.

Exhibit 4 They published inaccurate numbers on the number of people allowed to stay in the country under the UK's schemes in combatting modern slavery.

Exhibit 5 They said that a gas-turbine generator that was small enough to go on the back of a lorry would produce the same electricity, faster and more reliably, than 10 offshore wind turbines the size of the Eiffel Tower. This is not true.

Exhibit 6 They said that doctors and nurses were receiving 9% pay increases. This was not true.

Exhibit 7 They said that the decrease in deportation of criminals was linked to an increase in legal challenges on the grounds of human rights, but they could not back this up. You'll not be surprised to know that I vote for Option 2:. I know that all newspapers make mistakes, but I have two simple reasons: first, many of the British newspapers with lower reliability scores have made fewer mistakes in the same time period; second, the mistakes show a systematic bias towards the political right and I do not believe that this pattern could be a coincidence of simple errors. Epa101 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 with regard to any of its 'oppion' pieces. The issue goes beyond just making mistakes, and in Exhibits 3–7 they argued for there incorrect figures/details until IPSO rules against them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: Generally reliable Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 The source is clearly biased in terms of its right-wing perspective, but no news organisation is free of bias. However, the examples listed above do not detract from its reliability for our purposes. Rulings of this nature occur frequently for UK news orgs. I will deal with them one by one:

Ruling 1 (Sturgeon GRB): This was an opinion piece in which the columnist made a factual error. It would not be used in Wikipedia. The paper published a correction.

Ruling 2 (Covid) Opinion piece, would not be used other than for the writer's opinion. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 3 (Homeschooling) Opinion piece, would not be used other than for the writer's opinion. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 4 (modern slavery) Article quoted a minister who made inaccurate statements, and complaint was only partly upheld. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 5 (gas turbines)Opinion piece, would not be used other than for the writer's opinion. IPSO-mandated correction published.

Ruling 6 (doctors pay claim) This piece has poor use of statistics, however, the body text was accurate and the only factually false section was the headline which could not be used per WP:HEADLINE,

Ruling 7Was inaccurate, but only in part, and was corrected by IPSO.

Only two articles could have led to misleading information making it into Wikipedia, and these were later corrected. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not matter that those two were only corrected after an IPSO ruling? If we say that corrections after an IPSO ruling erase the original error, then any newspaper that's a member of IPSO (i.e. the vast majority) would become a reliable source, since they all correct their errors when IPSO tell them to. Epa101 (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not all papers are regulated by IPSO, but the two that aren't are probably more reliable in any case. I fully agree that membership of IPSO does not make a paper reliable, but I don't see significant unreliable content here. These are mostly really borderline cases, and the amount of good sourcing we would lose by downgrading the telegraph is insane. We can't compare with the Mail which is unusable given the propagandist nature of its entire output, or even something like the Jewish Chronicle which published a large number of factually inaccurate stories on a single topic over a very short period . Boynamedsue (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, my suggested Option 2 does not put it on the same level as the Daily Mail. It would still be two levels above the Mail. There would be no need to delete every Telegraph reference: it just loses its golden image. On propaganda, it should be noted that its close links to Boris Johnson made it very partisan during his premiership, and it has gone outside the mainstream since Borus was ejected. It's not the Torygraph any more. Epa101 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. I really think it's destructive to the project to constantly be having RfCs about "do you like this newspaper? YES, everything it says is automatically true or NO, everything it says is automatically false". In the real world of normal humans, there are always "considerations" when you write something and find sources to cite. Opinion pieces reflect opinions. Why do we have to have an official stance on them? jp×g 🗯️ 23:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My impression is that The Daily Telegraph is generally reliable for news reporting. As with other news sources, opinion pieces are not relevant to our evaluation of the source's reliability for factual reporting. Many news outlets do not fact-check their opinion pieces to the same standard as reporting; this is why WP:RSEDITORIAL says that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Boynamedsue analysis is correct here. It's totally normal for a major newspaper with a lot of content to have IPSO complaints upheld and to issue corrections. Although IPSO is very imperfect, the fact the paper succumbs to regulation and acts on findings against it counts in its favour in terms of reliability. If there were a significant number of news. Given these corrections mostly relate to opinion and a headline and/or were only partially upheld shows that there is no cause to move from the current option 1 status. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: no change - there seems no substantive change here to make for any change to the "Generally" reliable. IPSO issues had happened prior to the 2022 rating, and having another 7 problems among some hundreds or thousands of pieces since still seems "Generally" reliable. That they occurred in opinion pieces and were responded to by editorial staff seems further mitigation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 effectively per Mx. Granger. It seems most of the issues are with opinion pieces, which, besides having been IPSO-corrected, aren't typically relevant to our considerations of reliability. While biased, I don't see a reason to no longer consider it "generally" reliable. The Kip 08:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. The issues were mostly with opinion pieces, and many cases are borderline (see Boynamedsue's analysis). Also, the initiator of the RfC failed to provide any evidence that these issues caused problems on Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 09:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that I needed to. We didn't need to say that the Morning Star (opposite end of the political spectrum) is causing lots of problems on Wikipedia to give it a lower reliability score. Epa101 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the instructions at the top of this noticeboard. Alaexis_¿question? 21:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Option 2 All media outlets are biased, but this is one that wears it on their sleeve more than the best ones do. Reliable for mundane reporting, but any summary of complex events should be considered editorial. Sennalen (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. Only 7 IPSO complaints about mostly opinion pieces? Our policies about reliable sources are clear that they're allowed to make a few mistakes as long as they have a working corrections policy. Voluntarily joining an arms' length self regulatory organization is exactly what we want sources to do. The Guardian and The Independent aren't members of IPSO, can we downgrade them? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 Generally Reliable largely per the analysis by Boynamedsue. Opinion pieces are already treated differently, and the handful of errors otherwise noted are not outside of the norm for pretty much any reputable news/media source. They have a right leaning editorial slant. Big deal. MSNBC leans left and has likely produced a similar level of mistakes. When it comes to factual reporting, for the most part they seem to have their act together. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Boynamedsue's analysis shows that the content provided as evidence covers material that we wouldn't use anyway and official corrections were made where necessary – it's not a flawless publication, but what is? EddieHugh (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1/BADRFC It's pretty clear to me that downgrading the Telegraph to WP:MREL over this would be holding it to a ridiculously high double-standard. They issued corrections, it's fine. If it isn't, we should have an RFC to downgrade every media organization out there. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 is more reasonable. As stated by various editors above, all' sources require at least some 'other considerations', but there is nothing on current showing to prove that this news outlets is anything other than generally reliable. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Sources that make twice as many mistakes haven't been downgraded. I don't see how this is any different Scorpions1325 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of the reliable source noticeboard equivalent of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yr Enw (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 As per above. Every news organisation has a political leaning, this is no different. Any errors were corrected when challenged by the appropriate authorities, just like any respectable media organisation would expect. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Thanks to Boynamedsue’s further context, the list of complaints looks weak. If those are the worst offences, I’d say it still qualifies as generally reliable. If any future RfC is raised based on IPSO (or similar) complaints, I’d like to see those complaints contextualised - e.g. how many such complaints is typical for a similar source? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (The Daily Telegraph (UK))

You haven't set this up as an RFC, WP:RFCOPEN explains how to do it properly. That will ensure that notifications are sent out, and the discussion is listed correctly. As an aside "Exhibit 1" doesn't say that "Nicola Sturgeon resigned as a result of the Bill" was untrue but rather that it was a unprovable statement of opinion, and "Exhibit 2" has the same link as "Exhibit 1". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epa101, ping so you're aware. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not setting this up correctly. After more than 15 years on Wikipedia, I'm still making errors. Thanks also for your pointers on my mistake. Epa101 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epa101, please remove all of your argumentation to the discussion section and leave a neutral rfc statement at the top before this draws responses. As it is now it's a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm moving it. I don't understand why some of the other notices on this Noticeboard don't have this structure that's being required here, but I'll move it anyway. Epa101 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad RFC Not only is this malformed, as noted above, but it is improper. The last RFC was only a year ago. All of the "evidence" consists of complaints about statements in editorial of opinion pieces, not the accuracy or inaccuracy of news reports. And none of them involved use of those opinion pieces as sources in a specific article here. A new RFC is not in order. Banks Irk (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  First, putting evidence in inverted commas is just childish. That is robust evidence. All of it is since the last decision, so it's all new. It all says that it's a matter of fact and not of opinion. Are you arguing that the IPCC is wrong to say that these are matters of fact? If so, you need a source for that, which is stronger than the IPCC's judgement. As regards how they're not used in a specific article, I don't think that is required for a judgement on a perennial source. There wouldn't be much point in having the ratings for each perennial source if we just judged each article on its individual merits. Why say that the Mirror, Morning Star, Mail, Sun, Express, etc. is less reliable in general by the Telegraph if we can just judge each article in each publication on its own merits? When we gave lower ratings to those publications, we didn't say that their inaccuracies had to occur in an article cited in a Wikipedia article. Epa101 (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Agree it's far too soon for another RFC Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Is there any time period in which you're not allowed to make another suggestion? I didn't see this in the rules. I can understand that it would get annoying if the same person keeps making the same argument again and again, but I hope that my suggestion here is substantially different to the last one. The December 2022 debate was dominated by the Telegraph's coverage of trans issues. That comes into my first exhibit, but that is only one of seven. I would also note that this newspaper has changed in recent years. It has become more alt-right (e.g. on vaccines) and less conventionally Conservative Party; a rule that a source cannot be reconsidered for multiple risks missing changes such as this. Epa101 (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several of these complaints appear to be with reference to opinion pieces in the Telegraph, which already would not usually be considered reliable for statements of fact per WP:RSOPINION. I think only three ([28], [29], [30]) are related to the Telegraph's news coverage, of which one ([31]) only rules that the headline was misleading: and per WP:RSHEADLINE headlines are already not a reliable source. So of the seven rulings initially cited, as far as I can make out only two are relevant to the question of the reliability of the Telegraph's news coverage. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 4 is about false statements by a former minister that were correctly reported. Although that violates IPSO journalistic standards, rs policy does not say that news media could report false statements by politicians without fact-checking them. TFD (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per Banks Irk BADRFC, and no need for a new RFC per Caeciliusinhorto and others that the examples offered are opinion pieces, not news, whose use is already covered by other guideline. I also note criticism of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) at that article, and wonder if there is any such body limiting freedom of published opinions in other countries (eg US). We have fact-checkers, for example, but no body that I'm aware of limiting the freedom to be wrong in your opinions. Short of defamatory publications, I wonder how many non-UK publications would by reduced to "restrictions apply" to their reliability if we included mistakes in their commentary and opinion sections; I suspect we'd be left with very few generally reliable sources if we scrutinized very opinion column in the US to the level that apparently the IPSO does. When fact-checking extends to opinion and commentary, rather than news, short of defamation, that would seem to limit freedom of expression, which includes the possibility of being wrong in your opinions. And if the UK has this IPSO body, why do they have such a horrific tabloid industry (confused)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can search on their website for breaches, including whether a sanction was decided upon, against any newspaper that is a member (which is the vast majority). Note that the websites are listed separately from the paper, as some articles are only published online. If we compare to newspapers with a lower reliability rating in the same time period: the Daily Mirror/Sunday Mirror has 4, the Morning Star has 0, the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday has 3, the Daily Express/Sunday Express has 3, the Sun [on Sunday] has 3 and the Daily Star [Sunday] has 0. I accept that some newspapers see the IPSO as insufficiently strict and have not joined, so we cannot compare with them. Still I think that there are enough member newspapers to make comparisons. I feel that the Daily Telegraph is living on old glory with its Wikipedia reputation. Epa101 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the complaints were about commentary pieces, which are not considered rs anyway. Also, the proposer does not provide any comparison with other broadsheets. If for example the Financial Times, Independent and Guardian had similar levels of complaints upheld against them, then we would be unfairly apply an impossible standard. In fact those papers are not even members of the IPSO, yet are considered rs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 17:16, November 24, 2023 (UTC)

