Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

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

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

Jacobin

Hello all. I'd be interested in getting Jacobin, [1] added to WP:RSP, just to make it easier when it comes up in the future.

I searched the archives and found an extensive discussion here. It got 22 replies. My attempt to tally the results is 9 generally reliable, 9 "attribute" (marginally reliable I guess), and 3 generally unreliable.

I notice that another left leaning news site, The Intercept, is green in the table, and I consider Jacobin similar to them. A google search for "Jacobin accuracy" turns up the usual media bias fact check type sites. I know you guys don't like those sites, but one rates them "high" accuracy, another rates them 32, which is a "good" rating.

What are your thoughts on adding Jacobin to WP:RSP, and what is your takeaway from the archived discussion on what classification it should receive? It might be more productive to focus on evaluating the consensus of the archived discussion rather than starting all over. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Meh, I would consider them more similar to CounterPunch which is rated yellow. As Neutrality said in the last discussion, I would not rely on this for statements of fact (even when attributed) because it's an opinion journal, and for factual statements there will nearly always be a better source. For statements of opinion, "Jane Doe wrote X in Jacobin" is fine, but agree with the due weight concerns. (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes Jacobin is a good source. Generally reliable, attribute opinion. I haven’t had any problems using it as a source. Editors generally accept it in my experience. The quote I used in the previous discussion still holds: “bracingly rigorous and polemical in a really thought-provoking way”. Burrobert (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As for your other question, based on the discussion, I would say there's no consensus that it's generally reliable. (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, yeah, I'd say the consensus of the old discussion was probably yellow, "marginally reliable", often opinion, should attribute. In the interest of keeping this discussion focused, I'd like to state a new question.

Whilst Jacobin is without a doubt a primarily a political commentary source, it's factually rigorous. Its pieces are fact-checked, well cited, and well researched. I notice @Buidhe: compares it to CounterPunch. Which, mind you, is also generally factually reliable though far more heavily opinion based. The thing is, unlike CounterPunch Jacobin also does long-form investigative journalism which puts it closer to The Intercept. @Novem Linguae: why is it "marginally reliable"? Whilst it is doubtlessly a partisan on-line magazine, it's factually accurate, the quality of writing is generally quite high, and professional. CNN and MSNBC in today's world are both typically highly biased and increasingly lean toward "Infotainment" style opinion instead of hard reporting. I fail to see why either should be considerably more reliable. Until there's actual evidence of mendacity on the part of the journal it should be regarded as a highly left-biased but factually accurate reliable source. KJS ml343x (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Re the comparisons here: Intercept trades on its reputation for long-term fact-based investigative journalism, and has an editorial team of seasoned investigators too, whereas the Jacobin is primarily an opinion outlet with editors who have no grounding in the world of reporting. I don't see any evidence of professionalism in this area or much investigative work, so I would place it much nearer than Counterpunch, although less prone to conspiracy theories than the latter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we add Jacobin to WP:RSP with an assessment of yellow, "marginally reliable"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The consensus in the previous discussion appears predominantly to be "partisan magazine, generally reliable for facts, attribute opinion, check for due weight", in other words similar to WP:SPLC. If you want its addition on RSP, it would require either a RfC or at least two significant discussions (see WP:RSPCRITERIA). There is at present one significant discussion, RSP shouldn't be used as an indiscriminate listing of sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this description and this summary of the discussion. In a lot of ways I think a comparison to Reason magazine might be even stronger than the comparison to the SPLC. And yes, I agree that it is premature to list Jacobin. Jlevi (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the yellow classification. While the source is somewhat similar to Reason in that it has a lot of commentary from a given POV, there is a difference in quality. Ad Fontes rates both reliability and bias. Reason is 38.3, 4.1 (reliability, bias)[[2]]. Jacobian is 32.3, -19.9 [[3]]. That puts Reason solidly in the second tier of sources while Jacobian is straddling the fence between second and third tier [[4]]. Springee (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The comparison to Reason is apt. I'd hesitate to use either as sources for factual claims about anything political. If it is used, statements should be attributed in text to the author and Jacobin. There was a Columbia School of Journalism article on Jacobin [5], but unfortunately it's entirely about the business aspect and the novelty of a successful socialist magazine, and has absolutely nothing to say on its accuracy or fact-checking, which is what we care about. Jacobin is very open about their POV, and while bias in sources isn't a deal-breaker, it does raise some red flags. I haven't seen any evidence they're regularly making stuff up, but this is a fairly young publication with an unproven track record and a clear political agenda. It should be used with caution, especially when it comes to political BLPs. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I would also compare with Reason, but I also argued that it was a mistake to rate Reason as generally reliable, for similar reasons. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Left like Reason is right ie not really that partisan. I think Jacobin is fine. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with the yellow classification and the sort of language Tayi Arajakate suggests, although it lacks the specialist knowledge and specialist investigative rigour of SPLC. I would say it is most reliable for niche areas that mainstream media might miss (e.g. trade union disputes, left history) and least reliable for controversial US and geopolitical political topics where it should be seen mainly as a source of less noteworthy opinions. As a UK reader, I would add that its UK/Europe articles tend to be ill-informed and fringey. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the past discussions & evidence presented, I'd say Jacobin is generally reliable, as long as it's used with attribution whenever possible. Many other outlets that contain alot of (often unlabeled) commentary & opinion, such as Slate, The Economist, Le Monde diplomatique, & Foreign Policy are considered generally reliable. And the vast majority of such news sources are biased in some noticeable way or another. I also wonder what exactly 'marginally reliable' would entail here, as sources labeled as such, like E! News, Business Insider, and Vice Media are still widely cited (& in some cases, even defended, such as for example Vice on the MGTOW article). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is quickly moving from a review/closing statement of the previous thread into another discussion in its own right. A few questions: 1) Should we open an actual discussion again on Jacobin? It seems some people may have additional thoughts. 2) Should we ask for a formal close of the previous discussion? Jlevi (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If we need two significant discussions, might as well turn this into the second one, no? I would like to know the consensus on Jacobin.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This looks more like a WT:RSP discussion than an RSN one. It's interesting how we now view an RSP entry as a trophy to demonstrate a source's significance. The whole point of RSP is to document sources with multiple discussions so that editors do not have to read multiple RSN discussions for an overall impression. If there has only been one significant discussion on a source, searching for it in the RSP archives will get all you need. Discussing the reliability for the sake of discussion ... is not very helpful. feminist (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Think it is working in both directions, right or wrong. Absence of an entry is probably being used as indicator of unreliability.Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds so stupid. If only one discussion exists, the consensus on the source is the consensus in that discussion. feminist (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the ins and outs of procedure, Tayi Arajakate said up above If you want its addition on RSP, it would require either a RfC or at least two significant discussions (see WP:RSPCRITERIA). There is at present one significant discussion, RSP shouldn't be used as an indiscriminate listing of sources. So is that right? Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not that their is a lack of consensus but that if it has only been discussed once then it is likely not being used enough to warrant an RSP entry. I think, however, that it is worth noting certain sources that are rarely discussed but are worth considering for an alternative (but still generally reliable) perspective (Reason/Jacobin) or for very reliable information (eg Reuters has never had a major discussion but still has a glowing RSP). ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The magazine exists to provide a left-wing perspective and to give in depth coverage of stories of interest to the Left. Opinion pieces no matter where published are considered unreliable per New organizations. That makes sense because opinion pieces rely on mainstream media for their facts. It makes more sense to use the original sources. Their original reporting, while reliable, is usually best avoided because we have to establish weight before including in articles. So I wouldn't use their current article about how the 1992 crime bill was developed because it hasn't received sufficient coverage. Where publications such as Jacobin are useful is in coverage of niche areas, such as what left-wing organizations are doing. TFD (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG doesn't just baldly say that opinion pieces are unreliable afaics. I guess what you mean is they are not generally reliable for statements of fact in WP voice, right? I would have thought some opinions count for a lot, depending on whether the giver is good for it or not.Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I hesitate to consider Jacobin "generally reliable" for statements of fact, because the source inappropriately blurs news reporting and opinion. For example, this article entitled Bernie Won Iowa presented "Bernie Sanders won Iowa" as a statement of fact despite the contest being won by Pete Buttigieg. Likewise, this article entitled The Corporate Media’s War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real presents the opinion of Jacobin writer Branko Marcetic as fact. feminist (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the first article you mention it states the facts correctly (Bernie won the popular vote - which at the time he did, Bernie was drawing in terms of national delegates - which at the time he was [6], and that Buttigieg was winning in terms of state delegate percentages). Now as a Brit I don't entirely understand what a Caucus is but given that Sanders and Butigiege were drawn on the figure that has a legal impact (delegates) calling him the winner on the grounds that he won the popular vote seems entirely reasonable and honest to me.

In terms of the second story, it is a case of WP:HEADLINES, we never say that headlines are a source regardless of how reliable we feel the newspaper is. I would not be surprised to see stories worded in a similar way in The Economist or another news magazine which we view as reliable. Indeed I would say that news magazines tend to be better than newspapers even if they have occasionally idiosyncratic definitions of 'winning' (such as in Jacobin) or 'coup' (such as in The Economist). ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

See, this shows how Jacobin wilfully misrepresents how the Iowa caucuses work. By interposing their own opinion on how the system should work (popular vote) over how the system actually works (state delegates), the reader is left with a false impression on the state of the race. The article presents "Bernie won Iowa" as fact but then justifies it as the author's opinion. No, that's not how news reporting works.

It's not reasonable to call Bernie a winner based on a metric that does not matter (popular vote); if the perception of a reader unfamiliar with American politics is that popular vote is key, a news article should at least not promote this wrong impression. To use a UK comparison, a party can lose the popular vote yet gain control of the government: just win enough seats in the House of Commons. I would have no issue if this article were presented as a straight opinion piece with the author arguing that Bernie should be treated as the winner instead, but this is not the case here. feminist (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It strikes me as strange that this works by focusing on 'state delegates' as opposed to national delegates. Winning, say the presidency or a majority in The House of Commons in spite of losing the popular vote has meaningful real-world impacts. As does having fewer national delegates in spite of a popular vote victory. State delegates, by contrast, seems to be an arbitrary internal number that reflects neither what people are thinking (the popular vote) or what will actually happen (national delegates). ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I took the title of the first article simply as a hook for a (quite interesting) discussion on the ins and outs of the Iowa system. Admittedly if you are the sort of person that just reads headlines you might be misled but hopefully WP editors are made of better stuff. Fwiw, my personal opinion is we are going to see more of this type of writing in the future, people want opinion/analysis along with their news intake and again, we must trust editors to pick apart the wheat from the chaff.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES does discard the second one, but the first states Bernie Sanders won Iowa in the article text. Now I don't believe that there is a law or democratic party policy saying "the winner of Iowa is the person with the most state delegates" as such I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to declare someone the winner on the grounds that they drew on the thing that actually matters (national delegates) and won the popular vote as opposed to an arbitrary internal number. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

How can you read that article and think it's a factual reporting of news? It's not. It's a mixture of some facts, wishful thinking, and a stump speech for Sanders. The 2020 Democratic Iowa Caucus was a mess, and lots of the reporting at the time was muddled and confused, but this article is one of the worst I've seen. At the beginning the author says that Sanders was projected to win more state delegates, which ended up being incorrect. That's fine, projections turn out to be wrong. But she also says that Sanders is tied with Buttigieg in national delegates. She acted as if the preliminary results and projections available at the time were final, even though she was clearly aware at the time of publishing that the count wasn't finalized (Buttigieg ended up winning not only slightly more state delegates, but also 14 of Iowa's pledged national delegates, while Sanders won 12). Saying "I think we should call Sanders the winner because he won the popular vote" is an opinion. Saying "Sanders is tied with Buttigieg in national delegates" is dishonest reporting: a prediction disguised as established fact. And there's nothing on the site informing the reader this is just one person's opinion. Anyone who relied on this reporting would come away less informed about the outcome of the caucus than if they had read nothing at all. The more of their articles I read, the more certain I am that the entire publication should be treated as purely opinion, not a suitable source for factual claims. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Death of Justin Berry / User:JustinBerry