The Independent is considered a bit of a fallen giant in Britain now and it is not considered alongside the other broadsheets any more, but nonetheless it has 0 rulings against it for accuracy in this time period. The Financial Times has 0 rulings in the same period. The Times has 3. Unlike other British newspapers with Sunday editions, the Sunday Times is still a very different newspaper from the Times, so I'll count that separately. The Sunday Times has 1. The Guardian is not a member of IPSO, so I cannot compare with that. These comparisons are limited, but the Telegraph has more than others considered. As you can see in my response to SandyGeorgia above, the perennial sources with lower reliability scores have had fewer sanctions for accuracy in this period. Epa101 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It still reflects an odd sense of press freedom, given there is no such thing in the US to my knowledge; people are entitled to errors in their opinions, as long as they aren't defamatory. And given we have no such beast in the US, it makes no sense to penalize one UK paper for a controversial guardian of the press. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving ideas of press freedom to one side, as that is a big can of worms. There are some restrictions in the USA that don't apply in the UK, such as the rules on foreign ownership. A lot of our national papers are owned by people with little connection to the UK. On its reliability, I'm not saying to treat it worse than every other newspaper. I'm questioning why we put it on a pedestal at present. My suggested Option 2 only knocks it down one rung. Epa101 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we should wait and see whether The Telegraph is acquired by the Emiratis (which is currently under discussion). Once that has happened and some time is passed, a RfC is probably appropriate considering the UAE's track record regarding freedom of the press. Cortador (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'd put most British news outlets under Option 2 when it comes to GENSEX issues because there is a well-known culture of transphobia in the British press that has been covered by non-British sources, but that's probably a minority opinion; I should point out that Option 1 doesn't mean always reliable, just generally reliable; there are possible times where that generality can be overridden by specific concerns. With regards to the Telegraph... it's been on a slow downward slope for a long time, but I wouldn't change it from Option 1 to 2 just yet. Sceptre (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news for weather and local stations

Does weather fall under the "science" category for Fox news being unreliable. Nothing in this article [32] seems too off scanning through it. Also, do Fox weather and local Fox station fall under the same category as Fox as a whole. ✶Qux yz ✶ 19:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. Fox News still employs editors and journalists, it's just that the bigwigs swoop in whenever the audience's beliefs do not align with reality. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this particular weather article isn't scientific, the things to watch for are climate denial, transphobia, etc. Andre🚐 15:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Local affiliates of news channels are generally not very strongly related to the national networks. In Detroit channel 2 is WJBK, channel 4 is WDIV, channel 7 is WXYZ, and channel 62 is WWJ-TV; one of these is ABC, one is NBC, one is CBS and one is Fox, but go watch 30 minutes of nightly news on each channel and see if you can tell which is which from the content alone. jp×g 🗯️ 22:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Local affiliates are in general cool, IDK if some have issues but none of the Fox affiliates I have experience with have the same issues as corporate/cable Fox... They tend to provide solid local journalism often in collaboration with a local paper of record. My experience is largely the same as JPxG's... Their coverage is pretty much indistinguishable in content and tone from the local affiliates of the other three letter words. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleFlying revisit

I recently noticed that there's an editor who claim SimpleFlying as unreliable source based on two discussion on RSN (which are first discussion and second discussion. However, as I look up those discussion, it seems there are only one or two participants on those discussion. And I don't think discussion between two editors would be sufficient to conclude certain source as reliable or unreliable. That's why I am re-opening this discussion to seek more input.

Refer to SimpleFlying about page, it seems they claim to be news organization (The leading independent voice for aviation news and insight.). Their about page also informs us their journalist and editorial team, which indicate their contents undergo editorial process before published. They also mentioned their fact-checking policy and correction policy on their website, which I think are one of core value of journalism.

~~Therefore, IMO SimpleFlying may be qualify to be considered as News Organization and their content can be considered generally reliable.~~
Therefore, IMO SimpleFlying may still be used in WP, unless we have better source. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that SimpleFlying has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? You can't assess the reputation of a website by looking at what it says about itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that SimpleFlying is good for travel tips, they're generally objective, and they've published some well-sourced and accurate historical articles. That said, for aviation news, they engage in churnalism and often rehash content from other news organizations without full context and detail. Their reporting tends to lack depth. I usually use SF as a one-stop "first alert", then I do a little digging to find the source they used and work from that. If they were on WP:RSP, I'd give them "additional considerations" yellow shading. They do seem to be improving, however. Carguychris (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SimpleFlying 'Terms of Use' page doesn't exactly inspire confidence. The first paragraph in the section on 'accuracy' is clearly copy-pasted from a website on another subject. [33] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not consider myself sufficiently familiar with aviation to weigh in personally, I did notice the following examples of SimpleFlying being cited by established periodicals and by academics:

By NewsWeek, in "Ukraine Refugees Encounter Chaos, Racism--and Also 'Extraordinary Humanity'" (2022)
By the academic Journal of Sustainable Tourism in "Limited Tourism: Travel Bubbles for a Sustainable Future" (2021)
Presenters at the German Air and Space Congress (Deutscher Luft Und Raumfahrtkongress), in "On the Definition of Development Objectives for Air Taxis Derived from a Holistic Stakeholder Analysis" (2021)
Economists from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Georgia Institute of Technology, in "Fly the Unfriendly Skies: The Role of Transport Costs in Gravity Models of Trade" (2023)

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that some article in SimpleFlying do have inaccuraces or mistakes so it's may not be the best source, and if we have better source then we probably should use the better source. However, I don't think it's also appropriate to label SimpleFLying as generally 'unreliable', since as mentioned above SimpleFlying did cited by some established periodicals and by academics. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock arguing that Nikkei is on par with SF.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Every source used on Wikipedia has an error or mistake here and there. If you find yourself second-guessing what Simple Flying says, look for another source to back it up, and if you can’t find one, remove it. Otherwise, leave it, as the overwhelming majority of their work is of citation quality. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you have undone edits even when they consisted of replacing the unreliable Simple Flying citation with a more credible citation. Care to explain? Avgeekamfot (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t look “more credible” by any margin. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm confused, are we looking at the same diff or are you saying simplyflying is more reliable than The Nikkei? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be edit warring to include Simple Flying rather than the Nikkei source I found now. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have no reason to believe that Nikkei is more valid than Simple Flying. This is also not edit warring. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkei seems to have many of the same issues that Simple Flying does, as identified by others in this thread. If i'm wrong, great- but Nikkei doesn't look a whole lot better. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although superficially responsible, with a sensible fact checking policy, there has to be some doubt. For example that policy states, "Before any article is written, we ensure the information is new and accurate. ... Our writers and editors are industry veterans", while at the same time their recruitment page says, "Can you explain to friends which is the best London airport for them? Do you have strong feelings about the window vs. aisle seat debate? If this sounds like you, maybe it’s time to take off with us. Simple Flying is on the lookout for enthusiastic avgeeks with a passion for writing to join its global team." which is rather less reassuring. Every wacky site gets recommended by somebody, every responsible site makes mistakes. SimpleFlying appears to be somewhere near the borderline. Unlike at least one editor here, I have no problem with sites that go back and correct their mistakes when their attention is drawn to them; I wish more RS were prepared to do that! All in all, I'd regard it as on the reliable side of the border line, but with the caveat that opinion pieces, such as which airport to go to or where best to sit, should be treated as unreliable. All the usual issues over cross-checking of conflicting sources will of course apply But from what others have dug up (see below) it does appear to be somewhat unreliable still. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [revised 21:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)][reply]

I'm glad that a wider discussion on this topic has been started -- I did try to open a wider discussion before but did not get much participation (although @Starlights99:'s reply was appreciated!) as @Ckfasdf notes. Some points regarding Simple Flying:

An entire video where they get Singapore Airlines and SAS confused.
A couple articles where they discuss the A321XLR as flying (before it started commercial operations)
Content on the 747 where the video and article contradict each other and seemingly no editing
A Bloomberg aviation reporter pointing out that when they produce news, it's " ripping off our stories and suffice it with a simple "credit" right at the bottom of the story"
Ishirion (a well-respected aviation analyst) pointing out some of their inaccuracies.
Enilria (a popular aviation Patron writer) pointing out another article with yet more inaccuracies
Their writers are not professional journalists or subject matter experts. For example: "lead journalist" for Africa, contributing since 2018, graduated from high school in 2020

They're owned by a company who's entire business model is churning out content for ad and affiliate revenue. Frankly, it's hard to read more than a few of their articles without finding glaring inaccuracies. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS requires that sources have "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and news orgs are expected to be "well established". I'm not seeing any reason to believe Simple Flying meets this standard. Its reputation is one of churnalism, plagiarism, and unreliability. In the vast majority of cases, if what Simple Flying is reporting is true, we can find an actual RS for it and in other cases, perhaps the content doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. As Gary Leff posted in response to @xJonNYC mocking their lack of fact checking: "That's just usual Simple Flying stuff, it's either ripped off or wrong, so it doesn't surprise me when both happen in the same piece." Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RedundancyAdvocate is a blocked sock

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you. However, next time you need to provide these details BEFORE you remove it as a source from an article. BEFORE. Not after others have gone and undone your edits and warned you. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the fact that you know how to use a warning template doesn't mean anything. Anyone can post a warning template and use all caps. Let's maybe be civil?

Whether or not this discussion concludes that Simple Flying is a reliable source or not, the onus is on the editor who is arguing for inclusion to gain consensus if it is contentious. If I remove a Simple Flying source (which I will continue to do unless there is a consensus that it is reliable), then the onus would be on anyone trying to re-add it to gain a consensus to do so. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the fact that you removed countless Simple Flying links without providing any justification for doing so other than claiming it was unreliable. The fact you've justified it now doesn't make that acceptable. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d suggest you leave the existing Simple Flying links in place in articles, unless you can spot any inaccuracies with them, in which case you should find other sources to replace them with. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are expected to make their own judgement of sources, and need no-ones pre-approval to edit. Your comment above that Nikkei looks no more credible than simplyflying is of concern. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of concern? On a quick peruse of Nikkei it doesn't make me any more confident than one would be on a quick jaunt through Simple Flying. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nikkei is a major national newspaper of Japan, if you judgement is that a maybe reliable website is of equal credibility then yes "concern". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree emphatically with ActivelyDisinterested. Nikkei is a major financial information provider - heck, it even owns the Financial Times these days - and global investors do not take inaccurate information kindly. You do not get more highly regarded news services than this. For someone to suggest that SimpleFlying is on a par with it is merely to demonstrate their own bad judgement and, unfortunately, to cast doubt on all their value judgements in this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avgeekamfot: Thank you for your clarification, I also try to look up newer discussion on SimpleFlying to find out whether they have improved but it seems not that much. And based on discussion above, it seems we can conclude that SimpleFlying is a Questionable source. With that being said, there two next point to be discuss, firstly regarding future edit (how we can inform future editor that SimpleFlying as questionable source) and secondly about existing article that already used SimpleFlying for the source. For the first part, I think we should go to WP:AVIATION and add SimpleFlying into list of resources to avoid. For the second part, ideally, all citation that initially use SimpleFlying should be replaced with WP:RS, but we are not living in ideal world. However, I dont think replacing all SimpleFlying into {{cn}} is a good idea either, as we are removing initial reference on why certain information included in the article in the first place. Therefore I am suggesting to put {{Better source needed}} instead, as that template is designed to address questionable source in the first place. Also future editor who will replace that SimpleFlying source can still have reference on which article that is problematic. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckfasdf Appreciate the agreement regarding Simple Flying's unsuitability as a source for Wikipedia.

Based on my count now, seems as though in addition to the two of us, @Steelpillow is in agreement on Simple Flying's unreliability. In the two previous discussions cited, three other editors (unanimously) agreed on this point as well. I suppose to achieve consensus, we'd ideally hear from editors who were part of the discussion @P-Makoto @AndyTheGrump@Carguychris @ActivelyDisinterestedon on their final assessment. And I'm not exactly sure how to characterize @RedundancyAdvocate's position…

I'd suggest that beyond questionable, Simple Flying should be listed as a "generally unreliable"/WP:GUNREL source. The criteria for inclusion at WP:RSP is "two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading" which we will have met after this discussion along with the two previous ones you referenced when starting this discussion. Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with adding to links to avoid for WP:AVIATION as well, btw. Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RedundancyAdvocate is a blocked sock

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Ckfasdf you have the right way to go. It's certainly questionable but is not "generally unreliable"- that would require a COMMON unreliability, which has not been proven. @Avgeekamfot- you seem to have some issues understanding how Wikipedia works, seeing as you left two retroactive warns on my talk page for things that occurred prior to this discussion, which doesn't make much sense. If you continue to demonstrate that you have trouble understanding how things work, we might have a problem. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RedundancyAdvocate I'd encourage you to review WP:CIVIL and cease from your rude behavior that has included all caps, hounding, and a seeming belief that you're entitled to instruct me on how to edit. It's ironic that the person who can't recognize that The Nikkei is far more reliable than a churnalism blog is lecturing me on how Wikipedia works or the English language. You seem to be the only person who doesn't agree that Simple Flying is generally unreliable. Given that the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include information, if you really believe Simple Flying is reliable, you should gain consensus for it as a reliable source. Absent that, I will continue removing it as a citation when I see it. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules do not allow you to remove a source at will without providing justification for doing so. Warning you for that is not Wikipedia:Harassment either. You seem to have misread most of what i've said. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Better source needed}} is the way to go. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avgeekamfot- regardless of if Simple Flying is indeed unreliable, you needed to provide reasoning for saying that BEFORE deleting numerous links to it. If you go and deleted dozens of links to a source without saying anything more than "It's unreliable", then I have no reason to take you seriously, and will consider your edits disruptive. Keep this in mind next time. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Jetstreamer, if you haven't seen this already. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RedundancyAdvocate, read WP:VANDAL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been "disruptive editing". My point, however, stands. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me out. This discussion parallels the recurrent one involving SurferSquall regarding Planespotters; they claimed the source was reliable and everyone else should demonstrate the opposite.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting and made me take a closer look. I've started a discussion here referencing this discussion. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again no-one has to have permission to replace a source with one they think more reliable, this definitely doesn't fall under any sort of 'disruptivd editing'. Mass reverting without any good cause could consider such though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i'm talking about Avgeekamfot removing dozens of Simple Flying citations without having justified that. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just removing that many links to it with no consensus on the issue is indeed disruptive editing. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were mistaken in doing so, maybe not this discussion isn't over. Either way it takes a complete disregard of WP:Assume good faith to call it disruptive. Either way this forum is for the discussion of reliable sources, if you wish to discuss another editors behaviour you should try WP:ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

better source needed

Given the extensive issues with Simple Flying (bullet points on my user page) and seeming consensus that it is either unreliable or questionable (with the exception of the editor arguing that it is more reliable than The Nikkei, lol), I'd like to discuss the correct course of action for articles already containing Simple Flying as a citation.

Obviously, the ideal course of action for any Simple Flying citation is to impeach it by looking for reliable sources to replace it with. However, short of that, @Ckfasdf has suggested adding the "better source needed" template to any Simple Flying citation. I think this would be a reasonable solution if we had any reason to believe that a SF citation is better than nothing but based on the evidence in the conversation above regarding SF's reliability, I don't think this is the case. I think we're better off tagging anything with a SF citation as simply "citation needed".

The "citation needed" approach for questionable sources is also supported by the FAQs located at WP:CITEWATCH which suggests the following steps when a questionable source is found in an article:

“

If the source is inappropriate, you have several options depending on the situation.

Replace the source with a reliable one. (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, ideally)
Replace the source with a ^{[citation needed]} template. (WP:MINREF – "Any statement that has been challenged")
Remove both the source and the associated article passage. (WP:BLPSOURCE/WP:UNDUE/WP:EXTRAORDINARY/WP:MEDRS situations)

”

Given that we're talking about aviation articles, I don't think the third bullet is salient but I do think following this approach (at least the first two bullets) is appropriate. I understand wanting a "future editor who will replace that SimpleFlying source can still have reference on which article that is problematic" but I believe the article revision history is sufficient, and simply putting a "better source needed" while linking to a churnalism site that plagiarizes articles is inappropriate. This is also the approach suggested by WikiProject Aviation.

TL;DR: Should citations to questionable/spammy blogs like SF be replaced with a "citation needed" or just be tagged as "better source needed" while leaving a link to the blog in the article? Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants @Ckfasdf, @Carguychris, @AndyTheGrump, @ActivelyDisinterested, @Steelpillow, @Jetstreamer, et. al. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to template documentation and Citation needed article, {{Citation needed}} is intended to request citation of unsourced claims and the usage of that template also automatically put the article into Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Meanwhile {{Better source needed}} is intended to be used when a statement is sourced but the source link to insufficiently reliable sources and the usage of that template also automatically put the article into Category:All articles lacking reliable references. Since, we all agree that existing source is questionable source, not unsourced, then IMO we should refer to the template documentation and use {{Better source needed}} instead. Ckfasdf (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we all agree that SF is at least questionable which if added to WP:RSP would = WP:GUNREL. Going further, I think it's WP:CITESPAM and linking to it at all does more harm than good but I recognize that I don't have consensus on that point, just that SF is unreliable 😀

Reviewing the template documentation you've pointed to and given the policies/guidelines I've pointed to, it seems as though both approaches to dealing with questionable sources are valid? Perhaps, at least for purposes of this RSN discussion, we leave it at that and allow editorial discretion on how to deal with SF sources when they come up? Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO neither WP:CITEWATCH or WP:GUNREL are part of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. But yea, let's see what's other editors thought on how to deal with existing SimpleFlying source. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but WP:GUNREL is on one of the absolutely most trafficked help pages as far as citations are concerned so I think if it's controversial, it would have been changed by now.

For what it's worth, another edit illustrating why I think "citation needed" is preferable to even citing SF. Thanks to misinformation from SF, we had their planned fleet size as "up to 80" when every other reliable source said half of an 80 aircraft order by Lufthansa Group would go to City Airlines. Seems like SF simply made up the "up to 80" bit of the article. SF also said had an A319 flying when the airline is not starting service till summer 2024. It would be quite tedious to fact check every single item cited to SF but I don't think it's a reason to retain links to a source with so much misinformation. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Avgeekamfot notes above, the appropriate way to deal with improperly-sourced material depends on context. I'd have to suggest though that if there is a lot of material that appears only to be citeable to Simple Flying, we probably shouldn't be including such material at all. There seems to be a prevailing tendency amongst some contributors to aviation topics (and some others too) to treat the existence of a source as all the evidence needed to include content in an article. That has never been the case: articles are supposed to summarise a topic, not describe every last aspect in exhaustive detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely convinced that it's unreliable but it's definitely marginal at best. There does appear to be some use as a source by other reliable sources, but there are also enough concerns raised to show it's not a generally reliable source.
If the content is due the best course of action would be to replace it with a different source, as with the example above that was switched for The Nikkei. As to what to do with the rest, if it is undue (trivia for instances) it could be removed, while the right way would be to add {{better source needed}} for anything else. However that's also a tag that will simply sit for another decade and go untouched, as it has done in thousands of other articles, while {{citation needed}} tends to get more attention (especially in well maintained articles).
I also agree that adding this to "links to avoid" on WP:AV/R is appropriate, I don't think adding more references to simplyflying is necessarily helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor currently most involved in maintaining the list as WP:AV/R, I appreciate the advice being offered here and have incorporated some of it. As a project we do have our share of "I read it on the Internet" trainspotters and PoV pushers, but we are far from alone. I'd suggest that any specific advice for that list/section be posted at WT:AV/R, for discussion there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RedundancyAdvocate is a blocked sock

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Steelpillow @ActivelyDisinterested @AndyTheGrump @Avgeekamfot @Ckfasdf Let's leave it at the above and move on. We shouldn't add more Simple Flying links, but shouldn't be blindingly deleting the existing ones either; replace them with something else or use {{Better source needed}}. @Avgeekamfot- apart from this discussion, familiarize yourself better with how WIkipedia works. I think we can all agree on this, no? RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this could do with more discussion, and that you shouldn't make any further comments about other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See our respective talk page histories. Not one but two baseless warns on my talk page that make zero sense given the order of events here, and reek of "revenge" for my having warned them before. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again this noticeboard is only for the discussing the reliability of sources, not for making comments about other editors. Just stop. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor source - just delete it and tag the info (or if appropriate just delete the text supported by it). Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and use high quality sources, not non-RS clcikbait like this - just let it go.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you right about this. The issue with the better source needed tag is that editors who disagree will just leave it in place, as they don't agree, so citation needed tends to get more attention. Also as long as they remain they encourage other good faith but unaware editors to re-use the source (even with tags). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the issue with Better source needed tag is that tag is not as widely used as Citation needed tag (557k articles vs 20k articles. So people may not understand the intended use of each tag, which actually are described in template documentation. The Citation needed template is intended for use when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided. Other templates are available for other or more specific issues, such as Better source needed tag, which indicate existing citation that link to insufficiently reliable sources. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is the {{circular reference}} that is for use when someone uses Wikipedia as a reference, many of these languish for over a decade without anyone removing something that should never have been used in the first place. Including many to other language Wikipedia's with completely unreferenced articles. For there intended purpose these tags work very poorly, while citation needed garners lots of attention and there's nothing in policy saying one should be used over the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckfasdf@ActivelyDisinterested This is why my preference is to handle SF citations by replacing with a reliable source or fully removing them (and replacing with a {{cn}} tag) or removing the sourced material entirely as @Nigel Ish has stated. It seems as though better source needed is just a cop-out that won't meaningfully reduce the number of citations to SF and encourage editors who view it as reliable to continue adding it making it everyone else's job to clean up after them. I'll probably develop the first section of my user page into an essay on this referencing this discussion once it's complete so it's easy to reference (I've never done that before so I welcome help and collaboration).

If someone wants to reference the page history, they can still see the original citation and removal in the page history (if there's a cn tag) while if someone disagrees with the removal of something sourced to cn, they can go out and find a RS to reinstate it. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian propaganda telegram channels

User:Alexiscoutinho insists on using Russian propaganda channels from Telegram as a source [34]. When I tried to remove these (a good bit of info was double cited anyway) I was told to, quote, “get over it”.

This particular channel specifically was anonymous, until an outside investigation revealed its ties to Wagner Group’s Yevgeny Prigozhin (yes, the mercenary group full of neo Nazis, who then mutinied against Putin etc.). The administrators of the channel have repeatedly made false claim, including who they were, putting forth fake identities.