I stumbled onto this article while monitoring usage of {{deceased}} which recently showed up at User:JustinBerry which led to Justin Berry. This person was involved in child porn involving himself and others, and he turned evidence against his partners in exchange for prosecutor immunity. Then he was supposedly murdered in Mexico under "mysterious" circumstances. There are no reliable source that says he is dead, everything comes back to a few social media posts. Now veering into speculation: Given porn videos of him are still presumably floating around, it could benefit him to kill off his former identity. And, if his life was threatened by people seeking revenge for turning evidence, he may be under a witness protection program as part of the immunity. These things would fit a means and motive profile. Thus reliable sources for his death are particularly important. I'm posting here in case anyone has any further ideas, or thoughts how to handle this article given what looks like sketchy sourcing. --- GreenC 16:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Green, social media posts of unconfirmed provenance are obviously not reliable sources. However, I see that Berry's estate has been probated. I went online myself (I'm a lawyer IRL) and found the court's order allowing probate. (I can forward it to you if you want, but the court's docket is already linked, and the order allowing probate doesn't say much.) An order allowing probate of an estate would seem to me to be as reliable a source as you could reasonably ask for. So I think that the encyclopedic point of view has to be that Berry is dead, and any speculation to the contrary, in the absence of reliable sources to that effect, should not be included. John M Baker (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I was not advocating for the inclusion of speculation, that would be nuts. Rather there are reasonable reasons to be suspicious of the unreliable sources claiming death, I'm not just blindly citing a "Rule". However if you think the probate is sufficient so be it. That is a WP:PRIMARY. It is surprising that given the widespread and sustained national exposure of this individual not a single one has anything to say about his mysterious murder, which normally would be cat nip for the media outlets he was covered in. -- GreenC 18:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to post at WP:BLP/N asking for feedback here and/or the article. As a semiregular at BLPN, I don't entirely agree. I agree that there should be no speculation that they aren't dead. But I don't think the article should mention they are dead either. This isn't because I have some doubts over their death but simply because the current sourcing for their death is too poor. This isn't unheard of at BLPN, although more commonly it's just a temporary thing as we wait days or weeks for some source to emerge. Still I'm fairly sure there are other cases where someone is dead but we don't mention it because there is no good sourcing. While the murder angle here makes this a little different, ultimately it'd not unheard of that someone receives a reasonable amount of media coverage for a time but they've been "forgotten" about by the time of their death so there are no reports. (Well there are also those cases with very little media coverage point blank, e.g. minor olympians or other sportspeople. But I'm not thinking of them.) While I understand it can be a bit distressing for friends and family that the article doesn't mention their death, IMO ultimately we should strictly comply with BLP in cases like this. We get similar problems when someone is divorced or whatever but no media has reported it. Note that although BLP applies to all pages, I think it's fine for the user page to mention their death. It's reasonable for us to have different standards for something that is more administrative/internal. Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

BTW in case it's unclear, I'm treating this as a BLP case since IMO BLP clearly applies until we have BLP compliant reasons why it doesn't. Also after further consideration, I feel the BLP issue is clear enough that I removed mention of their death from the article. 18:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)(UTC)

Nil Einne, I'm no BLP expert, but here there is an order for probate, which must have been based on the filing of a death certificate (or, theoretically, other judicially acceptable evidence of death, but that is much less likely). Do you think that should not even be mentioned in the article? John M Baker (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the only source is a primary sources. There is a global industry to fake death [7] so the existence of a death certificate is not inherently reliable. What made this stand out was the means and motive, and lack of secondary sourcing despite the prior media circus. I contacted the reporter at the NYT who initially broke the story and received no response, which doesn't mean anything but another data point. Wikipedia might say something to the effect but not sure how it would be worded without veering into Original Research. -- GreenC

Thinking about this further: Under WP:BLPPRIMARY, we should not use court records to support assertions about a living person. As GreenC says, this court order, which allows probate, is certainly a primary source. However, it is a primary source that is reliable and can be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, so it's acceptable under WP:PRIMARY, if BLP does not apply. So does BLP apply? WP:BLP states that persons are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. An order allowing probate would seem to be reason to believe otherwise, but Nil Einne argues that BLP applies unless we have BLP-compliant reasons why it doesn't.

Currently there is a note at WP:BLP/N to let editors know of the discussion here. But I think this is really a BLP issue and not an RS issue, because the resolution is entirely dependent on whether BLP applies. So I think we should wrap up the discussion here and move the main discussion to BLP/N. John M Baker (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Well it's down to what is best using WP:COMMONSENSE (policy). This is a strange situation where existing policy isn't fitting well. I'm on the fence and can see the POV of inclusion or exclusion. I don't want to try and solve it like a legal puzzle because that's not how Wikipedia is meant to work (eg. if BLP applies to a person whose death is contested seems like how many angles on the head of a pin). The question is, what is best for the article. My sense is removing this information (the Facebook post and probate) is not serving readers, but at the same time asserting unconditional death is inappropriate. Thus leaning towards keeping him "alive" but adding a POV from the courts he is dead. This creates some new problems, but is the least of other bad choices.-- GreenC 03:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a very reasonable position, but there is also something to be said for getting more input on the BLP aspects of this. John M Baker (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Covid 19 URL from Facebook

I entered a URL for a facebook post, which linked to testimony being given to congress. That link was given to provide authenticity of the actual source, and greater detail for those who wished to hear it. Though FB is regarded as generally unreliable as an original source, it is not the original source. The original source is seen by clicking on the link as virologists testifying to a U.S. Senate committee.

Why not link to the original material then. In any case, "testimony" would not be WP:MEDRS if it pertained to any WP:Biomedical information; our standards for sourcing health content are waaay higher. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Relating to this testimony, I thought of adding information regarding ivermectin trials. There is a paper published to the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191. [8] Would this be WP:MEDRS? Is it considered a secondary source, as it is a published meta-analysis of 24 studies? I wasn't sure, so thought I should ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.72.1.167 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

PMID 33278625 is a primary source (a RCT) so not WP:MEDRS. In fact an editor has just got blocked for trying to force that source in to the Ivermectin article. Alexbrn (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Definition and sources on "List of active separatist movements in X" articles

The articles here that I am referreing to are below:

• List of active separatist movements in Africa
• List of active separatist movements in North America
• List of active separatist movements in South America
• List of active separatist movements in Asia
• List of active separatist movements in Europe
• List of active separatist movements in Oceania

Obviously defining which movements are notable, "active", and "separatist" is quite contentious, inevitably more so by those who seek to retain/remove certain groups from these lists. Because of this, there is a need for quality sources to define which movements are suitable enough to fill these lists. However, all of the articles listed except those on Africa and South America have the "more citations needed" template (South America may need the template as well though). My coming here is to ask, what are suitable sources to have movements listed on these articles? The current logic seems to be that movements on the lists must follow the three criteria mentioned on each article, however, many insignificant, historical, and original research groups have slipped through over time. (For example, a supposed "Yunnan Independence Movement" whose only "source" was a link to the Chinese Wikipedia existed for 5 months after having been deleted as Original Research)

I may simply be getting a little too "worked up" about these articles, but it is my hope that these articles can be made a bit more reputable with some work. Is the solution to simply keep the existing criteria and pay better attention to the articles, or is a more standard definition of proper sourcing here needed? Requiring listed movements to have an WP:RS specifically stating that they are "active" and "separatist" would certainly make the listed movements much more reputable, but simultaneously the requirement would likely remove many smaller movements and/or those in areas with poor press coverage.

I may have posted this in the wrong venue, so if there's a better place to post this, please let me know. --PubSyr (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I previously raised largely the same issue at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 73#List of active separatist movements. The referencing is virtually non-existent for most of the time, any area with a minority population of some form seems to be fair game as having an active separatist movement because there's a political party seeing a greater degree of autonomy. At List of active separatist movements in Europe there is a book cited for the phrase though separatist movements may seek nothing more than greater autonomy or to be recognised as a national minority. What the book actually says is The goals of separatist movements vary from calls for increased autonomy to demands for full independence, but this doesn't appear to have stopped people across the whole range of articles classing every organisation seeking greater autonomy of varying degrees as separatist, which isn't the case. Some separatist movements might be seeking autonomy, but that doesn't mean all autonomist movements are separatist. As for what apparently gets classed as a "movement, I refer you to this and Talk:List of active separatist movements in North America#Michigander inclusion. FDW777 (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: Yeah, as you mentioned then this is a pretty big sourcing and notability issue. I do have some Wiki-experience, but I'm by no means an expert. (If you know,) is there anywhere an RFC or proposal could be made to set the groundwork for what these movements need before they can be added? The current system really doesn't seem to separate the Tibets from the Michigans without experienced users' intervention. --PubSyr 🌲^C. 🐦^T. 14:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting a centralised discussion on one of the article's talk pages, and advertising it on the talk pages of the others. Those articles are a giant mess in need of fixing, it's difficult to know where to start though. Some kind of proposal would be a good starting point though. FDW777 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC: "Jihad Watch", should it be deprecated as a source?

Should "Jihad Watch" as a source be deprecated?

Apparently this has never had a formal RFC to actually deprecate it, though the previous discussion in April 2020 [9] seemed to indicate a clear consensus that it should be deprecated. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why? Is someone trying to cite it as if it is reliable? (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw this edit by @LaundryPizza03: [10]. I looked back to the last discussion [11] and it seemed pretty firm towards deprecation, and yes, it still seems to be used for citations [12]. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:Also I note that your response in April 2020 was "It's not The Daily Stormer, but not reliable either. Deprecate because of problems with accuracy.". IHateAccounts (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Support There was near-unanimous support for deprecation in the last discussion, and as noted by MarioGom (talk · contribs) in that discussion, various RS have described Jihad Watch as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Also blacklist, per IHateAccounts' findings. There are 320 pages that link to Jihad Watch, including 38 articles that use it as a source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Really? This is getting silly. If we have to have a formal RfC for every obviously shit source out there, this will be a never-ending task. The RSP initiative is in danger of becoming an attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Really? I think Alexbrn is spot on. Why would we bother for a source that isn't being used. This again is a problem with the way deprecation has evolved from a tool for a very specific case into something that seems to come up every time someone sees something they don't like. I would suggest this is closed as unnecessary. Springee (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Please withdraw this. Under normal circumstances I'd just close this, but because you've put a formal RFC tag on it it needs to waste our time for 30 days unless you withdraw it. Deprecation is a tool for a few, very limited, situations in which there's a source which we deem unreliable but which has the appearances of a legitimate publication or website and consequently people try to cite it in good faith. If someone is seriously trying to cite something called "Jihad Watch" as a legitimate source, that's a competence issue not a matter for RS/N; we don't need a formal RFC for this any more than we need a formal RFC on whether Star Trek is a documentary. ‑ Iridescent 14:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  I believe it would do a disservice to Wikipedia if I were to withdraw this RFC. Per my reasons and those by LaundryPizza03 stated above, the reasons stated by Hemiauchenia below, and the fact that the site is used as a source on multiple WP:BLPs currently. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  If it's used as a source (on a BLP or otherwise) for anything that seems even slightly dodgy, you should remove it -- neither deprecation nor an RfC is necessary for that. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's already listed as unreliable at Perennial sources. There's no need to deprecate it. TFD (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate I think some commenters don't understand how prominent Jihad Watch used to be, it's not just some random conspiracy blog run by a nobody, but a prominent website, associated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which publishes the deprecated FrontPage Magazine. Jihad Watch has even drawn comment from one of Pakistan's prime ministers, and its author is described by the SPLC as "one of the most prolific anti-Muslim figures in the United States". The website is currently cited 38 times in article space per jihadwatch.org  . I that stripping out the non-aboutself references to this source is something that needs doing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have aborted this unnecessary RfC -- the number of possible unusable sources is infinite, they do not need to be run through RfCs one-by-one. Find something useful to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Newslinger: Given that the April 2020 discussion wasn't a formal RfC, can it be used to deprecate the Jihad Watch without going through another discussion, given how strong the concensus was? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  The world is not divided between "sources that are usable" and "sources that are deprecated"; there are categories such as "sources that are so clearly unsuitable for basic factual statements that to hold structured discussions about them is a pointless waste of time" and "sources that no one has ever seriously proposed to use to source anything" and "sources that are already listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP". Absent a clear need, the world is not made better by formally deprecating things in these categories -- running an RfC to confirm an existing and unchallenged consensus is a pointless waste of time. --JBL (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: I said exactly the same thing during the Zero Hedge deprecation RfC at which time Zero Hedge had around 20 Wikipedia citations which I felt was really more about making a point rather than a useful source deprecation. The real need is to strip out non-aboutself references to Jihad Watch, which I have done to several citations already. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate, if it isn't absolutely clear yet. I note the associated FrontpageMag is expressly deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  It is absolutely clear, and that's why I've removed the RfC tag, again. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, if this site is being repeatedly spammed across article and there is indisputable consensus that it is generally unreliable, shouldn't this just be referred to WT:BLIST? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, of course, this RfC is a waste of time, which is why I've removed the tag again. IHA, please notice how almost everyone is saying the same thing. --JBL (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  @JBL Hi, IHA's adopter here. I have been silently watching this RFC in order to provide offwiki feedback. I was not planning on making any comment to avoid accusations of canvassing or tag teaming, etc. However, I feel the need to say, as an outside observer, that it is incredibly clear that people are not saying the same thing here. Some people are saying it shouldn't be depreciated, and other people are saying it should. Both sides agree it's a bad source, but I still see a good faith disagreement as to what to do about it.
  If you have an alternative means for IHA to get the result that they want (ie. depreciation, blacklisting, edit-filtering, or auto-reverting), then please feel free to suggest that. Until then, IHA seems to be following the only method laid out within Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to achieve their desired outcome. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  I concur that it's a reasonable RFC to raise here, and ask that the RFC tag not be removed again. We've seen before (e.g. Mail on Sunday) when an apparently-gratuitous RFC had to be run, just because some people insisted the obviously terrible source closely associated with an already deprecated source was great actually and kept putting it in. If we have to nail this one down, we might as well - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  So far, there is a clear consensus among the people who have participated in this RfC that it should never have been opened, and zero people arguing that Jihad Watch is an acceptable source (which is, of course, further evidence that an RfC is not needed). The situation of the Mail on Sunday is completely incomparable in all respects. If a couple of you want to jerk yourselves off to the accomplishment of officially deprecating a source that no competent editor would ever use or defend, I guess I can't stop you, but it's an utterly idiotic waste of the time of everyone. MJL, maybe you can explain to your mentee that they should not edit war and not waste community time and also learn what the hell a personal attack is. Please no one ping me back to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Withdraw this While Jihad Watch is in no way an acceptable source, we only deprecate sources that are cited enough by editors to be a problem. Compared to Newsmax or Occupy Democrats Jihad Watch is far less prominent. I would not be against blacklisting the source. funplussmart (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate It is currently being used in BLPs such as Hani Ramadan and we should deprecate. There's no need for it to drag this out any longer. Spudlace (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate per comments above and last discussion. User:JayBeeEll, instead of disruptively removing the RfC, how about getting it blacklisted if you don't think this RfC is necessary. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller:, I have nothing more to add here. --JBL (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Withdraw-- I fail to see who is actually trying to insert "Jihad Watch" into an article? It's currently listed in only about 30 articles, mostly for aboutself reasons. Unless there is widespread abuse, deprecation is clearly not needed since Jihad Watch is already listed as unreliable at WP:RSP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Withdraw per Alexbrn and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Law Officer Magazine ( lawofficer.com )