The administrators of the channel themselves have said that “They work(…) in the field of information warfare and counterpropaganda in the name of the interests of the Russian state.” [35]

Call me crazy but that does not appear to be anywhere close to being a reliable source, and an editor who insist on using such sources probably should be kept away from the topic area altogether. Volunteer Marek 21:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't trust Wikipedians individual judgement with anonymous Telegram posts like this. This is what journalism is for. Basically zero reason to ever cite Telegram directly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were better ways to fix that issue instead of just deleting everything like that without any discussion. I've mostly used it as a support source together with ISW reports in that cities list page to explain specific dates when the ISW wasn't really clear about them in the reports. If one requested for me to substitute them, I could do it no problem when I had the extra time. Your assessment should take into account this context and my history of helpful edits in that page. Please don't fall in the "witch hunt" trap. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: You are over generalizing this. Despite all those problems, which I'm not going to deny because I don't know them very well, it is still a generally reliable source for territorial changes. And I'm not talking about the Wikipedia definition of reliable, I'm talking about the common sense/casual usage of the word. I follow that channel and ISW's reports almost daily and I can attest that those sources go inline with each other almost all the time. There's been a long time that I don't hear something (territorial changes) that Rybar said that was debunked by ISW. When they diverge, it's usually when there isn't a lot of geolocated footage constraining the maps. Rybar is also one of the most conservative Russian milbloggers when it comes to territorial changes. In fact, he was one of the few if not the only one who originally denied the Russian claim that Marinka was captured on December 1. So yeah, I understand your point that he isn't the best source for Wikipedia main space articles, that's why I put {{bsn}} in the battle page, but in that list page I really don't see a problem. In fact, I don't even think the RS guideline really applies to such pages. It was never really meant to be perfect and it will probably be deleted in the future when all the info contained in it goes to the individual mainspace articles. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not “over generalizing” anything. Very specifically and particularly, Rybar, a self proclaimed Russian nationalist propaganda channel, is not reliable source. I don’t know what “common sense” or “casual” definition of reliable source you have in mind, but that’s actually irrelevant as on Wikipedia we have an established policy, WP:RS and this source doesn’t satisfy it. Not even in the least.

Of course WP:RS applies to such pages. We’re getting into WP:CIR territory here. Volunteer Marek 21:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That page was never meant to fully conform to Wikipedia's quality standards. It's a fast paced page aimed to help the map Module. When the war is over, it will probably be deleted. When the situation of each battle cools down, those citations could all be substitutes with actual reliable sources. I've done that multiple times in battle articles (the battle of Marinka is the only exception that I remember because I was simply confident that when the ISW report comes withing a few hours it would fully confirm those claims). I could be wrong, in which case I would obviously correct it, but that seems quite unlikely as geolocated footage exists and clearly confirms the claim. When the report comes, I planned to substitute it with the report as source, hence the correct usage of {{bsn}} to portray the temporary nature of that citation. Going back to the list page, even if those Rybar citations weren't substituted when better sources were available, it wouldn't be a problem because most entries are deleted anyways when the frontline moves far away from those villages and cities. Thus, I think you guys are overblowing the proportion of this and also not "assuming good faith". Dialogue is always a good first step when you find something wrong, not accusing others of "pushing propaganda" and threatening to sanction the editor. About the "get over it" comment, I'm sorry about that, what motivated it was the shock of such a huge revert without notice/warning. Once again, I think "assuming good faith" there and starting a dialogue there would have been the best action. Also note that several editors there showed no concern with those edits of mine for months. Thus I was quite "angry" at your bold revert. Once again, it doesn't justify the "get over it", but I hope you understand where I (that mindset) was comming from. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a "page was never meant to fully conform to Wikipedia's quality standards", then it shouldn't be part of Wikipedia; it's that simple. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not a repository for breaking news, not a collection of primary sources. Verifiability is one of our pillars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate Russian telegram as they are never reliable, and should not be used for ANYTHING. Andre🚐 21:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All rules/guidelines exist for a reason/motif. Simply repeating/parroting it for any and all contexts doesn't seem very helpful and productive. Please familiarize yourself with the context. But with that being said though, I am indeed willing to stop using it from now on there if it indeed is deemed unfit (after a proper analysis of context). But I vehemently disagree with any form of sanction ignoring WP:AGF. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Telegram channels obviously can not be used as reliable sources. Sometimes these "Z military correspondents" channels get referred to by reliable sources (not by sources which only report social media), then I guess they can be mentioned. Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know the context of those edits? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS applies to all mainspace pages. Andre🚐 21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally nothing on Telegram would be a reliable source, nor would anything on any other social media outside of BLPs in an WP:ABOUTSELF piece of info or, in rare occasions, official news accounts on social media reporting on something. Other than that, anything on social media would not be reliable unless a reliable source, such as the news, reports on it. And, in those cases, you would be citing the news article instead. Silver seren^C 21:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other editors here: Telegram channels like these are certainly not RS (and I'm strugglng to think of any "context" that would make these acceptable). Look for reliable secondary sources (like Reuters) instead. Neutrality^talk

Guys, I know Telegram in general is not a RS according to Wikipedia guidelines. Please consider the context of where they were used. That page is a dynamic and fast paced list and pretty much all information there is temporary (settements far from the frontline are deleted and the whole page will probably be deleted when the war is over and individual main space articles are created). It is also not linked in any article and its only purpose, afaik, is to support the map Module, as a "writing board" (because it's much better to use wikitext and tables instead of writing citations and keeping track of historic changes in Lua comment strings). With that being said, I think the most adequate solution would be to make that page an exception/make it exempt from these more rigorous RS rules (i.e. let those lesser sources be usable, but obviously recommend substituting them with better sources when available). The map template doc itself said something like "big claims require great evidence", but no "big claims" were made there using only these "unreliable" sources (these big claims are kept as wikitext comments, check them yourselves). With all this in mind, I don't see a reason to make such "a big fuss" over this. I already give preference to citing ISW anyways. Thanks. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should add “…not a OSINT aggregator” to WP:NOT. Yes, that’s a more general problem with some of these articles. But regardless, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we stick with our WP:RS policy. Volunteer Marek 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But regardless That's the problem, you don't want to consider the context. It's like a judge who already has a veredict in mind and just applies the sentence without even looking at the evidence and defender's statements. That's just applying rules for the sake of applying them. It doesn't make Wikipedia any better because nobody is even reading that page (just editors) and because the map will still be the same (it doesn't show references for each marker). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule on RS only applying to readers, not editors. I understand what you're saying that it's for internal use, but if that's the case, create a page in Project space or User space. Andre🚐 00:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. One last doubt, does purposely keeping the {{unreliable}} banner on that page make it exempt from these more rigorous rules? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are cleanup tags. They don't exempt articles from policy, especially one as fundamental as this. They exist to provide cleanup tasks in a maintenance queue. By putting that tag, you're telling a volunteer to COMEFIXIT. Andre🚐 01:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aside from that Alexis, we shouldn't be providing readers an off link to a source of propaganda that is unreliable, as a reference let alone any kind of external link. I'm not saying you need a sanction or anything for this, just please adjust and move on accordingly, there's a clear consensus not to use Telegram links from Russia for anything, and I wonder if we should consider adding them to the spam blocklist. Andre🚐 00:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Thanks for the well rounded response. I mostly agree, but there is a caveat/I have a question: we shouldn't be providing readers what readers? That page is not really meant to be accessed by readers. It's more like a dev/internal page. For us editors, being shown such questionable sources is not potentially harmful in any way. We as editors know how to treat those sources and we know their limitations. Already answered above Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You write that the list is “dynamic and fast paced” and “pretty much all information there is temporary.” But that’s not a reason to suspend, or even loosen, application of our RS policy. In fact, the whole point of the RS policy is to be conservative: if a reliable source is not available, we simply don’t cover it in the encyclopedia. Put differently, it’s better to be slow and deliberate — to wait for sources to develop — than to rush (and thus risk inaccuracy, or even the appearance of unreliability). Neutrality^talk 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👌 I've already addressed the issue. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In no way is this a reliable source. Wait until independent reliable sources pick it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with everyone above that such Telegram channels are not RS, but there is a wider issue. I think that after Russian 2022 war censorship laws, which resulted in a significant number of convictions, all sources published in Russia starting from 2022 are not RS on the subjects related to wars conducted by Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mega claim. You can't just generally try to sanction all sources from a country. Don't forget that Ukrainian sources are also censored. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We routinely deprecate sources that are simply mouthpieces for repressive states. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but their point isnt wrong that we cant blanket sanction all sources from a country. Case by case, if they are acting as mouthpeices of any state we can and should sanction. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we don't have an article about it, the Ukrainian government has imposed quite a lot of restrictions on the media as well (see here). It doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them at all. Our editors can and should exercise judgement and decide whether a given source is reliable for a specific claim. For the avoidance of doubt, anonymous telegram channels are certainly not reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 08:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But, as usual, we can cite secondary RS that cited such Telegram channels. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek and Business Insider (low quality mainstream news sources) have occassionally used Rybar as a source, with a pinch of salt. Where they have done, I guess there might be a reason to cite them, with clear attribution, but we should never cite Rybar directly. Some background: https://en.thebell.io/pro-war-media/ https://thebell.io/unmasking-russia-s-influential-pro-war-rybar-telegram-channel https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/11/18/who-s-behind-rybar https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/11/19/the-bell-releases-the-name-of-the-creator-of-telegram-channel-rybar https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/10/14/russian-military-command-complains-about-fake-news-from-pro-kremlin-war-bloggers https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-war-report-pro-kremlin-telegram-channels-twist-iaea-words/ https://www.ndc.nato.int/research/research.php?icode=794 BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.genocid.lt/Leidyba/1/arunas1.htm

can anyone give me a read on this source? I am going inclined to say yes, because the author is an expert, but I am not and possibly this is a forum, and Holocaust in Eastern Europe is definitely a contentious topic. I will probably have other questions btw. The sentence is was formed by the German occupation government and was subordinate to Einsatzkommando 9 and later to Sicherheitsdienst (SD) and Sicherheitspolizei (Sipo) in Ypatingasis būrys. Thank you all.Elinruby (talk)

It would definitely need attribution at least, as the author and this work specifically have been accused of revisionism of the holocaust. If possible I would find a better source. No comment on the specific details, I'll let someone with more knowledge of the area step in. Also you signature needs a timestamp, otherwise the talk page reply function doesn't work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider this a reliable source on Lithuanian collaborationism. There are far better sources to cite. (t · c) buidhe 02:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

open to suggestions for alternatives, but I mostly agree. The problem is that there are a lot of accusations in the area, including of both the Polish and the Lithianian national archives. It's marginally better than what it replaced, but that is a very low bar. The part about "subordinate to Einsatzkommando 9" seems uncontroversial but its formation is also attributed to the Provisional Government, thus the caution. If all else fails I will report both with attribution. When I am back at that page I will take another shot at this. Ypatingasis būrys seems to have three different origin stories so far.

Apart from Bubnys, though, what about the website? That's the real question. Lithuanian Holocaust wiki-articles seem to rely on it pretty heavily and there may ube an uproar if I remove all references to it at once. Can anyone verify that it is in fact a forum? that apparently mirrors archivist articles? Elinruby (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was on the author and the work that your link is an excerpt from. If the only source for a detail is a work criticised for its Holocaust revisionism, that details is best left out. The website and organisation itself seems to suffer from the same problem, and criticism of it are not hard to find. Attribution isn't enough in instances like this, as it's verges on false balance. This isn't to say the Polish sources are necessarily better, see the last discussion about IPN for instance. I can find complaints from Holocaust organisation about it dating back at least to 2019, might be that earlier work was less og an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian sources affected by censorship laws

After Russian 2022 war censorship laws, which resulted in a significant number of convictions, all sources published in Russia starting from 2022 do not seem to be good RS on the subjects related to wars conducted by Russia. I am asking because such sources, for example Kommersant are widely used for sourcing events related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Yes, perhaps Kommersant was a good source in 2021. We frequently say that such sources are OK for official statements by Russian government. But I doubt even that. They occasionally do incomplete and selective quotations and questionable interpretations even of statements by Russian government. More so when they quote and interpret comments by Ukrainian officials, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support reducing the reliability of Russian-state affiliated sources - I'm about to take a wikibreak, but just wanted to throw in early support in principle for this. Andre🚐 19:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could you back up your statement? Kommersant are widely used for sourcing events related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine "widely" really? Could you give us a numbered list? Because it seems you only brought up this complaint because an editor rightfully used it in the battle of Marinka page, where you argued that Ukrainian sources are simply "more reliable" in general. Note that that Russian citation was soon followed by loads of uncontestedly reliable western sources that went in line with the Russian source, but not with the Ukrainian (Pravda) source, which claimed that the general said that Ukrainian forces were still in Marinka (without direct quotes). Call me not WP:AGF, but I've seen My very best wishes' activity in many pages regarding the Ukraine war and I got a pretty good idea of his arguments and thought process. As such, I dispute his neutrality in this specific request/complaint and understand it only as an attempt to sanction/limit access/usage of sources from a country he doesn't like, without necessarily trying to improve Wikipedia's quality. There have already been numerous discussions about the reliability of Russian sources in the past and the WP:RSP list already restricts that POV a lot. For the sake of WP:NPOV, we should first thoroughly analyze Ukrainian sources' reliability (and I mean add them to the colored list at WP:RSP) before trying to restrict even more the more credible Russian sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like nearly 3500 citations to it, many of them on articles related to Russia's attack. I don't edit in the area but I can't possibly see how Russian sources could be viewed as reliable given that they're essentially Russian-government mouthpieces. Avgeekamfot (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overgeneralization. I could claim pretty much anything like that. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Ukrainian news outlets are allowed to show these videos https://t.me/rybar/55500...? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are videos posted on anonymous social media accounts linked to the Prigozhin empire. Showing them would not be an indicator of being a good source, and this is false equivalence anyway. If you want to raise issues about Ukrainian media, start a new thread. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are videos posted on anonymous social media accounts linked to the Prigozhin empire. Showing them would not be an indicator of being a good source How would you know? Are you claiming that's a conspiracy theory? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting to depreciate all such sources, but only say they are "generally unreliable" about wars conducted by Russia only. Speaking on the "Kommersant", for example, it has been affected by firing of leading journalists even before the war [36], and it recently reported itself on the convictions due to the Russian censorship laws [37]. But again, these laws make it impossible to provide any honest reporting in Russia about the war with Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your second source would suggest that The Moscow Times and Kommersant are mostly unaffected by censorship, and are thus more reliable, since they were able to freely report on such convictions. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article in Kommersant they refer to. Yes, sure, they are allowed to write about convictions (it says, for example, "the number of convictions for the treason was 3 times increased"). People should know about such convictions, be afraid, and be silent - that is what Russian government wants. Even Soviet newspapers during Stalin's time wrote a lot about executing the "enemies of the people" - for the same reason. What Kommersant can not do is describing certain operations by Russian army (like Bucha) in all details and calling them "war crimes". Let's take a look at today's page of Kommersant: [38]: "Повреждения получил большой десантный корабль «Новочеркасск», один человек погиб, двое получили ранения." It says that only one person was killed during today's attack on the Russian landing ship Novocherkassk. This is almost certainly a false information, just as some other "info" in this link. That is what I am talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

almost certainly a false information Could be, but without further evidence (I think we only have cellphone videos) we can't say there were more casualties for sure. I would say that's pretty objective/dry journalism. Professional I might add since it doesn't engage in speculation. They don't need to portray the worst case scenario (from the little I know, they aren't Russophobes). While there could be a little bit of bias there (which isn't a problem in Wikipedia if we give proper attribution), I don't see that as an example of unreliability. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The yesterday example is too fresh to discuss. But we have a big page, Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A lot of disinformation was promoted through Russian state-controlled media. But identifying and listing all of them one by one would be very tedious. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think blanket categorisations based on nationality are either correct or possible under policy. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be based on nationality, obviously. There are likely a range of different sources of the Russian language, from different locations, and within each location, a range of different political alignments and affiliations. We're only talking, in this thread, about the ones pertaining to Russian-state affiliated media. Andre🚐 09:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im fine with your vote, but the proposal states "all sources published in Russia", which I dont think is in line with policy. Just pointing that out. For state media, agree that it tends to be unreliable for matters/events that may reflect poorly on the state (obviously). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, that can be clarified. It wouldn't be all sources in the country but specifically ones demonstrably linked to the government organs. Andre🚐 11:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really about a source being funded by a government or belong to the government. A radio station can be funded by a government or even belong to a government, but have an independent editorial policy and strong fact checking, and therefore be a great RS. The issue is being controlled by a government when they publish (or do not publish) a lot of things on the instructions "from the above". For example, all newspapers in the USSR were fully controlled by the government through Glavlit and by other means, e.g. any editor who does not follow the ideological instruction by CPSU would be fired. The situation in today's Russia is not very much different: any editor who does not follow the ideological instructions about Ukrainian war will be fired and possibly put to prison. I think that Soviet newspapers can be used for many topics, but they should not be regarded as good RS on subjects related to the Soviet war in Afghanistan, for example. But OK, I got the point. Next time I will provide this in a different format: specific source X and false statements made by this source A,B,C. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is not unique. There are about 15 countries with strictly worse media freedom situation per World Press Freedom Index and 40 more having the same Difficult status. They include such countries as China, Turkey and Egypt, which also have disputes with their neighbours or fight insurgencies. We as Wikipedia editors should be capable of deciding the reliability of a source on a case-by-case basis. Alaexis_¿question? 08:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should routinely and systematically deprecate bad sources from China, Turkey, Russia, Egypt, and even the US, when we need to. I won't remind you what sources I think are bad in the US. As far as Turkey - yes, for sure, there are some bad Turkish sources already deprecated, right? If not, there surely should be. Andre🚐 09:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andalou is deprecated; isn't that Turkish? Elinruby (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that'd be a good precedent. In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. Link's on WP:RSP. Andre🚐 07:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this kind of targeted measures make sense. Btw RT and Sputnik are already deprecated already. Alaexis_¿question? 19:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that bad sources should be blocked. My point is that a blanket ban on sources from any country is probably not a good idea. Alaexis_¿question? 23:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t know if any are deprecated, but Anadolu Agency is marked as GUNREL for controversial political topics. The Kip 00:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

correct, not deprecated, but a heavy option 3 for international politics. Should probably be deprecated if anyone were actually trying to add it. Andre🚐 07:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody used it pretty heavily in Russian invasion of Ukraine articles. Elinruby (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. If you collect some examples I'd be interested to check them out later. Andre🚐 08:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship and political interference in Russian media took place before 2022, and I would expect many of these sources would be used with caution whether published before or after the 2022 laws. However, I'm not sure what the proposal here specifically is. Are there sources being used poorly to a significant and repeated (perennial) degree? CMD (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in Russian language wikipedia, use of sources with editorial boards located within Russia is very limited since 2022 , see Википедия:К посредничеству/Украина — Википедия (wikipedia.org) for details.

Russian sources with editorial boards located or moved outside of Russia is not limited.

This requirement greatly improved Russia-Ukraine-related articles quality. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That helps. I can see that making country-wide subject-limited restrictions for sources can be a reasonable idea, and it has been already implemented on ruwiki. However, my point was not the war between the countries, but specific recent censorship laws that are unique for Russia, rather than Iran or China. This is because the reliability of all sources in the country was directly affected by such laws. This is the reason why most sources published in Russia are significantly less reliable on the ongoing war than the sources published in Ukraine, just as claims by Russian MoD significantly less reliable than claims by representatives of Ukrainian army. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The restricted use was introduced in this ARBCOM decision Арбитраж:УКР 2022 — Частичное решение — Википедия (wikipedia.org) in response to this Роскомнадзор - Вниманию средств массовой информации и иных информационных ресурсов (rkn.gov.ru) RU govt warning. Censorship laws were introduced shortly after. Manyareasexpert (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting and on the subject. Of course Roskomnadzor plays the same role as Glavlit in the USSR. They are censoring even WP (List of Wikipedia pages banned in Russia, Block of Wikipedia in Russia and Wikipedia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine). My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just as claims by Russian MoD significantly less reliable than claims by representatives of Ukrainian army. Careful with overgeneralizations... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Careful why? Because I am a subject of these censorship laws? Yes, of course they are less reliable, and I explained one of the reasons. Regardless, Russian MoD has been engaged in monstrous disinformation. The ["combat mosquitoes", etc. They destroyed Bradleys even before they were delivered [39]. Russian MoD must be "depreciated". My very best wishes (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because then you risk losing your point. The Marinka case should still be very fresh in your memory. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meduza.io is considered reliable, but didn't they relocate out of Russia? Elinruby (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith might know. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They did relocate and are considered reliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source about Siege of Etawah (1770) unreliable and comes under WP:RAJ??