lawofficer.com is used as a source on four pages, six unrelated talk pages, and eight files.

No previous RSN discussions.

http://www.lawofficer.com

This appear to be a completely unreliable anti-black-lives-matter website.[13][14][15]

Unless someone gives me a good reason not to, I am going to remove those citations and look for reliable sources to replace them with.

Not absolutely sure whether "Law Officer Magazine" is related to the website.

The website claims to publish Law Officer Magazine[16] but I have never seen any real magazine with a website that doesn't tell you how to subscribe.

https://library.plymouth.edu/c.php?g=319067&p=4606495 says:

"Law Officer Magazine (Search the policeone.com online magazine: Law Officer Magazine) Law Officer is a publication for the professional law enforcement officer. Law Officer's mission is "to provide the best in tactics, technology and training." Law Officer has partnered with PoliceOne.com to deliver editorial content to help officers and departments be more effective and efficient."

https://www.police1.com

police1.com appears to by a run-of-the-mill aggregator, cited on one page (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold).

Amazon will sell you a subscription to it (but which one?):[17]

Some website I have never heard of talks about a "Law Officer Magazine" associated with lawofficer.com as opposed to policeone.com:[18]

Two magazines with the same name? One magazine and one website pretending to be a print magazine? Hard to tell. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that this looks sketchy and some of it looks like fake news. I wouldn't cite it myself. (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Advocacy group. Of course it is not RS. O3000 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Publishing articles claiming that Black Lives Matter is some sort of secret Marxist plot to overthrow American society is not an indicator of the sort of editorial controls we expect from a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Nope, conspiracy theories cranks. Purge, deprecated, blacklist, whatever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• At best treat as a WP:BLOGS post and reliable if only if there is consesnsus that a given author of a post is a subject matter expert.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• It's entirely self published. They talk about have "editors", but the content appears entirely user generated with no evident editorial oversight or fact checking because everything boils down to opinion pieces. Much of it is spicy hot takes on some reliable sources content entirely from the POV that police, if not infallible, are real American heroes. A lot or content is published under the moniker "Law Officer" than a named individual (presumably because nobody wants hot takes to be associated with an individual, especially if they are still an active officer in charge of a department...). I have no issue with police advocacy groups being used as sources for the opinion of police advocacy groups, but there are Unions, spokesmen, department spokesmen etc all able to that and be attributed directly. In contrast here we're looking at self appointed opinions. Unclear as to the weight, or reliability, or popularity of such opinions. However, a few of the editors are published (in some fashion) or have been speakers, or leaders in national discourse which may mean their opinion carries some weight somewhere if attributed. Koncorde (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Not an RS except for what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Wholly Unreliable WP:SELFPUBLISHed Copaganda, site is full of conspiracy theories and Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. I suggest nominating it for deprecation or blacklist.IHateAccounts (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Using an NPR report in the article Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic

The article Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic is a collection of rumors and other misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic (kind of an obvious title). One of the items in the list is the notion that the virus that causes COVID-19 may have been in the US earlier than originally thought [[19]] and that this might have resulted in some level of heard immunity. Recently Pieceofmetalwork added information [[20]] about a recently published study that, to quote the study conclusion, "These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States prior to January 19, 2020." Added material was sourced to NPR [[21]] which links to the study [[22]] which was published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Alexbrn objected to the edit arguing that the source is not a WP:MEDRS. I would agree that NPR is not a MEDRS however, my understanding is editors are allowed to cite non-medical journals for some information. Additionally, we have the CID article and it appears that CID is a respected journal in this area. I can see some concern that the CID article does not support (or attempt to answer) the herd immunity question and also does not conclusively prove COVID-19 cases were in the US prior the previously assumed date. Am I correct in assuming a report from a reliable news source is normally sufficient for the use in question (hypothetical if we didn't also have access to the journal paper). Am I correct in assuming that since we have the journal article a WP:MEDRS objection has been adequately addressed? Talk page discussion here [[23]]. Springee (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• PMID 33252659 is a primary source and so generally not WP:MEDRS for biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's a primary source reported by NPR (secondary source). I'm having trouble understanding how a journal of infectious diseases can't be a WP:MEDRS. This is not being used to dispute some type of established treatment but to address the level of misinformation associated with a claim about when the virus that causes COVID may have come into the US. I think it's twisting MEDRS to allow non MEDRS to discuss the original claim (none of the sources in the section would be MEDRS) but refuse to allow this one in. WP:MEDRS notes that the concern is people will use WP for health information. When the virus first came into the US is more about historic information at this point. It certainly isn't suggesting a false treatment for the illness. Springee (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The WP:WHYMEDRS essay is quite good for getting an understanding of why we avoid primary sources for health content. The NPR source is lay press (and not really a secondary source since it adds no meaningful analysis/synthesis to the underlying material). If we are going to make surprising claims about COVID-19 epidemiology we need solid WP:MEDRS sources. (On a side note, it's ironic this is being pushed at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic.) Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
      • But you are ignoring that this isn't something like adding a single study that say disputes the safety of a vaccine or even tries to explain how this virus acts in the body. Since none of the other sources in the section are RS'ed should we just remove the subtopic? I think you need to justify why this particular bit of content needs to be subjected to MEDRS. It makes sense that the article in general needs MEDRS but when an infectious disease first came to the US is as much epidemiological history as anything. Rather than just claiming MEDRS says no, can you explain why it would apply it should be applied in this case? To add this this, MEDRS exists because we are trying to protect readers who may get bad information here then make bad medical choices in their real life. That is a very good reason to have stricter standards in those cases. How does that apply in this case? What difference does it make to medical treatments/choices etc if the virus made it to the US in December 2019 or January 2020? At the same time we are saying a specific person was responsible for spreading misinformation yet it may be they weren't wrong. Isn't that a BLP issue? Springee (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
        • You posted here to ask if specific sources were reliable for WP:Biomedical information. They're not. According to WP:MEDRS, "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge" (my emphasis). Other questions about other sources are beside the point. Alexbrn (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
          • No, I'm asking this this information is RS for the claims being made. You are the one saying that it must be treated as MEDRS. A better question is does MEDRS need to apply in this case? It wasn't used for the original claims so why for the counter claims? If the CID article was saying this antibody indicates X then we would want multiple RS that agree. Are you suggesting the antibody in question is in dispute? What they are saying is the antibody was found in blood samples collected in Dec 2019 which is an indication that the virus may have been in the US in Dec 2019. Since that is being used to counter a claim not made in a MEDRS and it doesn't impact the core reasons we have MEDRS I don't think your objection is valid. Either way it would certainly be better to have other editors offer their views or figure out if this is the appropriate place to ask this question. Springee (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
            • So far as I can see, this is all bound up in some crazy way with US politics, with some wanting to push the idea that there was already "herd immunity" in California back in April (per a cited source: "Conservative talk show hosts Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh jumped on the theory). The idea was then debunked by scientists. What we're not going to be doing is using unreliable medical sources to try and lend credence to what is a borderline fringe idea as part of an exercise in political point making. Alexbrn (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
              • As I deliberately cited word by word from the source "widespread community transmission in the U.S. was unlikely until late February." There was zero intent by me to validate the conspiracy theory, in case that is unclear. An article about conspiracies or misinformation should also include context and possible reasons why a conspiracy came into existence. I suggest you read for example Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and note the use of "however" followed by a statement which provides context. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
              • No, I agree there is no MEDRS evidence for the herd immunity part. The other part of the claim was that the virus was in the US earlier than may have been originally thought. That is the only part this material would support. At the time an expert in the field offered one an opinion on why the claim would be wrong (note this claim was not from a MEDRS). Now we have a study that says the virus may have been here in 2019. Which at least means the we can't say definitively it's misinformation to say the virus was not in the US until Jan 2020. Just in case, I'm not interested in making a political point. I saw your original reason for reverting and I was not convinced it was valid in this case and I'm still not convinced. Springee (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Springee is aware[24] of the general sanctions for this topic. Note in particular WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019#Application notes. Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, this is a totally unnecessary provocation. You reverted another editor's edit to an article with what I see as an invalid reason. You haven't been able to make a clear case why this particular content must be governed by MEDRS. Adding that mention here does nothing to make your case stronger. Since you want us to look at the Application Notes, I would suggest you do the same. How is the time the virus was first thought to be in the US a "medical aspect" of the virus? Springee (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:Biomedical information. Population data and epidemiology fall under MEDRS. Trying to cite primary research in a medical journal with the justification that it's not medical is an interesting approach. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review your link. Note that history is specifically listed as not biomedical information. We should let other people weigh in since we aren't convincing one another. Springee (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting tentative epidemiological timelines proposed in primary biomedical studies fall under "history" and therefore don't need MEDRS?!? JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As it is being used in this article yes. Where would this fit into the "what is biomedical information" section? We don't have a MEDRS that says the virus was not in the US prior to Jan 2020. Part of the claim in question is that it's misinformation to say the virus was in the US prior to Jan 2020. If a claim that there is evidence suggesting it may have been here prior to Jan 2020 requires MEDRS then a claim that says it wasn't here prior to Jan 2020 would also require MEDRS. Currently the article has neither. Normally I wouldn't say one way or the other. However, if we are going to label the claim "misinformation" then we either need to use MEDRS to support the claim (currently we don't have that) or we simply present what evidence there is and say it is currently inconclusive. Removing the statement with only the claim "not MEDRS" while including the rest of the section which is also not MEDRS looks like a double standard to me. Springee (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We don't need a very solid source for saying that COVID is caused by a virus, since (almost) everybody knows that, but we would need a very solid source for saying it is not. Similarly, we need more solid sources for something that contradicts the existing consensus about first appearance of the virus in the US than for the consensus itself. If the virus was in the US at the end of 2019 without anybody noticing it, that would suggest it is far more harmless than the scientific consensus has it. That is an extraordinary claim, and it has implications on the handling of the pandemic. It is just a tiny data point compared to all the other data we have on it, but the anti-science movement out there feeds on those. Why would anyone want to include doubtful information with the justification that one specific rule, MEDRS, does not apply to it if you read the rule strictly? Wikipedia rules are not a purpose in themselves, their reason for existence is to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Evidence suggests that the virus was in Europe earlier than previously thought too [25][26]. I agree with Springee's argument; if Antibodies reactive to COVID-2019 were present in American Red Cross blood samples from California, ... requires an MEDRS source, then Early genetic and antibody analyses refute the idea that the virus was in the United States prior to January 2020 must also need a MEDRS source. More generally, information which (if true) would affect or imply conclusions about biomedical information is typically itself treated like biomedical information. Whether the virus landed in the U.S. before or after January 2020 says something about R and thus requires MEDRS sources. ImTheIP (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The report that NRP mentioned was covered by a number of news outlets including the NYT. I also found an earlier study conducted by UCLA and the CDC which used clinical admissions data to support the theory that the virus was in the population earlier than thought. [[27]] The article links to the study. Springee (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The study in question was added to at least two Covid timeline articles [[28]][[29]]. Why the concern with using it in this article? Springee (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a non-WP:MEDRS source being used for statements about epidemiology, so rather proves the point that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Removed, per policy and the specific requirements of the sanctions for COVID-19 articles. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you using the same standard for all other sources in those articles? Springee (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Haven't gone through them in any depth. If there are other problems they should obviously be rectified also. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should as I suspect most will fail and the article would be gutted if we follow your interpretation. Springee (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd and Arosa: as the editors who added the now removed studies to the articles in question. Springee (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I just read the quoted paper and I agree the source I linked has stronger wording that the paper, so it should not be used. Arosa (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I found a number of RSs which cite the CID journal paper. I agree no wikipedia claim should be stronger than stating that evidence of the virus was found. They clearly didn't find the virus itself but science, rightly, use logical expressions that indicate confidence. Do you feel the study itself can not be used? Other media articles reporting on it [[30]][[31]][[32]][[33]] and the CDC adds it to their Dec 8th Covid science update [[34]]. I will note that a number of sources, like the NPR article, made the results sound more definitive than the paper's own conclusion. Springee (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the study is reliable. The news story source I used less so.Arosa (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither is reliable per WP:MEDRS. See the discussion at WT:MED#Does an article stating there is evidence SARS-CoV-2 was in the US in December fall under MEDRS or just RS?. Note also the special sanctions in effect for this topic (see your Talk page). Alexbrn (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I'm going to ask a hypothetical here. At what point does an article like one published byout of the CDC pass from MEDRS to standard RS? By that I mean, if we were ten years in the future and this pandemic was behind us, would you still consider questions of when the virus may have first been in the US a MEDRS question or would it now be considered simply history where we could cover it using the RS standards we might use for the 1918 pandemic or the early discoveries around insulin for treating diabetes. When and why would this transition out of MEDRS and into standard RS. Perhaps, "when the topic or specific study would have only historic interest vs current clinical or epidemiological relevance is a reasonable standard? Incidentally, I was pleased to see some discussion of the need to clean up a number of the COVID related articles. It would probably help if all the sourcing were of the MEDRS standard. Springee (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The article PMID 33252659 (which is not, BTW, "published by the CDC" but is in an OUP journal) is a weak primary source, and I cannot conceive any circumstances by which it would transition into being usable for citing on Wikipedia. In 10 years time trying to use it may even be worse than trying to use it now, since it would be original research - trying to be a historian based on old primary documents. The topic however will transition into being historical and in 10 years time there will no doubt be good secondary sources (which must be the basis of our articles) giving a historical overview of this pandemic's early stages. And yes, that overview might be in a reputable historical (general RS) publication as much as a medical one - perhaps an academic book published by a university press, for example. Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I meant out of the CDC (or more completely, authored by researchers at the CDC and [other institutions] and published in CID). It's late and I was more concerned about crafting the rest of the question. I also agree the study is a primary source but the results have been widely covered by the media (NYT, CNN etc). So if it isn't covered by MEDRS it would pass our RS standards so long as we cite the secondary media sources. What do you think indicates that transition? Springee (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