https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.1681/page/17/mode/2up?q=Kabir Sudsahab (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what context are you wanting to use that source? For what claims in what article?~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the next month Ramchandra Ganesh laid siege to Etawa, which had been taken away by the Ruhelas from the Peshwa s agents just before Panipat. This fort was now held by Kabir Khan, on behalf of Hafiz Rahmat. After a fortnight Kabir found resistance useless as there was no hope of succour. On 15th December he vacated the fort on being granted his life and property ; at noon the Peshwa’s standard was hoisted on the ramparts and a Maratha garrison put in. [CPC. in. 505, 517, 530. SPD. xxix. pp. 311-313, Shaikh Kabir is paid Rs. 50,000 as the price of the grain and stores in the fort as well as the arrears of his sebandi troops. I want to use this information from the book. Sudsahab (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want To use this source to provide context and information to a battle article. Sudsahab (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What statement do you want to add to the article based on that text? Banks Irk (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iwant to add info like belligerents Sudsahab (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudsahab, Sitush already told you that it cannot be used. Didn't he? Then what is the point of asking this again? Imperial ^[AFCND] 08:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is an essay, not a policy, and in context, the essay comments on caste-related writings only. Claims that a history book is unreliable on a battle because of WP:RAJ as a policy is flatly wrong. That being said, I second ONU's question. Banks Irk (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is scholarship more recent than 1952, I imagine that would be better. Is there anything you find in Google Scholar? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a relatively minor incident, there probably isn't much written more recently beyond passing mentions. Sarkar had a similar attention to detail as E P Thompson's History of the English Working Class - a different philosophy & interest, of course, but he'd find and record minutiae which most people would have skipped even if they uncovered it. Not a bad approach in itself, of course, but it could elevate small stuff into big stuff. I haven't checked if this particular topic is an example of that type of history. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author of WP:RAJ User:Sitush himself told that that will fall under WP:RAJ, and thus we can't use that. Check the talk page of Siege of Etawah. Imperial ^[AFCND] 04:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. For about the sixth time on this page, RAJ is not a policy, it is just an essay about one editor's opinion, and Sitush is not the ultimate arbiter of what sources are reliable on Indian history. This source is by an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable for use in the context proposed. I've looked at the article talk page, and the one conclusion I've drawn from it is that all of you should be topic banned from India/Pakistan topics for incessant edit warring and incivility. But, that's not a matter for RSN. Banks Irk (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped for a polite and civil dicussion. Last time I got warned for editwarring was from you. Nvm, thats not the matter here. Pinging @Sitush once again. Tired of explaining this again and again. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Irk, please ping me when you're up to speed with Indian historiography and the widespread acceptance of RAJ and HISTRS. Until then, I don't see much point in reading what you say. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I notice you invoked RAJ here. I claim no expertise but find your comment above regarding me somewhat disrespectful, coming as it does from someone with so little experience of WP and even less experience of content creation or indeed the topic area in question. For some reason, you have irked me more than many prima facie more blatant PAs. The claim you make that "all of you should be topic banned from India/Pakistan topics for incessant edit warring and incivility", which includes me, is just risible. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HISTRS for another widely-accepted relevant essay. We've had this discussion loads of times at RSN. As for the specific source, Sarkar was a Nationalist historian, much revered by the Hindus of India and mostly ignored by the rest of the world. I don't know for sure but it wouldn't surprise me if the current Hindu nationalist government of Modi is trying to boost his (Sarkar's) reputation, just as it has played around with revising history as taught in schools etc. Sarkar made mountains out off molehills, particularly in pursuit of glorification of his favoured themes. Minor skirmishes become major conflicts, for example. The books in question were originally published 1932-38 and their later editions had only minor changes. Sarkar himself died in the late 1950s, by which time he was a very old man. Too many people here have little clue about India but seem to love to pontificate, causing yet more problems rather than fixing any. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush, thank you for looking into this. @Banks Irk, seems like you made a personal attack here without proper investigation. Just because I happened to break 3rr once in few days, doesn't make me a guy who regularly involves in edit warring. You can clearly see that I didn't made an edit dispute in the above article. So, please don't make such allegations again! Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point. Banks Irk (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What point was that? Are you usually this nasty? - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope its not. But see some of the irritating comments here. Also, I would like to know which of ~~your~~ their point was proved here. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Gratuitous belligerence" is how someone describes it in that AfD. If I wasn't on mobile, I'd be considering a review at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the comment in question, which I made. As an admin, seeing someone go into two separate highly-charged areas and actively throw gasoline on things isn't confidence inspiring. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. ", no Raj can't be invoked to ban a source, valid objections must be raised. So why is there source not reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why above. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any examples of factul inaccuracy, or his not being regarded as a reputable historian, just your opinion of him. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven, Early Indian history books often suffered from personal biases, leading to the exaggeration of content. While WP:AGEMATTERS primarily focuses on science-related articles, it is crucial to implement regulations like WP:RAJ to uphold Wikipedia's credibility in Indian historical narratives. Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven knows this, I'm sure. They enjoy poking me. Try this. Plenty of other critiques out there. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I didn't expect Govind Sakharam Sardesai would be a part of this. I myself used him as a reference in plenty of the articles. Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about we wait for new voices to have a say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One frequently-raised criticisms of Sarkar has been that he was slapdash both in quoting from sources and indeed even citing them. Unlike modern academic historians, he often wrote pages of very lucid, even entertaining, prose without indicating from where his information was derived. He'd make a useless WP editor but had the stylist bent of, say, Gibbon. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The passage in question is extensively footnoted to the author's sources, so that observation seems inapt here. In context, what specific issues do you have with the reliability of the quoted passage and its proposed use in the article? Did he misquote or mischaracterize those earlier footnoted sources? Banks Irk (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this; Dipesh Chakraborty quoted this in his book "The Calling Of History Sir Jadunath Sarkar And His Empire Of Truth" "Its reading has generally been preferred here to that of Sarkar’s India of Aurangzeb, which on the admission of the translator, was based on a carelessly transcribed manuscript and contains many errors in the statistical portions." This books cites several other errors quoted by Jadunath Sarkar Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, that is referring to a different book, not the source being discussed here, is it not? Again, is there a specific question about this passage in this book for this article? Banks Irk (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are unreliable, period. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudsahab here asked for the reliability of "Fall of the Mughal empire". The reason for that is, I questioned about the verifiability of the citations and asked him to quote from any sources. The only sources he found to quote were the sources of Jadunath Sarkar and Sarkharam Sardesai. Both falls under WP:RAJ. So he came here to confirm this. If he failed to quote from the reliable sources, isn't there nothing questionable about it? Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that he often did miscite and misquote, even when he attributed. This is a recognised criticism & it makes his corpus problematic. It wasn't unusual for historians of his era but this is where HISTRS kicks in. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please all stop wp:bludgeoning the process, you have all had your say, and let some uninvolved editors chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are being asked to elucidate and are doing so. Feel free to say nothing if you have nothing to say. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have, I am saying let others have a say, before you address points you have already addressed. \Why is it so hard for you to step back? But you are also wrong, whilst it is true "Some sources are unreliable, period" that is decided by community consensus, not the invocation of an essay. So let the community decide based on the arguments presented. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question, as did others; I responded. I won't be bullied into silence by someone who knows nowt about the issue at hand and seems to want to query without response. Further, neither RAJ nor HISTRS are just essays - they note past consensus, inter alia.- Sitush (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have responded, and no one is trying to silence you, you have more than had your say. It is an essay, as such it is not a policy, and can't be invoked as a policy or rule (as it is not one). And I ask you (again) to stop making this about me. By the way, the Raj ended 4 years before the publication of this book. Also WP:RAJ is about "The quality of sources on the Indian caste system varies widely", this does not seem to be about caste, so an essay about caste has no relevance. So not only are people trying to apply an essay as if its a policy, they are also misapplying it. As such I have to oppose any action based on those grounds. Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be silenced by some dictator. The four volumes date from 1932-38, with numerous reprints & editions containing minor changes. I've said this before but you seem to be in IDHT mode. As you are also regarding my mention of HISTRS. Contrary to what you seem to think whenever you pop up in a discussion involving me, I'm not an idiot and indeed almost certainly can wipe the floor with you on anything appertaining to Indian sources. You're entitled to your say and to ask questions but you must be prepared to receive responses, even ones which prove what you say to be incorrect. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Fall of Mughal Empire"'s first edition wasn't published after the Raj. The later versions of that book have very minor variations. The first version was published on 1932. And yeah, I agree that we can let uninvolved people to make an opinion. Imperial ^[AFCND] 18:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link provided said 1952, this is why actually good arguments linked to sources is a good idea. Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this pedantry, please. It is an edition with minor changes, none of which affect the precise passage & none of which are relevant to Sarkar's unreliability. This has already been explained. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this isn’t the only source to write about this battle… What do other sources say about it? Can the information be cited to a different source? Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding little in post-19C academic sources but passing mentions. Probably for the reasons I set out earlier (16:02 above). I'm also trying, without much success, to find 21C academic sources which usefully cite Sarkar for anything. I am on mobile, which makes things tedious, but I've been down this road several times in the last 15+ years. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to look at other sources but there is very little information available in other sources. Sudsahab (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren't other secondary sources published after the nineteenth century that provide a significant treatment, does that indicate the event is not deemed significant/relevant in the public consensus as it has now developed, or alternatively that it is no longer understood on the terms by which Sarkar analyzed/understood it? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likely blown out of proportion by Sarkar, at least in the opinion of subsequent historians. Etawah was a part of a wider military campaign. The article may well fail GNG, although I haven't even read it. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I bothered to read it, and have AFD'd it as it seems to not pass GNG. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said that earlier and asked for quoting from the sources again and again. But unfortunately, the only development I had following this article is getting called for banning me from such topics. LOL. Imperial ^[AFCND] 18:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven: well done, you. Your sarcasm antennae may need retuning. And the general issue of the reliability or otherwise of Sarkar remains - Sarkarism rather than sarcasm, you might say. - Sitush (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline, but it does contain explanations of why our policies and guidelines, as applied to sources from the period of the British Raj, generally render those source unreliable. Sarkar was a reputed historian of his time, but we should not be using him to source minutiae of specific battles if those minutiae are not supported by other sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with VENRS I think some of the friction comes from how it's used in edit summaries, rather than the advice itself. "The source shouldn't be considered reliable, see WP:RAJ for an explanation" is less likely to ruffle feathers than just "WP:RAJ". Addition help from the India project would also be helpful in such discussions, there have been multiple source questions recently that could have used area specific knowledge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sojourners for book reviews

Is Sojourners reliable enough for book reviews. The reliability of this book review of The God Who Riots was briefly questioned in this diff due to a previous RSN discussion. The source seems biased toward progressive Christianity, but otherwise seems fairly reliable. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The prior RSN discussion's observation that Publication in Sojourners doesn't in itself rule an article unreliable, but it doesn't automatically rule it reliable either. Look to the qualifications and reputations of the individual authors, to the purposes of the particular pieces seems fair. I don't think that discussion should be taken to mean Sojourners magazine can't be considered a reliable source. With an editorial board, the magazine has a process of editorial review, and many of its authors evidently have training in the subjects they write about.

As always, consider the source in context of other sources. Does the source comport with or contradict an existing academic consensus on the topic?

That book review seems to be written in a largely factual style, describing what the Garcia, author of The God Who Riots, says, and how the author describes his evidence. There is some assessment of style, which is to be expected in a book review. From the free preview I'm able to see, I would consider this review a reliable source for the book The God Who Riots. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Brew

Cartoon Brew is an animation newsblog dedicated to subjects related to the animation industry. Think The Hollywood Reporter, but if it was a blog dedicated to animation. It is currently considered reliable by WP:TOON/R, however I am starting to doubt that. The website occasionally uses sensationalism and does not correct errors it makes. ~~They also happened to post a now-deleted article that revealed the private residence of animator Rebecca Sugar.~~ I retract this statement.
So, is Cartoon Brew reliable for animation-related subjects in articles about animation? — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 18:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about real estate sales of celebrities is not doxxing. The well respected magazine Variety covered the topic for years under their "Dirt" section, which was spun-off into its own website in 2019, but was later folded into the Robb Report earlier this year . The author of the piece comes from Variety as noted in the apology, which is presumably why they thought it was okay to write the piece. They apologised for running the piece and deleted it. What more could you ask for? In my experience Cartoon Brew is a perfectly reliable source for animation news. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I mostly get where you're coming from. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 21:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am still skeptical of the reliability of the site though, as a previous discussion noted that it is run and edited by one person, so does it count as a self published source? — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 22:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The site has at least two writers, Amid Amidi and Jamie Lang. Given the websites 2 decade history and coverage by other sources, it seems fine to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is a group (2 person) blog, and thus a SPS, one of those bloggers, Jerry Beck, is a recognized subject-matter expert widely published independently within the scope of his expertise. So, except in BLPs, this source is fine. Banks Irk (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Irk, Jerry left the blog in 2013. Are articles past that time reliable? — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 15:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of any experienced critic in a WP:SPS is concerning. However, even in 2023, sources such as Washington Post(quick warning: it's about Skibidi Toilet) seems to cite Cartoon Brew for opinions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BigThink.com

Is this a WP:RS? I stumbled upon an interesting article to help give some context to View of the World from 9th Avenue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The site is Big Think. To quote notable expert opinion, it is suitable. For example Neil deGrasse Tyson. The site is sponsored by the Koch Brothers, who are the kings of conservative dark money influence, it might require some consideration on anything political, which are a lot of things not obviously political. I'm sure the guests are free to say anything they want, not paid trolls of the right, no evidence for that level of concern. (this appears to be not real and/or not really a concern) -- GreenC 18:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Ive incoporated content in the article to beef it up a bit.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

While we are on this subject, earthlymission.com Has similar content related to this perception-based map. Is that an RS?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the blog of Tamàs Varga, which would make it a self-published source and I can't find anything that would show they have been previously published in reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the info.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yahad-In Unum

Has this improved in recent years? It is used to source ghettoization of Jews in Ariogala. Given Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_184#Use_of_Yahad-In_Unum I am tagging it as RS but am seeking comment and review of that. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that old discussion, I must confess my confusion that some editors get the impression the source is not reliable. The "Historical Note" and "By Bullets in Numbers" portions are editorial portions, i. e. secondary sources, written by staff and which undergo, from available indications, editorial review. I would consider those portions of the page to be reliable, independent sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, its still mostly an ego project of Patrick Desbois not a serious academic or historical effort. I would also note that Yahad-In Unum/Desbois has a history of spamming wikipedia, that may be where some of the past negative feelings come from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on the question of its reliability, the coverage of Yahad-In Unum I have seen depicts it is a serious enough endeavor, comparable to other reliable projects of public history. It has been favorably reported on in PBS and the New York Times. When I visited the campus of Arizona State University a few years ago, their Hayden Library, an academic library institution, was hosting a museum exhibit based on the work of Yahad-In Unum. Additionally, the New York Times article I linked notes that the project registers an execution or a grave site only after obtaining three independent accounts from witnesses. This is no mere user-generated collection of primary source testimonials. There is a secondary source element of consideration, prudence, weighing and corroborating primary sources, and drawing a reasoned conclusion in the way that quality secondary source authors do. This led me to the conclusion that the secondary source content on the website being asked about (the "Historical Note" and "Holocaust by Bullets in Figures" portions of the "Execution of Jews in Ariogala" page of The Map of Holocaust by Bullets, linked in the references on the Ariogala page) is a reliable source.

Why do you conclude that Yahad-In Unum is an "ego project"? To warrant your claim, would you please cite and/or link reliable sources that describe it as such, and/or as unreliable/inaccurate? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question I answered was "Has this improved in recent years?" and the answer is an unambiguous no. I have no idea what you're talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelmaslin.com

Is there any chance that this is a WP:RS for the fact that Eustace Tilley was redrawn in 2017 by Christoph Niemann. Tilley is going to hit the main page in DYK in less than three days.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The URL may be michaelmaslin.com, but it seems the publication is better understood as Ink Spill: New Yorker Cartoonists, News, History, and Events. Ink Spill is apparently a blog operated by Michael Maslin, a longtime cartoonist for the New Yorker. From what I can tell, he qualifies in this case as a subject-matter expert, making the source reliable even though it is SPS. As further evidence of his qualification as a subject matter expert, one could point out that he is the author of Peter Arno: The Mad Mad World of The New Yorker’s Greatest Cartoonist, a biography of a New Yorker cartoonist, published as a book by an imprint of major publisher Simon & Schuster.

Or, more concisely, yes, I think it seems to be a reliable source for that information. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, even ones by experts, are not allowed as sources for living people. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol good one. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Nominate Al Jazeera as RS of the year 2023

This noticeboard is for asking about the reliability of sources in context. This is off-topic. Bon courage (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previous noticeboards affirm the reliability of Al Jazeera. The point of view sits at the fulcrum of international consensus, as the state media of the only nation able to broker a truce thus far during the Israel-Gaza War. Acknowledging Al-Jazeera promises to help generate editor consensus where it is otherwise challenged by other influences. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2023-07-18/ty-article/.premium/fake-wikipedia-accounts-conservative-israeli-think-tank-behind-skewed-overhaul-articles/00000189-6945-de70-adcb-f9c77a080000 The point of view aligns with global academic consensus. The depth of reporting and diversity of perspectives aligns with our goals of inclusive international community and the quest for the sum of all knowledge. The unusual step of nominating a reliable source as source of the year is not just a selfish one to help editors edit in peace. It is also a respectful nod to the loss of life incurred by the outlet while covering a war subject to information blackouts. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, "More journalists have been killed in the first 10 weeks of the Israel-Gaza war than have ever been killed in a single country over an entire year." Those slain include Al-Jazeera's Abdallah Alwan (voiceover contributor), Haneen Kashtan (contributor), Samer Abudaqa (cameraman), and the family of Gaza Bureau Chief Wael Al Dahdouh, who was also injured in the strike which killed Abudaqa. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asia Harvest - Operation World - Joshua Project

Asia Harvest (https://www.asiaharvest.org/) is an American Christian missionary organisation focusing on Asia and especially on China. They produce extremely detailed (and overestimated) fantasy statistics about Christians for each one of the smallest administrative divisions of the country.

Let's take, for example, the purported 2020 statistics for Shanghai (https://www.asiaharvest.org/christians-in-china-stats/shanghai). As you can see, they extrapolate absolute numbers on the basis of the very same percentage values for the total population numbers of most of the districts, and then the resulting numbers are divided according to the various statistical subcategories. Amongst the numbers in the tens of subcategories, they cite sources for only three of them, and they are some journals (probably missionary journals) dated to 1990, 1991 and 1992, while the general data are presented as being dated to 2020. The source for some of the totals is, otherwise, Operation World (https://operationworld.org/), "the definitive volume of prayer information about the world", associated with the Joshua Project, which is already classified as unreliable in the WP:RSP list.

I propose that Asia Harvest and Operation World be added to the Joshua Project entry in the WP:RSP list. Besides, on the Wikipedia article about Operation World it is written that the subject is related to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the predecessor of what is now published as the World Christian Database and World Religion Database, themselves thoroughly discussed in 2018 and 2022-2023, and listed in WP:RSP. Æo (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ping Erp who raised doubts about the extreme precision of WCD/WRD data in the abovementioned 2022-2023 discussion, since the same argument applies to this case. Æo (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, on the Wikipedia article about Operation World it is written that the subject is related to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the predecessor of what is now published as the World Christian Database and World Religion Database, themselves thoroughly discussed in 2018 and 2022-2023

The meaning of this point is somewhat lost on me. According to the close of the linked 2023 discussion, There is no consensus to deprecate these sources (bolding added). If consider Asia Harvest or Operation World is/are affiliated with/comparable to the WCE as a source, that would suggest not deprecating them, but instead merely advising editors to use them with prudence while favoring, where available, stronger, more certainly reliable sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are clearly not the very same as the WRD/WCD (which is nonetheless questionable, and this is why it is in the perennial sources' list and the closing statement also says that there is rough consensus to attribute it and prefer better sources), at least according to what I have been able to find, although they cross-reference to each other (it is unclear to what extent). Asia Harvest and Operation World are on the other hand directly related to the Joshua Project, which is classifed as unreliable in the perennial sources' list: The Joshua Project is an ethnological database created to support Christian missions. It is considered to be generally unreliable due to the lack of any academic recognition or an adequate editorial process. The Joshua Project provides a list of sources from which they gather their data, many of which are related evangelical groups and they too should not be used for ethnological data as they are questionable sources.. Æo (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:

In The Ethos of Operation World we can read the following statement: We pray that these statistics and prayer points present a reasonably balanced account of what God is doing in our world and of the challenges facing us as we press on to complete the Great Commission. Apart from Operation World, only the World Christian Database/World Religions Database shares our ambition (folly?) in attempting so massive a task as compiling a comprehensive body of data relating to the world’s religions, denominations, and churches, as well as to the progress of the Great Commission.. Here, Operation World and the WRD/WCD are clearly defined as confessional, evangelical entities working together for the "progress of the Great Commission", which is unclear whether it refers to the doctrinal concept or to the American fellowship of evangelical groups which disbanded in 2020.
In this paper by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, some of whose members are also the editors of the WRD/WCD, on pp. 16-17 the methodologies of the latter are compared to those of Operation World.

Æo (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this, but you seem to be saying two different things simultaneously. First you say that They are clearly not the very same (bolding added); then you say they are clearly defined as confessional, evangelical entities working together (bolding added). Are they together, or are they not; and in either case, why is that a reason for depreciation of Asia Harvest (which is the source I thought was under discussion).

In any case, it is not so clear to this reader as it is to you. The Ethos statement does not seem like evidence of organizational collaboration. Rather, it reads as an observation that they share a field of study: both are attempts at compiling a comprehensive body of data relating to the world’s religions, denominations, and churches. To use another example, both Michael Burlingame and Ronald White shared the ambition (folly?) in attempting so massive a task as narrating the life of Abraham Lincoln in single-volume biographies. But they were not collaborators.

As for the "Christianity in its Global Context, 1970–2020" document, the comparison drawn is moreover a contrast, pointing out how Operation World's definitions of "evangelical" inflate their numbers compared to the World Christian Database.

Finally, simply as a note, you emphasize connections between GCTS faculty and the World Christian Database but have left out how World Christian Database is published by Brill, an academic publisher that employs editorial and peer review. (Likewise, World Christian Encyclopedia was published by Oxford University Press, also an academic publisher that employs editorial and peer review.) That, plus their relative contemporaneity (as both were published in the twenty-first century) instills a great deal of confidence in WCD and WCE as sources.

In any case, this has been a digression. The posted discussion at hand pertains to Asia Harvest and Operation World, which have different publishers and different traits. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is ascertained that WCE and OW originated as two branches of the same tree, and that they maintain some connections, as hinted to in the statement above about the "Great Commission" and underlined especially in the sentence in that paper Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background which I have quoted below (17:04, January 2 addendum): There has been a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information among Operation World ... and the World Christian Encyclopedia. This is what I meant, and I am still investigating to find further, clearer evidences. Besides, AH and OW appear to be related as well, given that the few references showed by AH are mostly to OW statistics, and in turn OW is clearly connected to the Joshua Project (they are authored/edited by the same person, Patrick Johnstone), which is acknowledged to be a completely unreliable source.

Amongst the many discussions about the JP, read this 2008 one, which was particularly animated (and which highlights that already back then there were strange waves of spamming of this type of sources, as I myself noticed more recently); some quotes: [JP is] a very aggressive evangelistic project. ... Linking or even mentioning this project on this kind of scale should be considered as fundamentalist Christian spam. (Jeroenvrp); All links to the Joshua Project should be deleted immediately and without question. The information on the site is often original research and totally incorrect. It is not a reliable source at all. The fact that someone can't find alternative information on Google is no excuse: get out of your chair and head to a library. (Caniago); Here is another example which illustrates the sort of disinformation they are spreading. They invented a whole range sub-ethnic groups of the Javanese ethnic group, yet there are no published academic sources (in books or peer reviewed papers) which mention these sub-ethnic groups at all. There are a plethora of other examples of their disinformation if you compare their website against reliable sources. (Caniago); The project site is not an academic source. ... The Joshua Project has an religious agenda. Anyone should agree on that. This is very clear on the site and not even that, it is also very offensive. Not only for people of these ethnic groups, but for anyone who condemn these kind of aggressive evangelisation practices. I even find it very scary how they present the data (e.g. see the column "Progress Scale"). It's like: "evangelism meets the Borg". ... The data on the Joshua Project is unreliable, like others before me have proved. ... Information from the English Wikipedia is easily translated to other Wikipedia projects. Although people who translate should double check these kind of sources, unfortunately sources like the Joshua Project are spreading like a virus to those other projects. That's why I am here now, because I noticed the Joshua Project was listed as a source on the Dutch Wikipedia and learned that they came from here. So know your responsibility! ... To conclude this: I am not accusing individual Wikipedians for "fundamentalist Christian spamming". No, what I mean that on a larger scale it's "fundamentalist Christian spamming". (Jeroenvrp); There are no cases where there Josuha project is the best source of data. A bunch of evangelical missionaries are the last people who can be trusted to present non-biased reliable ethnic data; the examples we have given proven the case. (Caniago).

Regarding the fact that some of the sources we are discussing here (WCE and its successors) have been published by renowned publishing houses, this does not make them reliable. This was already pointed out in the 2022-2023 discussion. The "peer review" and "editorial process" is very often carried out by people belonging to the very same agenda and organisations (those American evangelical organisations). Take for instance the paper Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background that I quoted below: it was written by D. A. Miller, peer reviewed/edited/co-authored by Patrick Johnstone of the WEC International, and published on the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion founded by Rodney Stark (known for his publications which were very supportive of Christianity); the journal's editorial board includes Massimo Introvigne, whose CESNUR and related publications are themselves currently listed as unreliable in the WP:RSP list (and I personally consider CESNUR, or at least some of its publications, as much more reliable than the sources we are discussing here). Regarding the fact, and the problem, that the WCE and its successors have been published as seemingly academic resources, there are some further considerations expressed in a recent critical essay which I will cite and quote in a separate section below. Æo (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that CESNUR and its related publications are more reliable than the assessment listed on Wikipedia's current Perennial Sources page would suggest. I think the generally unreliable characterization is inaccurate and that the academic field of religious studies has a much more favorable impression of CESNUR than Wikipedia's Perennial Sources page does.

Patrick Johnstone was not a peer reviewer of "Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census". Blind peer review means the reviewer is anonymous. Johnstone and Duane Miller are listed co-authors of the paper. The two peer reviewers would have been two other scholars whose identities neither of us know.

Your impression that renowned publishing houses like Brill and Oxford University Press are somehow being subverted by a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus of the field of religious demography stretches this editor's credulity. The peer review process is more robust than that.

That information is shared between World and WCE does not necessarily make one unreliable merely because the other is. Different sources can use the same raw data to arrive at different conclusions, such as how WCE and Operation World arrive at quite different total numbers, projections, etc.