News sources picking up primary studies (which are not really secondary sources since they can add no meaningful synthesis or analysis) are never reliable for nontrivial health claims, and MEDRS prefers sources < 5 years old in any case - so in ten years time those news sources will be doubly unusable, and trying to use them as documentary "evidence" in a historical overview would be an act of original research. As to when a subject "becomes historical"? I don't think it's possible to have a rule, but a good indication would be the topic appearing in good sources written by medical historians and/or in later iterations of books like this. I have no doubt we'll not want for good sources when the time comes. Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Tripadvisor

Some people use Tripadvisor as a source. I understand that this source should be included in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as an unreliable source, as the site reviews are based on user reviews. There have even been cases of fake reviews. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Obviously per WP:UGC. No need to include it elsewhere since nobody with a WP:CLUE would ever try to use it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Someone used in Dinosaur Museum (Dorchester). But then, I thought better of it, the font could only be used to indicate the location of a certain place, but never as proof of notoriety, and neither should reviews be used as a source. What is your opinion? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is better to educate editors on some very basic principles, rather than try to move to a situation where things are decided by a pre-baked checklist. Alexbrn (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate. Total junk, even if some of the reviews are highly entertaining. I wouldn't rely on it to make a booking, let alone use it as a source. WP:UGC, full both of self-promotion and of revenge attacks from people who want their money back, justifiably or otherwise. I wouldn't trust it even for WP:V purposes ("this hotel exists because tripadvisor says it does"). Narky Blert (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate we have over 1,100 citations to tripadvisor.com  , the vast majority are not appropriate as self published sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support spam filter, oppose deprecation. TripAdvisor is more akin to Facebook (mostly user-generated content) than stuff like the Daily Mail (mostly staff-written but low-quality content). It should be added to an edit filter akin to the one proposed in the Facebook RfC. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 15:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate Unlike Facebook, where you might be able to use someone's posting as a primary source (Michael A. posted on his Facebook that "blah blah blah"), Tripadvisor is entirely based around user-submissions of dubious repute and information-lacking travel recommendations. The only use I could possibly see for Tripadvisor ever being used as a source would be if one of their articles (https://www.tripadvisor.com/Articles) was written by someone notable enough to have an article, and then using their statement as a primary source. Because of simply how unreliable everything else on the site is though, and how frequently it is used, deprecation seems like the only real option. If there happens to be some specific circumstance where it is a proper primary source, then is fine, but that is not the case with most of its usage. -PubSyr 🌲^C. 🐦^T. 16:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Per Alexbrn, it violates WP:UGC and therefore does not also need to be deprecated or listed in perennial sources. Deprecation should be reserved for cases in which clear-cut general principles do not apply or where their application is disputed. --JBL (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• I'd support an edit filter (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Reframing Russia about East StratCom Task Force

• East StratCom Task Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hutchings, Stephen; Tolz, Vera (6 April 2020). "COVID-19 Disinformation: Two Short Reports on the Russian Dimension". Reframing Russia.
• More context is at the East StratCom Task Force talk page.

Assessment on if the source should be considered reliable in this context (and if it should be attributed) welcome. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think it will be useful for others to leave a link to a secondary source here - UK Academics Get Hefty Grant to 'Reframe Russia'.--Renat (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this article. It doesn't seem like any of the factual claims are outright false, and I feel that Byline is reliable, but it is worth noting that they are part of the group of remainers who view Brexit as entirely Putin's fault and attempt to portray the Alexander Lebedev (owner of the staunchly anti-government Novaya Gazeta and (former?) member of the A Just Russia political party) as a Russian government agent. In other words, analysis done by The Byline Times might be biased.

The article clearly makes an effort at proper journalism. It has reached out to the source for a quote and so on. But it does have moments where it seems to confuse fact and opinion. For instance it states that "he ignored the good work that has already been done analysing RT" for example an article which "pointed out that RT’s claims of billions of views of its YouTube channel mainly came from videos with no political content". The quote above this claim gives no indication that Hutchins has suggested anything to the contrary. Additionally the article Byline points to is an translation and update by a website run by "citizen journalists" which hardly counts as ignoring existing scholarship.

(I do not mean to say that Bellingcat is unreliable just that it might not be paid much attention by academics. Interestingly Byline says that this article was "translated and updated" from a source by a media scholar though if this was in the original is unclear, as is why they pointed to the Bellingcat version. I recall seeing this remark made in a RS and it seems quite reasonable though why RT's critics go to such great lengths to point out that most of their output is non-political - and therefore cannot be propaganda - is something I don't understand. But to reiterate, Byline doesn't provide any evidence that Hutchins has talked about, let alone heard, this claim.)

Byline's analysis does have some supportive words specifically on this article saying that it made some valid points about the dangers of amplifying obscure conspiracy theories in a quest to debunk them, and the flaws in carelessly sticking a “disinformation” label on reports that aren’t always deserving of the description. It further does not suggest any unreliability on the part of Reframing Russia only that it has a pro-Russian bias, which as I have noted is an opinion partially born out of Byline's own biases.

Over all, I generally feel that an academic source being headed by professor at the University of Manchester is more reliable than a upstart independent hybrid news site. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what's the point of discussing Brexit group, Bellingcat, Lebedev, Novaya Gazeta and so on. This only complicates the discussion. I have what to answer to you about this wide range of topics, but this is not the right place, because we are discussing ReframingRussia.com. Maybe you have some better secondary source about ReframingRussia (RR)? The mere fact that someone from RR is a professor is not a reason to consider everything that he does as a reliable source, especially when there is no editorial control whatsoever; RR members post their blogs on their own site. We need secondary sources. Because without secondary sources everything is just up to original research, which is not good. What about my original research: another important example that concerns me - there is a consensus between reliable sources that Kremlin is conducting disinformation campaign and RT (TV network) is part of it. What professor Stephen Hutchings from RR says? "we have to discard the idea that the Kremlin is in charge of a coordinated media machine". Hutching is a regular guest on RT (Russia Today) and he regularly defends RT. Hearing such words about Kremlin not being in charge from professor Hutchings is just disqualifying him in my eyes. Speaking about supportive words from Byline article - I am okay with using only this piece of information about RR's article. At least it would be from secondary source, not primary.--Renat (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my point got lost in there but in essence, Byline Times is, in this instance, isn't saying that Reframing Russia lies or misrepresents only that they feel aren't "providing the AHRC with value for money" (ie, Byline disagrees with them). Given that Byline is, in this case, a very WP:BIASED source to the point of making conclusions that fly in the face of reality, I think it would be best to ignore the article.

Upon the subject of your "original research" (which isn't original research but using a source in an about self fashion), the phrasing was created by the London School of Economics's (part of the University of London) blog editor, not Hutchins. [35] What Hutchins actually said was we have to discard long-discredited ‘transmission belt’ or ‘hypodermic needle’ accounts of media effects in which the press ‘injects’ the toxin of propaganda, or the antidote of truth, into the collective bloodstream. Clearly, he is referring not to some idea that RT isn't ultimately there to push Putin's agenda (in the same blog he states that This [the Russian media] landscape is stalked by Putin’s overbearing presence) but that this particular metaphor for Russian media is not accurate.

Overall, I feel that this blog post helps prove that Hutchins has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. But not so much as some examples I will cite bellow. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable Academic Source - ReframingRussia is major research project by the Open University and the University of Manchester. The Observer It is headed by Stephen Hutchins, Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Manchester and Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences who is quoted by The Guardian as an expert on RT. [36] Twice. [37] He is also the author of more papers than I want to count [38] though Manchest seems to put the number at 45.

As for RR itself, the research team is solely comprised of professors, senior lecturers, and research associates all at major universities, as you would expect from such a collaboration. [39] The collaboration has been the source of numerous academic publications. [40] And if that wasn't enough its advisory board contains the heads of research of both french and german state television as well as a representative from the BBC world service. [41]

Even if it doesn't have meaningful editorial oversight, all of its members are Subject Matter Experts and very good ones at that. I am not about to declare this unreliable on the grounds that Hutchins appeared on RT once. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hutchins also wrote a piece at Huffington Post. [42] ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Al Jazeera on Middle Eastern and Jewish issues more generally

Apparently Al Jazeera has falsely reported that Israel opened dams to flood Palestine, and had posted a video which promotes a Holocaust conspiracy theory. Should Al Jazeera be regarded as unreliable more generally for topics relating to the Middle East and the Jews? feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 15:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

All sources make good-faith errors in reporting things, and all sources do have occasional errors in judgement. Perfection is not required, but rather a commitment to truthful reporting. Al Jazeera pulled the video, according to the exact source you provided, which means that they recognized their mistake, and are willing to make corrections for it, a hallmark of a reliable source. --Jayron32 15:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Since Al Jazeera retracted the report I don’t see a big issue here. All sources will be wrong some of the time and all sources are also more likely to be wrong the closer a story drifts to their ideological blindspots. What separates the wheat from the chaff is whether or not an outlet retracts stories and corrects errors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

As others have noted, it is generally reliable not always reliable. Both of these stories were corrected promptly (and in the case of the later the producers suspended). The dam myth was also circulated by AFP, a reputable news wire, and indeed in its article on the subject [43] CAMERA points to another inaccurate article produced by... Haaretz. The Al Jazeera, the AFP, and Haaretz are all RSes. Corrections are indeed generally seen as evidence of reliability. Al Jazeera probably shouldn't be used for Qatar but besides that I see little to no problem with it. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is clearly partisan source regarding the conflict. It also funded by the government which is not democratically elected so in my view there are similar to Russia Today and other propaganda outlets that funded by government in autocratic regimes --Shrike (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Oryx blog

Is Oryx Blog (hosted at blogspot, but with a domain name) a reliable reference at Al-Barakah (ISIL administrative district)? The blog authors appear to have published a single book about North Korea's military, I'm not sure whether that makes them established subject matter experts on even North Korea, never mind the broader subject of all defence topics. FDW777 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha, the other day I was struggling to persuade someone that an academic who had a PhD in the field and a peer reviewed paper on the subject was a SME. But to the point, while their content is interesting, I can not see any evidence of the website having editorial oversight, the book publishers are niche, and it is a single book. But what do I know, the last time I commented on this sort of thing it turned out the blog belonged to "one of the world’s leading experts on underwater warfare and submarine technology" according to The Diplomat. Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that publishing one book makes you an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. My belief is that defence is such a wide area that publishing a book on the North Korean military does not make the authors established subject matter experts on say the Argentinian Navy, even if we were prepared to accept that publishing one book makes them established subject matter experts on North Korea. Which Slatersteven doesn't accept to begin with, which is a reasonable position. FDW777 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Well the book and the blog post are both on tanks, but the point (ie that the area is very broad and a single book does not convey being an SME over all of it) remains. Actually, I have just had a look at the article history, can we wait to hear Applodion's case. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Applodion: care to explain cited by other academics? ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans have been cited by Charles R. Lister in The Syrian Jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency and by Douglas C. Lovelace in Terrorism: Commentary on Security Documents Volume 145: The North Korean Threat, both published by Oxford University Publishing. Lister is one of the most prominent experts for the Syrian Civil War. Mitzer and Oliemans were also used as sources in the Perspectives on Terrorism journal and The Journal of East Asian Affairs. What can I say, they collect niche information on topics which garner not much interest, and seem to be regarded as reliable by experts. If everyone else wants to remove the reference, I will of course comply (despite disagreeing). Applodion (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not leaning towards the authors being SMEs. Also worth noting is that Olimans writes for NK News, [44] a probable RS, and is cited as an expert by the FT. [45] I am going to read the post and look into Mitzer. Thank-you, ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Miltzer also does work for NK News [46] and has been quoted by The Washington Post [47]. I have read the post, and it provides photos to support that there were at least two tanks operated in the relevant area. As such in this case, I feel that the authors probably count as Subject Matter Experts. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Gay City News

On the article Abigail Shrier, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d tagged a reference using Gay City News with {{better source needed}}. Sadly, I was not able to find any previous community consensus as to the general reliability of Gay City News. Could commenters here please indicate their opinion on this matter?
Question: Is Gay City News reliable for information relating to gender and sexuality? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Without a doubt its a niche publication, but gender and sexuality appears to be within their niche. I would say in context they are reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally Reliable, it's owned by the same company that owns The Villager (Manhattan), which also speaks well of it. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

To address the concerns listed below about three specific articles:

1. Ric Grenell, Ex-DNI, Vichy Gay, and Idiot, Salutes War Criminal - This article covered an instance in which Grenell was tricked into posting a "thank you for your service" tweet to William Calley, who in Wikipedia's own words is "is an American war criminal and a former United States Army officer convicted by court-martial for the premeditated killings of 22 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians in the Mỹ Lai massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War".
2. Pink-Washing Power Grab Charged in Brooklyn Dems’ Non-Binary Inclusiveness Move - This article accurately covers a political disagreement among various factions of the democratic party, including the quote "“It’s pink-washing. You’re saying you’re being inclusive but in the same breath you’re adding all of these other things that negate that,” said Sunset Park District Leader Julio Peña..."
3. Ousted Bigot Claudia Tenney Vies to Regain Upstate House Seat covers the not-yet-concluded race for the New York 22nd congressional district, with Claudia Tenney running against Anthony Brindisi, and specifically addresses Tenney's history of voting and public commentary disparaging LGBT individuals and communities.

To claim that these articles are non-reliable on the idea of their headlines alone is problematic, especially for the second one, which directly references terms used by quoted individuals in the coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally Reliable it has editors and a reasonable number of journalists, looks like a regular News Org. Unless someone can come forward with evidence against its reliability it seems like an RS. It is interesting that Dr. Swag Lord also tagged two other claims including a group that included a masters thesis and a WSJ opinion piece. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, mind giving me a moment to consider the BLP implications. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

How is it being used? It seems like a small volume source that would have a strong POV. Is it being used for basic undisputed facts, commentary/analysis, a representative opinion? Looking at the article it appears to have a number of iffy sources (Mediamatters). When dealing with free, weekly papers I would always err on the side of using their claims with great caution. Springee (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Good question. The claim is that such [she] often misgenders subjects of discussion in her book and the article is [48]. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The source for the claim is located in this paragraph: "Shrier’s perspective on trans issues is deeply problematic in more ways than one. Shrier admits in her book that she misgenders transgender youth, saying, “I refer to biologically female teens caught up in this transgender craze as ‘she’ and ‘her’” — a choice by the author that disrespects transgender teens’ gender identity and falsely assumes that all trans boys or non-binary individuals assigned female at birth have the same biological makeup." (Reminder: this is not an opinion article, editorial, or an op-ed). Such a hyper-partisan source makes no effort to separate objective news and facts from opinion and commentary, and it should only be used for the most basic, mundane of all claims. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the sort of use I would be concerned about. In this case the source is making claims about the actions of a BLP subject. Those claims imply bias/phobia/negative things about the BLP subject. Given the clear and strong POV this would have to be treated as opinionated commentary and then we need to ask if it's reliable enough for inclusion (are they leaving important facts out?) and if the source would have weight for inclusion in the Wiki article. Springee (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The BLP subject's own words demonstrate bias/phobia/negative things, the subject does unquestionably misgendering the subjects of their book. Misgendering is objectively offensive (unless of course one is transphobic, then the offensive nature is reversed as any acknowledgement of transgender individuals identify is held to be offensive by the transphobic). I don’t see the source as describing anything that isn't plainly apparent. Nor do I see a clear and strong POV in that piece, given the background of the source they appear to be remarkable neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you say with certainty the the GC article doesn't leave out critical reasoning/justification? As an example, if someone was against the Affordable Care Act was it because they are against healthcare reform? What if their opposition was based on feeling the ACA was a lost opportunity to create a public option? The act of quoting and summarizing requires some level of editorial judgement on the part of the person doing the quoting. Can we be certain they are fairly presenting the argument of the author? Would their strong bias which may not align with the author's make that harder? Springee (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

We consider Haaretz etc to be reliable sources when it comes to anti-semitism despite their inherent bias. I fail to see how its different for other publications seen as representing oppressed groups describing WP:FRINGE critics like Shrier. I like your hypotheticals, but I am unable to make it fit the situation at hand because there doesn't appear to be any appropriate context to willfully misgender a transgender individual. Perhaps you can provide a few examples as you have done for the Affordable Care Act? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The major problem with your argument is that it is unfalsifiable. If I were to state that misgendering someone is not "objectively offensive" (which is correct) then I would automatically be labeled as "transphobic" (for which I am not). This is a pretty common logical fallacy. It is the opinion of the author of the article that Shrier's perspective is "deeply problematic" and that she inherently "disrespects transgender teens’ gender identity." The author's profound use of loaded language further demonstrates his POV and inability to separate straight facts from opinion. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Just own it, theres no need to beat around the bush. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Could you please clarify? On a related note, you mentioned that GCN is a "niche publication." I agree, however, I find it a little too niche. Meaning, that there will almost always be major UNDUE concerns. For instance, are you able to find a RS that corroborates GCN's reporting that Shrier willfully misgenders individuals? (In the Shrier article, we cite a WSJ opinion piece written by her where she argues against compelled speech, but she states that she has no problem addressing people in the manner they choose). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: The GCN article directly quotes the author's notes at the start of her book: "I refer to biologically female teens caught up in this transgender craze as 'she' and 'her'" and draws the analysis that this is misgendering. This conclusion is so banal that I am struggling to understand your specific issue with it. Regardless of your opinion on the validity of someone's gender identity, using different pronouns than the one they request meets most definitions of misgendering. Bravetheif (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: I don't have strong opinions on gender identity one way or the other. I was simply pointing out there is no possible way something can be "objectively offensive." On a further note, Springee makes a valid point. This is a single sentence taken from an entire book. Given the author's and the publication's strong POV concerns, there is high reason to believe that the sentence could have been taken out of context or distorted in some form or another. For the sake of argument, even if this sentence was fully in context, and the author was correct by labeling this sentence as misgendering, then there are strong UNDUE concerns. Why are we choosing to highlight this sole sentence? Have legitimate sources highlighted this sentence as well? We should be trying to summarize the author's main points and thesis--we should not be analyzing individuals sentences. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Nothing is "objectively offensive", but you can objectively say that most trans people (and allies) will find intentional misgendering offensive. That's my interpretation of Horse Eye's Back's statement. Either way, Springee's concerns are largely unfounded. The quote is taken from the author's note, and even with the remaining context it's meaning does not change. It hasn't been distorted or misrepresented. Shrier makes clear that she will refer to trans teens by their birth pronouns and proceeds to do so the entire book - to the point that it takes up a substantial portion of the text. Whether or not Shrier has concerns about the legitimacy of trans teens gender identity does not change the fact that that meets the definition of misgendering. It's not just a solo sentence, its a sentence that represents the book as a whole and something for which the book has been criticised (for example, by GCN). Bravetheif (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: You say--"Shrier makes clear that she will refer to trans teens by their birth pronouns and proceeds to do so the entire book - to the point that it takes up a substantial portion of the text...It's not just a solo sentence, its a sentence that represents the book as a whole and something for which the book has been criticised"--besides original research, do you have a RS that makes that assertion? This whole discussion is on the reliability of GCN, so you can't use GCN to prove the reliability of GCN. Again, if a RS has determined that Shrier does, indeed, repeatedly misgender individuals in her book, and that misgendering is a key aspect of her book, then it would be completely fine to include such a statement. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: This is not a Wikipedia article, this is a discussion page. I don't need a secondary source to make such analysis; see WP:NOR This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. The authors note is explicitly stating the manner with which it will be referring trans teenagers in the book, and I am making the extremely basic logical inference that any decision about how one refers to the subject of the book would take up a substantial part of the text. Furthermore, having read the book myself, I can say that it definitely does take up a large portion of the book. This is all for the defence that it is not WP:UNDUE. As for the reliability of GCN, it must be examined in context. GCN directly and accurately quotes the book, and the conclusion that it draws (the conclusion that is being used in the article) is that that meets the definition of misgendering. That conclusion is not outrageous; it's logical, correct, and honestly banal. Bravetheif (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: Your decision to include the statement seems to be based off your own original research/interpretation of the book. You are not an expert on the book. If I read the book, my understanding of the book could be wildly different from yours. My interpretation and opinions of the book means absolutely nothing, either. If misgendering was such a key aspect of the book, then reliable, independent sources would state so. In the few reliable sources we have in the article none of them mention Shrier misgendering. Even in the PinkNews source, which holds a similar POV to GCN, fails to mention Shrier misgendering. There are strong WP:BLP concerns in this matter. If we are going to include such a contentious statement, then we better have some high-quality sourcing. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: This is not a discussion of my personal character or my personal reasons for including the statement or source. I would appreciate it if you would not treat it like one. This is a discussion of whether a secondary source supports the statement, whether that statement is relevant, and whether that source is reliable. This is also not a BLP article and the statement in the article does not relate to Shrier directly, so BLP concerns are not relevant. If you are unable to cite a specific Wikipedia policy this source violates, than whether or not it is a reliable source should be determined by examining the specific claim of the source used in the article. You have yet to do so besides some vague, unsubstantiated, notion of contentiousness. Bravetheif (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: You previously said: "...and I am making the extremely basic logical inference that any decision about how one refers to the subject of the book would take up a substantial part of the text. Furthermore, having read the book myself, I can say that it definitely does take up a large portion of the book." I was specifically responding to this statement, which is based off original research to support your conclusions of the book and the material in question. The point I am making is that your personal knowledge of the book, or your personal logical inferences, are completely irrelevant. My personal knowledge of the book is irrelevant. Nobody is attacking your character. Additionally, this article still falls under BLP policy: [49]. Just like Dreams from My Father falls under BLP policy. The statement, and the source, in question especially falls under BLP policy because we are directly commenting on a living person. Furthermore, we are arguing about including a highly contentious statement into a BLP, which would require high-quality sourcing per BLP policy. If the content in question said: "Shrier has two kids," and GCN was our source, then there wouldn't be a problem. But, obviously, our statement is significantly more contentious than that. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: This is not a Wikipedia article, it is a discussion page! WP:NOR does not apply. Making original logical inferences or stating subjective opinions is entirely permissible, and you are free to do so if you like. Discussions of a living person within the book must be treated with BLP, but the book is not generally about specific living person(s) (unlike Dreams of My Father) and as such does not fall under BLP. The statement in question does not directly comment on a living person either, it is a comment on how the book refers to persons. Bravetheif (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion any further. If you have additional concerns, feel free to leave a comment on my TP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that the relied upon article is commentary, and needs attribution at the very least. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally reliable - Well-established, professionally run alternative-press newspaper in New York City. No more opinionated than any other alternative-press weekly. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Generally unreliable--unlike publications such as the Washington Blade, Gay City News has no reputation for fact-checking and it does not appear to have strong editorial oversight. With headlines such as Ric Grenell, Ex-DNI, Vichy Gay, and Idiot, Salutes War Criminal, Pink-Washing Power Grab Charged in Brooklyn Dems’ Non-Binary Inclusiveness Move, and Ousted Bigot Claudia Tenney Vies to Regain Upstate House Seat (all written in the objective "News" section), this publication cleary qualifies under tabloid journalism, and it should not be used to make contentious claims about living people. --Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

If you ignore the headlines (which aren't reliable in many publications), these articles are accurate: Grenell was trolled, "Brooklyn Democratic Party bigwigs used a new gender non-binary inclusion rule to consolidate power among their executive ranks" is attributed as a claim made by activists and progressives, Tenney article doesn't use the word "bigot" in its text and accurately quotes her statements. I agree that I wouldn't use this publication without backup for contentious BLP claims, however. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Headlines do, indeed, try to grasp the reader's attention. However, GCN's headlines, and their content in general, are beyond the pale. Under what circumstances does a "respected" publication refer to the former Director of National Intelligence as an "idiot"? Here's the opening first two lines as well: From the perspective of the Peter Principle concept in management studies, Ric Grenell rose to his level of incompetence when he served for three months earlier this year as acting director of National Intelligence (DNI).If there was any doubt that Grenell was poorly equipped for the field of Intelligence — or intelligence — it came on Veteran’s Day.... Is this how one writes objective news? Even if one is writing from an LGBT perspective, this type of reporting is a bit unacceptable. Not only that, this matter is simply trival. If you do a quick search, this event was hardly touched by the media, so there are major DUE/UNDUE concerns as well. The most prominent newsorg that I could find that covered this event was Business Insider. Shockingly, Business Insider does not refer to Grenell as an "idiot" nor do they mock his intelligence. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - it appears that this could be substantiated from the book itself. gcn's claim is explicitly based on the author's note which says "I refer to biologically female teens caught up in this transgender craze as ‘she’ and ‘her’". This seems like a better idea for a controversial claim about a BLP. Thoughts? ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we simply quote the material from the book, and use GCN as the citation? For instance, we say in the article that "In Irreversible Damage, Shrier states that she "refer[s] to biologically female teens caught up in this transgender craze as ‘she’ and ‘her.’"? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as well as referencing the book as well/instead. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes reliable: It's generally known to be a reliable periodical, so the tag is entirely unnecessary. This is a leading, established LGBT newspaper, and I see it cited a lot on Wikipedia without requiring a "better source needed" tag. Tikisim (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. I see no evidence of a strong editorial team reigning in opinionated writers, and I see no reputation for fact-checking and correcting errors.

Let's look at one example: City Council Passes Walking While Trans Repeal Resolutions

Here is the actual law: New York Penal Law Sec. 240.37: Loitering for the Purpose of Engaging in a Prostitution Offense

Here is the resolution: New York City Council Resolution No. 1444-A [50]

Here, GCN makes some important assumptions, equally important omissions, and fails to provide hard evidence for their main claim.

First, the main claim: I find it extremely plausible that NYPD cops harass transgender individuals using the above law as a pretext. It shames me to say that society in general has a prejudice against transgender individuals and it is likely that this is reflected in the NYPD. But does GCN offer any actual evidence, or just anecdotes? They really dropped the ball on that one. The actual resolution (which you won't find a link to in the GCN article) gives some convincing statistics:

"Eighty percent of people who were arrested under the law in 2018 were women, and of that, forty-nine percent were Black and forty-two percent were Latina, according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services... In fact, the enforcement of this law disproportionately targets Black and Latina women and transgender women of color."

Could it be that the actual resolution was omitted because it primarily talks about minorities, only mentioning transgendered who are also minorities?

Next, the law. Zero mention of the word "prostitution". To read the GNC article, one would think that there is a law against "Walking While Trans". No mention of the fact that (what a shock!) there are prostitutes in NYC, some of them do indeed loiter for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, and some of those are transgender.

This is not to say that the NYPD targeting transgendered individuals isn't a real problem. It clearly is, but there are higher-quality sources that cover it and do a much better job of it, Examples:

• https://queenseagle.com/all/council-formally-calls-on-state-to-repeal-walking-while-trans-ban -- Queens Daily Eagle
• The NYPD Arrests Women for Who They Are and Where They Go — Now They’re Fighting Back --The Village Voice

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

If I read your comment correctly you are claiming that the GCN article does not address the law's role in the targeting of minorities? This is confusing because:

1. The coverage isn't "of the law" but rather of a city council meeting.
2. The coverage's first line is "The New York City Council on December 10 passed two resolutions encouraging the State Legislature to repeal a loitering law used by police to target transgender women of color and seal the records of folks convicted under that law"
3. The specific resolutions (923 and 144) are referenced later in the article.
4. The article itself includes multiple quotes from individuals attending the City Council meeting, which is what I would expect from a local paper. The proceedings and arguments discussed at the meeting are what's covered, including quotes such as "“I’m grateful to Councilmember Carlina Rivera, Council Speaker Corey Johnson and the rest of the New York City Council for passing a resolution urging Albany to repeal the ‘Walking While Trans’ ban,” Hoylman said in a written statement. “Repealing this statute, which permits transgender women of color to be profiled and harassed by local law enforcement, is one of my top priorities for 2021. Thanks to the hard work of many advocates across the state, we’ve got enough co-sponsors in each house of the Legislature to pass this legislation.”".

I'm having a very hard time seeing how you manage to portray an article reporting on the events and discussion of a city council meeting as "unreliable." IHateAccounts (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Because GCN didn't accurately report what was in the resolution or what was in the law that the resolution was opposing, while the Queens Daily Eagle and The Village Voice did? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like GCN accurately reported the events of the City Council meeting, and the written statements by associated speakers. You say "But does GCN offer any actual evidence, or just anecdotes? They really dropped the ball on that one" in order to attack the publication, but the article is a report on a city council meeting, and it seems to me their reliability is not impacted by your WP:OR demands that they write a different article. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur that Guy has badly misread this article - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The article was highly misleading, and omitted key facts of the law. It made it seem as though there was a legitimate law on the books that prevented transgender individuals from walking. Another red flag: this article (nor do any of their articles) ever link their sources. They never link to the actually law or resolution, nor do they ever link to reputable sources like the New York Times. GCN articles seem to only link to themselves. This is indicative of circular reporting. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. They appear to have a decent editorial team. Bravetheif (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - The comments by a percentage of editors speaking against Gay City News read to me as if they're they're reflecting a personal issue with the publication, rather than a more broad-based journalistic concern.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Limited reliability for reporting on LGBTQI issues and news within the city of New York. They have a gatekeeping process demonstrated by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy, a physical presence by which they can be held liable for libel, and a cursory search on Google News indicates their reporting has been sourced by RS like Crain's New York Business and Slate. However: (a) they clearly do not have a newsgathering capability that would permit them to enterprise stories outside the subject areas of LGBTQI issues or NYC so it should not be used to source articles on History of Japan, Asteroids, etc., and, (b) some of their articles have an advocacy slant - editorial statements incorporated into straight news pieces could not be sourced to it as proof of their fact (e.g. this story is headlined "Hungary Bans LGBTQ Adoption Rights in Broad Power Grab" [51] - we could source basic Who/What facts from the article but we couldn't say, in WP's voice, the Hungarian government is involved in a "power grab" if the only source to support that is GCN). Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Occupational Burnout and using 'In-Press' unpublished articles as sources?

Hello everyone. I am hoping that someone could tell me please if we can use unpublished, 'In-Press' articles in our Wikipedia articles as reliable sources. If it is already in an article should it be removed if we are not meant to be using in-press articles?Coastalalerts (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say not, if they are unpublished that means they have not been published by an RS. But what article are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the article in question is Occupational burnout. Articles related to occupational psychology have been affected by sockpuppet problems for years; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171/Archive for links to some of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sockpuppet complaints have to do with any of this and most of the comments from the clerkes are complaints over lack of evidence or usage on the accused accounts. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please could you provide the source that is being used and the article it is being used on. WP:SOURCE states Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". (footnote: This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives as well as inscriptions in plain sight, e.g. tombstones.) Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. I'm afraid there's not much more I can say without more context, ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

El komodos drago, you are correct that this source is WP:Published as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but it's not officially published as far as the journal is concerned. I assume that this discrepancy will resolve itself naturally in the coming weeks or months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I am merely reciting the text of the relevant policy. Until someone tells me what the source is, I can't do anything else. It is worth noting that published and reliable are different things (a tweet is published but not reliable of itself). ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

El komodos drago The article is Bianchi, R., Verkuilen, J., Schonfeld, I. S., Hakanen, J. J., Jansson-Fröjmark, M., Manzano-García, G., Laurent, E., & Meier, L. L. (in press). Is burnout a depressive condition? A 14-sample meta-analytic and bifactor analytic study. Clinical Psychological Science. I would be grateful for advice on whether it can be used in the occupational burnout article if it is unpublished and in-press.Coastalalerts (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Coastalalerts: So to get this straight, the source is Is burnout a depressive condition? A 14-sample meta-analytic and bifactor analytic study. and the claim is Other recent meta-analytic research indicates that burnout may be best viewed as a depressive syndrome. The source has been published in a pre-print journal and is awaiting peer review from the journal of Clinical Psychological Science. Is this correct? ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have "in press", that usually means the article has been accepted, and that the content is legit, with minor typesetting stuff and layout to be done. Alternatively, it could be that it's available online in final form, but the print edition of the journal hasn't yet been made. If Clinical Psychological Science says something is 'in press', it passed peer-review, and is like any other paper from Clinical Psychological Science. If something is unpublished, then it hasn't been accepted at all, and is in either a preprint form, or a rejected/abandonned paper. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that an article that is "'in press'...is like any other paper." In many cases, an article that is 'in press' has been accepted for publication but - and this is critically important - has not yet been published. Unless something unexpected occurs, it will be published but that hasn't happened yet. Which means that it's not verifiable by our standards.

I recommend patience; the article will be published as we can cite it then.

(A few confounding factors exist. First, some journals publish accepted articles online before they're slotted into an issue of the journal. I think it would be fair to say that those journals no longer have "in press" articles, just some that have only been published online and some that have been published in an issue of the journal (with the intent that all of the online-only articles are published in an issue). Second, some journals can have lag times of years between accepting an article and publishing it (a few years ago, a journal in my discipline temporarily stopped accepting submissions for a few months and published several jumbo-sized issues so they could reduce the very long time between acceptance and publication). So in some unusual cases an article can remain "in-press" for quite some time. Third, it might be tempting to substitute a pre-print with an in-press article. I strong recommend against that as they're simply not the same thing. They should be close but in some cases the differences are very important as they're explicit changes that peer reviewers and editors requested or required before accepting the article.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

One of the authors is already listing the paper with the date as "2020" on his website, and labeling it as "Advance online publication", so I suspect that we will not be waiting years for this to officially appear. The November issue appears to have come out on the 16th of November, so perhaps the December issue will appear tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I understand from what you said, in-press articles have been peer reviewed and have been published in a form that will not be materially different from the final version. If this is so, arguing that they aren't reliable because they haven't been put to paper is quibbling over a technicality. Sure something might appear that means that they have factual errors but that is just as likely before and after they have been published. Is this correct? ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Does that mean we can put it in to the Wikipedia article without anyone having access to the article to check for reference? How does WhatamIdoing WhatamIdoing know that the article that their buddy Iss246 put into the article says what Iss246 says it does? Has whatamIdoing got access to the actual content of the primary source?Coastalalerts (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Now I really don't understand what is going on here. Is it that the abstract is published but the paper as a whole is not? ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Well... that depends upon what you mean by "what is going on here". The problems we've had with sockpuppets opposing almost anything that Iss246 has written about psychology since a dispute over the Elton Mayo article in 2014 (see, e.g., User:Truthbringer1)? Or just the status of this source?

The situation with this source is that it appears to be what Wikipedia calls published ("available to the general public") but hasn't been put on paper in a specific issue (what the journal would call published).

The citation was originally added to the article by Ohpres (NB: not by me, and not by Iss246), so I assume that Coastalalerts' question about whether I have read the article is meant for Ohpres rather than me. I also assume that the fact that Ohpres cited the article is proof that the general public has access to it in some way. The only realistic alternative is that Ohpres has some sort of special advance access, which would tend to imply that Ohpres is some sort of subject-matter expert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

“In press” references tend to appear early on ResearchGate, a website that I would describe as Facebook for scientists. Iss246 (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to use it as a source, provide a link to where it can be read/purchased - then we can discuss whether or not the state it is available in is reliable. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point user:El komodos drago. I would prefer that the editor who first cited the article, Ohpres, supply the link. But I am willing to make the edit. However, if I were to supply the link, I would have to (a) edit the reference in a paragraph that has been a bone of contention and then (b) edit the reference again after the paper goes to press. I see this as housekeeping; however, I want to be clear about something. I want to avoid getting into an edit war as a result of adding the link to the reference and, then later, when the article goes to press adding the journal reference. I would like to complete that twofold task without getting into an edit war. user:El komodos drago, can you help with that? 21:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

El komodos drago if an article that Iss246 and whatamIdoing want to use is not actually available for editors to read/critique and is in-press then can it be used in one of our articles now? In this case in the occupational burnout article. Where is it actually available to read/critique Iss246 ore WhatamIdoing?Coastalalerts (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing you say that the article you and your friend Iss246 want to put into the article is already "available to the general public" however I cannot see where it is available anywhere? Could you please provide a link to where the public can read the article, like El D also asked, so we can resolve this issue.Coastalalerts (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have quoted the relevant piece of WP:SOURCE above which prohibits the use of anything that is not available to the public. To be clear, this is if it is not published in the sense that it is not available to the public for any amount of money or effort. ~ El D. (talk to me) 00:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Iss246: I would like you to simply post the link to a place the paper can be read/purchased here. ~ El D. (talk to me) 00:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Correction for User:Coastalalerts. WhatamIdoing and I are not "friends." Friends have gone out to dinner over the years when there wasn't a pandemic. Friends call each other on the telephone to find out how the other person is doing. "How are the kids?" "How's your wife?" "How's your husband?" "Did you read The Splendid and the Vile? "Yes. What did you think of it?" "You liked it. I liked it too, especially because my wife's parents lived in London during the Blitz." Those are the kinds of things friends do? We don't do that. We are not friends.

I add this. I don't want to get into another edit war. All I want to do, if Ohpres does not do it, is to engage in the housekeeping needed to add a link to the 14-sample article. And later to perform additional housekeeping, namely, to change the link when when the paper goes to press. If there is a grammatical error, I would fix it. That is all that I would like to do. Iss246 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You are being asked to provide the link @Iss246: that the public can access and read? And you may not have introduced the article Iss246, but you sure are fighting hard to keep this in-press primary source in the occupational burnout article. Have you got the link @WhatamIdoing: as to where your in- press article can be read it and critiqued, just like any other source? If you have not got the link it should not be in the Wikipedia article is my understanding and reading the policy that El D. linked to. Is this correct El D.?Coastalalerts (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

www.mirrorpensioners.co.uk in Nicholas Davies (journalist)

1. Source. https://www.mirrorpensioners.co.uk/obituary/nick-davies/

2. Article. Nicholas Davies (journalist)

3. Content. Date of death = January 2016

Is https://www.mirrorpensioners.co.uk/obituary/nick-davies/ sufficient to state that the journalist Nicholas Davies has died? Mr gobrien pointed out this source on the article's talk page. It states: "FORMER Mirror reporter and foreign editor NICK DAVIES died last week (end January, 2016) after a short illness." The parentheses are included in the text. The rest of the article copies the Wikipedia article. - Location (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC) [edited 16:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)]

What is odd is I am finding very little to corroborate this claim, So I'm erring on no.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I just found this Politico article that refers to "the late Nicholas Davies, a Mirror editor who wrote Maxwell’s biography." If that is sufficient to say that he is no longer living, would the source above be enough to narrow his date of death to January 2016? - Location (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I would still say not, but at least I think we have enough to say he is dead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I can not see how the date of death would be controversial and I can see why the Association of Mirror Pensioners would report on it. As such, I feel that it is perfectly fine to use them as a citation for the date of death unless there is evidence to the contrary. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Finally found some (not exactly RS) [[52]], also might not be the same person. As I said its odd this has not been covered, in death, he was not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That appears to be a totally different Nicholas Davies, since it says the obituary appeared in the Shropshire Star on December 5, 2008, whereas this alleged death was in 2016. FDW777 (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

RealClear media

Moved from WP:RS/P

I'm wondering about the status of RealClear media, IOW RealClearPolitics (RCP) and RealClearInvestigations (a redirect to RCP). My initial impression is that they are aggregators, but also with own, very biased, content. All I find is this thread opened by User:JzG in November 2019:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#RealClear_media

Valjean (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this use at our conspiracy theory article Russia investigation origins counter-narrative:

Jeanine Pirro, a long-time friend of Trump, described Mueller, FBI Director Christopher Wray (a Trump appointee), former FBI Director James Comey and other current/former FBI officials as a "criminal cabal," saying "There is a cleansing needed in our FBI and Department of Justice—it needs to be cleansed of individuals who should not just be fired, but who need to be taken out in cuffs."

Here we have a combination of types of sources. All content at Wikipedia (other than WP:ABOUTSELF) must come from RS, even to document the most ludicrous pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc. If something is not mentioned in RS, it does not have the due weight to be mentioned here. Period. That makes this use of RCP, if it is deemed unreliable, very dubious. The NYTimes and Salon should be enough. -- Valjean (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely Unreliable. Doesn't clearly mark the difference between opinion and news content on the columns it publishes, and the rest is just aggregation (including a number of questionable sources like the Washington Examiner). For instance, "Donald the Dragon Slayer"[53] today is labeled as "Commentary" and not listed in its "Editorials" section. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  What's wrong with labeling an opinion piece as "Commentary"? Commentary literally means "expression of opinion". feminist (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• If we're going to discuss RC's reliability, it should be done at WP:RSN rather than here unless there have been additional threads on the matter already. -- Calidum 19:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'll move this there, so feel free to continue there. -- Valjean (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Generally Reliable--RCP has a very strong editorial board, with many award-winning journalists and writers: [54], and the site has a rigours fact-checking process: [55]. They are most well-known for their robust polling, which is published in numerous high-quality sources: The Guardian, Reuters, CNBC, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal. Likewise, Real Clear Investigations also seems to be referenced by reliable sources such as The Washington Post and NPR. RCP & RCI aggregates from different sources, though they do seem to have their own columnists. News vs. opinion is always clearly marked. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • While it's an interesting offering, the RCP Fact Check Review is a review of fact checks done by other organisations. The existence of this review doesn't add a lot of credibility to their own content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Judge by WP:RSOPINION. RCP is mainly known as an American conservative-leaning news and poll aggregator. It is mainly used on Wikipedia for its election predictions, the same way we use the Daily Kos (RSP entry) for its election predictions despite its unreliability. It also sees some use for its opinion pieces, which is usually appropriate depending on the identity of the opinion piece's author. Overall I don't think RCP publishes much straight news, if at all, so I would treat it as similar to Reason (RSP entry), The Spectator (RSP entry) or The Weekly Standard (RSP entry). feminist (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As for this specific page, it appears to simply include transcripts of a video. Authenticity is not in doubt when you can actually listen to the video. But why not just cite Fox News directly? feminist (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - This is primarily an opinion site and partisan aggregator, not a reliable news source. It cannot reasonably be considered a RS. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - Original material is not factually reliable, and aggregated material may not be accurately attributed. The Wall Street Journal has reported that RealClearPolitics for two years has been a significant source of links to Russia Today stories, and the provenance of the RT headlines was obscured. While much of the aggregated material may be reliable, it should be cited to the reliable source, not to RealClear. John M Baker (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable They have a gatekeeping process demonstrated by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy; a physical presence by which they can be held liable for libel; and RS consider them reliable as evidenced by the fact their original reporting has been sourced by Reuters [56], Government Executive [57], Albuquerque Journal [58], CBS News [59], TIME [60], CNN [61] etc., etc. Both the current executive editor and the current White House correspondent are separate recipients [62], [63] of the Aldo Beckman Award for Journalistic Excellence from the White House Correspondents Association which is pretty much the Oscar for White House coverage and its recipient is elected by WHCA member journalists. If RC is not reliable, we need to rethink our standards of reliability.
  That said, stories that are simply aggregated by RCP are not implicitly reliable, opinion / commentary columns are not reliable for anything other than the opinion of the writer per WP:RSOPINION, and extraordinary claims should be credited to the source and not presented in WP's voice regardless of the reliability of the source (at least when reported only by a single source). Chetsford (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. RealClear Media hosted (and may still host) a secret Facebook page promoting far-right memes and extremist conspiracy theories. This family of websites is mainly opinion pieces and aggregation of pieces published elsewhere. As for their sites that claim to do original reporting, their "RealClearInvestigations" site is backed by right-wing foundations and published an article supposedly revealing the identity of a protected whistleblower—something that reputable/mainstream news organizations chose not to do, because it would endanger the whistleblower and violate anti-retaliation principles. And as the Wall Street Journal reported in Oct. 2020, the aggregator has consistently funneled readers to Russian propaganda, while obscuring the source from browsing readers. All of this points to clear unreliability. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua News Agency

Per Sun (2015), "When Mao told Xinhua to ‘take control of the earth’ and engage in international communication, his premise was clear: that the media were the propaganda tools of the CCP... In the 1990s, Jiang Zemin’s numerous external propaganda policy directives again re-affirmed the official line that Xinhua was the ‘mouth and throat of the Party, charged with the dual responsibility of both internal and external propaganda, the mission of both being to promote the CCP and Chinese government’s policies’."

Per Brady (2015), "In early 2009, Beijing announced that it would invest ¥45 billion (roughly US$7.25 billion) into its main media outlets in order to strengthen its international news coverage and global presence. As part of this campaign, known as “big propaganda” (da waixuan), Xinhua News Service increased its number of overseas bureaus from 100 to 186. That same year, the Global Times (a popular tabloid with an international focus owned by People’s Daily) launched an English-language edition. CCTV International also began broadcasting in Arabic and Russian, and in 2010 rebranded itself as CCTV News."

It appears that Xinhua, the Global Times, and CCTV International (aka CGTN) are all part of the same propaganda campaign that the CCP has used to increase Beijing’s global presence. Why is it that the Global Times and CCTV International/CGTN are now deprecated while Xinhua remains largely unchallenged?

Normchou (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua in general has a higher standard than CGTN/CCTV and Global Times. One blind spot is to misinformation/disinformation which originates within the official Party/State ecosystem, for example Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Kazakh virus. I would say additional considerations apply, they’re fine for statements about the Chinese government’s position on an issue but I would not in general use them for objective statements of fact and I would *never* use them for the BLP of a non-Chinese government official. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be helpful it if you could provide some corroboration and analysis for the statement that Xinhua generally has a higher standard than the other two outlets. Normchou (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You are west centric. Would you do the same for Chinese official? (i. e. Never used western reports for BLP of Chinese official.) The Master (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua is a news wire that produces factual and broadly unbiased (in terms of content, biased in terms of story selection) content largely for other news organisations. These fall into two camps: foreign news sources that use Xinhua to complement their reporting (e.g AP News [64], BBC [65], The Guardian [66] and it's a partner of AFP [67]); and Chinese government sites that spin the stories for propaganda. Xinhua has attracted some moderate praise in RSes in the past [68] [69] and its output is generally best described as boring (China's industrial output further expands in November is literally the current second to top story on the business page). In recent times it has been more roundly criticised (this article from the Guardian is a good example. It is also hilarious) but as far as I know no one has characterized it as inaccurate. ~ El D. (talk to me) 22:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that the issue can be boiled down to the reporting of factual content, and how (ir)replaceable Xinhua is in that regard. My own observation has been that headlines such as China's industrial output further expands in November are almost always available via a primary source such as the National Bureau of Statistics of China's website. Normchou (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Half the things Xinhua reports are "this subway opened" or "this power plant went online" or "this port moved xx% more containers than last year" which don't seem terribly controversial. Primary sources are incredibly hard to navigate and translate if you don't know Chinese. Xinhua's news has clean and precise english, which makes it easier for editors and readers to understand and also fact-check if necessary. Albertaont (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I need to point out that, in cases such as "China's industrial output further expands in November" like what Normchou has named above, Xinhua is the primary source just like China's statistics bureau, Xinhua's role is irreplaceable when making such announcements on official statistics and press releases because this is one of the main roles Xinhua was designated for when it was founded. China's new laws, regulations, announcements from Beijing, and so on must be published through Xinhua and no other means. This is a tradition that dates back to telegraph and morse codes, and even until today, important law releases such as Hong Kong's new national security law this July have to involve every other media's journalist nervously refreshing Xinhua's newswire feed. Xinhua is widely cited by other media for official announcements and it dates way back. Some instances that I have noticed include when the Communists established the People's Republic in 1949, or once towards the end of the Cultural Revolution when the New York Times translated Xinhua's announcement into English unaltered. This is not mentioned in Xinhua News Agency's entry, but starting in the early 2000s, Xinhua started to call itself "Xinhua," prior to that, its English name was "New China News Agency," and before the 1990s, "Xinhua" was often romanized as "Hsinhua" or "Hsinhua News Agency." Go to any newspaper archive and look for "Hsinhua," there will be tons of instances of Xinhua's words being cited. When serving as Beijing's "telegraph operator" for announcements, Xinhua is the ultimate primary source.

In addition to El. D, besides AFP, Xinhua also has collaborations and image exchange agreements with AP, Reuters, Japan's Kyodo News Agency, and several more, and Xinhua has been supplying images to the AP since the 70s. On an unrelated note, CCTV/CGTN also has image/video footage exchange agreements with CNN, and you can definitely see CCTV's footage being used on CNN, while CNN is cited as sources on CCTV. Also, I do consider that the Guardian's article on Xinhua is nonsense. That Xinhua's press release which shamelessly praised Xi Jinping is essentially what you would have been expecting from Xinhua. Firstly, on high Chinese officials, Xinhua does release official profiles for them (which may shade negative news or imperfections of them). Secondly, when it comes to Xi Jinping, do except Xinhua praising him like North Korean media praising Kim Jong-un. Thirdly, Xinhua's English service may not run stories of Xi's personality cult as often as its Chinese version, and that's probably what makes the Guardian's journalist surprised, but hell they run tons more of such propaganda stories every day in Chinese and that also includes CCTV on its prime time news program Xinwen Lianbo. Xinhua has been running such stories all the time, and getting surprised by them most likely indicates that the Guardian's journalist needs to consume more Chinese state media to get an idea of how they behave. --Techyan（Talk） 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Continuing from my remarks above, on domestic stories of China, Xinhua has always been the one praising the government - both Beijing and the locals - although it doesn't mean Xinhua's stories are all fake. Xinhua also rarely does investigative journalism, but its Chinese-languaged, civilian-targeting stories and those which are published on magazines operated by Xinhua can be critical to governments. On February 27, when China's economy started to recover from Covid and there has been few outbreaks outside China, Xinhua praised Shenzhen's economic recovery, but on the same day, another more liberal media National Business Daily saying Shenzhen was slower compared to other cities in recovering. Xinhua and other liberal media drawing opposite conclusions on the same matter is not new - it is something expected, and even encouraged by China's media censors.

Xinhua is the one who praises Beijing in the most traditional and North Korean-like way while passing Beijing's message to the world, and they also do some international coverages; China Daily is the one who focuses mostly on China's domestic affairs and rarely controversial; Global Times (English version) is the tabloid who yelling around; CGTN can be considered as the Chinese equivalent of RT, but CGTN spark far fewer contriversies and falshoods than RT and has fairly good coverages on Africa, while allowing mild criticism on Beijing. This is why it isn't fair to compare Xinhua to Russia's Sputnik, which its main purpose is to spread propaganda, but Xinhua isn't - however, the Global Times is. I'll probably talk about Xinhua's international coverages later. It is naive to assume all of these official media are tightly controlled by the CCP, and everything the media said is subject to their censorship. They need different media to serve different roles. Although, admittedly, I don't have much experience here on English Wikipedia, but just know what you are dealing with, use common sense and existing guidelines such as "Perennial sources," don't fall for obvious craps on China's human rights or Covid conspiracies, and I think Xinhua is perfectly fine. --Techyan（Talk） 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Added {{reflist talk}} to prevent spoiling my notice below. Feel free to continue talking about the propaganda nature of Xinhua. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• I think User:Albertaont strikes the right note here. Xinhua is reliable for many topics, though of course they won't be neutral on Chinese politics. They are not even in the same ballpark as tabloids like the Global Times. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this has apparently been discussed before – see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Ban NYT first because it has been awarded No. 1 in the fake news media list, presented by the president of its country of origin. Discrimination against Chinese is not justified by any sense before banning No. 1 fake news media. --The Master (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Trump awarded NYT as his fake news awards doesn't means the NYT is a fake news website. Although the NYT has some controversies, most of its reports are reliable. Banning the Xinhua also doesn't means we are discriminate against Chinese.--BlackShadowG^★ (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

NYT is a left wing proporganda machine in USA and Fox News is the right wing counterpart. Chinese state media is much more reliable then NYT. There is a lot of fake news in NYT. google:fake news new york times site:globaltimes.cn. Finding an excuse to discriminate against the media representing Chinese people is slapping the faces of 1.3 billion people.--The Master (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think posting random nonsense to RSN is unlikely to convince anyone of your position, and strongly suggests WP:NOTHERE - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You are nonsense. Stop ad hominem! Chinese state media are much reliable than some media controlled by money groups and aimed at satisfying the bias of its readers. Strongly suggest you to read google:fake news new york times site:globaltimes.cn Interview: Some Western media reporting on China biased, unfair: German sinologist. --The Master (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Chinese state media are like Russian state media, and the state media of many nations. They push propaganda alongside their regular news reporting. They are good enough for ordinary news, but not for political stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a Chinese Wikipedia user. I'm from Hong Kong, China.

I can't help but participate in the discussion. On the question of the reliability of Xinhua News Agency, as a Chinese national and Wiki user, I think I have a good say in this issue.

Everyone here may have some strange or even bad views on the media in our country. In this regard, I would like to tell everyone here that the Chinese media is not high compared with Western countries in terms of freedom of the press, but there is no doubt about authenticity and effectiveness. Xinhua News Agency has been an official media with a long history. Xinhua opened international affairs in 1940 and has been facing the public for 80 years. Even if the evaluation is mixed, not every news media can satisfy everyone. But its still existence can show that it has its own value.

Xinhua News Agency may be regarded by some as the government's propaganda media, but Xinhua, as the official media, bears the image of China, and the news and news released should be responsible for China's image. I think Xinhua has been able to release effective news.

So Xinhua News Agency is regarded by some people as the propaganda channel of the Chinese government. I can only say that everyone has their own views. But the news and news released by Xinhua News Agency are real and effective. Several Wikipedia users mentioned Xinhua's cooperation and praise with other internationally renowned media, so I don't mention it here. But it is enough to see that Xinhua News Agency is internationally recognizable and a reliable and effective source of use.

I can't represent anyone, but I also pay attention to the news and what happens around me. Edit entries on Chinese Wikipedia. We also need to provide reliable sources. I've always been happy to use Xinhua News Agency as my reference source. So at least I think it works.

（“抱歉，我只能用中文写这一篇回复。这一篇回复是机器翻译，如果有人能将此译为正确的英文版本、让读不懂中文的维基人能够看得懂的话，我将非常感谢。 ”）

（Machine translation,The specific meaning is subject to the Chinese version.Translation:[70]）
-Wiok^{TALK‧Wikipedia-zh} 15:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The above comment from the Chinese Wikipedia editor, Wiok, minds me of the corresponding page of WP:RSP in Chinese[71]. It appears that there was no consensus on whether the Chinese version of Xinhua is a reliable source, either.

由于《新华社》是中华人民共和国官方通讯社，其发表的政治类新闻需要审慎对待，尤其是涉及到与中国大陆相关的负面新闻更要谨慎。對於中華人民共和國的正面新聞或中性新聞，只要不是出於誇大或扭曲（變成正面新聞），新華社可以作為可靠來源。其转载或编译的国外新闻，应尽量用原始出处的新闻替代。
(Since Xinhua News Agency is the official news agency of the People's Republic of China, the political news it publishes needs to be treated with caution, especially when it comes to negative news related to mainland China. For positive or neutral news from the People's Republic of China, Xinhua can be a reliable source as long as it is not exaggerated or distorted (turned into positive news). For foreign news it reproduces or compiles, one should try to replace it with news from the original source.)

It would also be helpful to see Chinese Wikipedians having a discussion again regarding this matter, since the last discussion was in 2014. Normchou ^💬 23:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with Xinhua being a reliable local news source as, even being considered as propaganda service by much Wikimedians, it normally can fulfill the role of a news source provider. But I'm quite weary of political news, particularly in US, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, and anything China had its tooth against. I'm not stating that Xinhua should be outright banned, or as what some users said, completely allowed, but the nature of Xinhua can loosely corresponds to the reliability of RT, or Al Jazeera. English version is better than Chinese version, but may still contain some propaganda or whatever Wikimedians think it as biased. --1233 ( T / C） 15:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You says Xinhua "being a reliable local news source" but not about political news in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang. Aren't Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang part of China? Though Taiwan is yet reunified. For Hong Kong and Xinjiang, do you think Western media being