In any case, I think that an earlier comment in this discussion from Erp rings true: for this particular discussion, we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. There is not a consensus between us about WCE or WCD or WRD. Maybe there can yet be a consensus between us about Asia Harvest and Operation World. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree with P-Makoto: "Your impression that renowned publishing houses like Brill and Oxford University Press are somehow being subverted by a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus of the field of religious demography stretches this editor's credulity. The peer review process is more robust than that." There is no evidence that the process is somehow compromised and is just speculation. Borders on conspiracy theory actually. In fact they show divergence of data too per already quoted differences in numbers in the sources. They are not equivalent or the same. I also agree that we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The next question is the reliability of "Operation World", multiple editions by Patrick Johnstone and Jason Mandryk with the latest being the 7th edition, published 2010, plus a web site. It is explicitly a prayer guide and does not seem to be peer reviewed. I note in reference to the Joshua Project that Operation World's website states: "The Joshua Project is our default site for people group information." https://operationworld.org/prayer-resources/helpful-resources/ Looking at the google preview of the book has "...Joshua Project List, the World Christian Encyclopedia and a handful of other resources are at the heart of this information" Given the dependence of "Operation World" on Joshua Project a "Generally unreliable source" and lack of peer review for the work itself, I would say Operation World must also be listed as "Generally unreliable source". Erp (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and the WRD/WCD should be re-assessed as well, given its connection with Asia Harvest/Operation World. In Darrell L. Bock (2013), The Cape Town Commitment: A Confession of Faith, A Call to Action: Bibliographic Resources, p. 32, we read: These two books come from the same stable. While up to the mid-1990s the databases behind Operation World and the World Christian Encyclopedia were virtually identical, they began to diverge in the 1990s, partly because Operation World took a more generous definition of the word 'evangelical'. In 2010, World Christian Encyclopedia said there were 300 million evangelicals worldwide, whereas Operation World said there were 550 million.... On the same page, the World Religion Database/World Christian Database and the Atlas of Global Christianity are identified as the continuations of the World Christian Encyclopedia, while The Future of Global Christianity is identified as built on the database of Operation World. Other minor publications associated with them (listed on the same page) are: World Christian Trends – AD 30-2200, World Churches Handbook, Global Religious Trends 2010 to 2020, Megatrends and the Persecuted Church, Global Restrictions on Religion, Global Pentecostalism, The New Faces of Christianity, The Next Christendom, Barna Updates (https://www.barna.org), and Global Mapping International (https://www.gmi.org). Ultimately, they are all affiliated with the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, the same who launched the 10/40 window concept. Æo (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The assessment of the World Religion Database and World Christianity Database strikes me as a separate question. If they are re-assessed, I would encourage re-assessing them "upward" rather than "downward". The source you cite, Cape Town Commitment, even identifies how the two sources are different: Operate World took a more generous definition of the word 'evangelical'. In 2010, World Christian Encyclopedia said there were 300 million evangelicals worldwide, whereas Operation World said there were 550 million. You speak of WCE/WRD/WCDs' connection with Asia Harvest/Operation World; however, what seems to be demonstrated is their disconnection; if Operation World and Asia Harvest are overstating, WRD/WCD/WCE apparently are holding back in comparison. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the WRD/WCD should be re-assessed "upwards"; their problems, which are still different from those of the AH/OW discussed here, were pointed out and thoroughly discussed with extensive quotes from critical sources in the specific 2022-2023 discussion. AH/OW and WCD/WRD are ultimately two branches of the same tree, dedicated to "the progress of the Great Commission" (cf. above), and this does not mean that if one of the two branches is unreliable the other is reliable, and vice versa. Both of them have problems, albeit differentiated. Æo (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to not be consensus between us. The specified 2022-2023 discussion also had extensive references from laudatory sources which reviewed the Encyclopedia positively. I developed an impression that the listing of WRD/WCD/WCE as "additional considerations" may have been excessive and not the right call.

But that would be a discussion different from that of the present one about Asia Harvest. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. Given that Operation World depends on the already listed as generally unreliable, Joshua Project, and Asia Harvest depends on Operation World that both should also be listed as generally unreliable. In addition neither seem to be peer reviewed. Does anyone disagree? Erp (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before leaping to "Generally Unreliable", may I ask whether "Additional Considerations" would be appropriate, and if you do not think so, why not?

I would note that peer review, while a gold standard, is not Wikipedia's only standard. Many sources subject only to editorial review and not peer review (newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses) are accepted on Wikipedia, so the lack of peer review is not itself necessarily a point against. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P-Makoto, True. Your observations are accurate with respect to the additional comments you have brought up. Indeed the jump to generally unreliable is why the RFC for WRD/WCD/WCE failed depreciation petty badly across the board. The academic sources did not support such a claim. Context matters to what Asia Harvest is being used on. Also numbers on China are hard to pin down. All polls are estimates for that. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Erp that AH/OW should be classified as "generally unreliable" given the precedent represented by the related Joshua Project. The latter was the subject of eleven discussions on this noticeboard, and it was decidedly assessed as unreliable; just read how editors commented here and here, for instance: ...some argue based on the idea that they wouldn't have any reason to give inaccurate figures. This isn't a useful argument. There's also strong opposition to using them as a source. According to their list of data sources, a solid majority of their sources are just other evangelical groups... They shouldn't be ranked beside census counts as equivalent... They should be considered unusable due to a lack of verifiable methodology and recognition for statistical or academic contribution, even when setting aside all questions of advocacy and bias. (Elaqueate); We have no idea where they get their data, it's not part of their primary mission, and there's no significant penalty to them for errors, so I see no reason to consider them as a reliable source for population statistics. (Mangoe); I looked at the source, and I believe you. It's a hobby site by three random religious enthusiasts. Certainly not a reliable source for population data. (Alsee). Regarding the use of non-academic sources ("newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses"), P-Makoto, yes, I think they should be eschewed and I always try to eschew them when I contribute to Wikipedia. Besides, other considerations apply in this specific case, given that we are dealing with a field of information, statistics, for which there are official censuses and statistical institutions which provide "hard data" — i.e. precise numerical results which constitute "facts" subject to minimal interpretation —, and even in the case we need "soft data" — i.e. unofficial and not always accurate data —, there are still impartial and reliable survey agencies to rely upon. In said field of information, we do not need WP:SPECULATIONs produced by organisations with blatant agendas of evangelism, proselytism or propaganda through unclear methodologies (in our case the methodologies are declared, indeed: word of mouth from priests, pastors and other church staff). Æo (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Here other users expressed other clear evaluations of the quality of the JP: Religious advocacy group, cites unreliable data sources. (PaleoNeonate); Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. You cannot trust any of that website's claimed population numbers for ethnic groups even to an order of magnitude. (anonymous IP); Very obviously unreliable. Attempting to use it as a source is absurd. (Tayi Arajakate). The use of the Joshua Project on Wikipedia even caused the creation of an article about a non-existing ethnic group: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawa Pesisir Lor. Æo (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of non-academic sources ("newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses"), P-Makoto, yes, I think they should be eschewed and I always try to eschew them when I contribute to Wikipedia.

As individual editors, we all I suppose have the option to hold ourselves to higher standards than Wikipedia's; however, it is not consensus to, as a project, eschew newspapers, magazines, and nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses for being such. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at https://www.asiaharvest.org/christians-in-china-stats/china Multiple sources, I initially thought the TSPM and CPA figures were accurate since they are possibly official government sources (these are registered and recognized churches) except notes 3 and 4 indicate that the registered protestant number is from a 2010 survey that found 23 million registered protestants and that the numbers were adjusted to include non-adults and presumably the decade since. The number has been adjusted to 39,776,275 for 2020. In addition the table apparently took the 2010 Operation World figures of 86,910,600 protestants in 2010 (unregistered House Church and TSPM) and apparently projected forward to 2020 and got 109,650,630 (split between the 39,776,275 registered and 69,874,355 unregistered (note the increasing specificity during the data manipulation). I decided to look at what might be the overall source "2020, Hattaway, The China Chronicles, no page number given" which seems to be a 7 book series "The China Chronicles" by Paul Hattaway and published, by as far as I can see, "Asia Harvest" an organization Hattaway co-founded with his wife. I'm guessing he or his organization is also responsible for this table published on their website. Both count as self-published and not at all peer reviewed. They might accurately cite other sources. Erp (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we can read that the book Operation China by Paul Hattaway has <...a foreword by Patrick Johnstone, author of the best-selling Operation World, who "I have relied much on the information in 'Operation China' during compilation of the section on China for the latest edition of 'Operation World'. May this unique book go a long way to focus prayer on the need for the gospel among these peoples.'>. Patrick Johnstone is mentioned in your comment above (20:13, January 1). AH and OW are definitely related. Æo (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found 54+ references to "Asia Harvest" in Wikipedia. A lot have to do with descriptions of people/languages where Asia Harvest in turn is citing another source (I suspect the "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Chinese Linguistics" for at least some which is a 1991 work in Chinese [Zhongguo yu yan xue da ci dian 中国语言学大辞典]). My guess is that Asia Harvest was used by wiki editors because it has translated some of the information into English. I suspect editors would be better off for a comprehensive work relying on Ethnologue (which has some faults but is generally accepted by scholars) though it does require a subscription. Glottolog is also useful especially for references to works on a language (less so for numbers of speakers).

Operation World is also cited (oddly enough mostly in articles about Baháʼí such as Baháʼí_Faith_in_Nigeria) which has "Estimates of membership vary widely - a 2001 estimate by Operation World showed 1000 Baháʼís in 2001 while the Association of Religion Data Archives (relying on World Christian Encyclopedia) estimated some 38,172 Baháʼís." Another source had about 15,000 in 2000 (Lee, Anthony A. (2011). The Baha'i faith in Africa: establishing a new religious movement, 1952-1962. Studies of religion in Africa. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-22600-5., page 107, itself citing an unpublished article). I'm inclined to go with the peer reviewed book. Erp (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Miller's Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census (n.b. edited by Patrick Johnstone, WEC International), questioned on this noticeboard in 2017, was built on Operation World and Joshua Project data. On pp. 3-4 we find further details about their parent organisations (as of 2015) and author: The results of this massive, multidecade data collection effort were eventually made available in the form of the religious data on the Operation World website, which is hosted by Global Mapping International, and the ethnolinguistic data on the interactive website of the Joshua Project, for which Johnstone was a senior editor. Therefore additional details on the sources of our information can be found at the website of the Joshua Project, which is currently managed by the U.S. Center for World Missions.. If my understanding is correct, based on our previous findings, Johnstone was ultimately behind both Operation World and the Joshua Project. Æo (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Let's keep this secondary, as suggested above, but on the same p. 3 we read: There has been a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information among Operation World, the Summer Institute of Linguistics, and the World Christian Encyclopedia.. Æo (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Miller and Johnstone source clearly supports that Operation World is a reliable source by the way. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948#RfC on what result is to be entered against the result parameter of the infobox

An argument is being made that all sources listed in the article reporting a result that is a stalemate/inconclusive are passing mentions that fail WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Further input at the RfC would be appreciated. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 599: / Line 599: @@
 ::'''Addendum:''' Let's keep this secondary, as suggested above, but on the same p. 3 we read: {{tqq|There has been a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information among Operation World, the Summer Institute of Linguistics, and the World Christian Encyclopedia.}}. [[User:Æo|Æo]] ([[User talk:Æo|talk]]) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 :::The Miller and Johnstone source clearly supports that Operation World is a reliable source by the way. [[User:Ramos1990|&#32;Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 20:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
+== [[Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948#RfC on what result is to be entered against the result parameter of the infobox]] ==
+An argument is being made that all sources listed in the article reporting a result that is a stalemate/inconclusive are passing mentions that fail [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]]. Further input at the RfC would be appreciated. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 12:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards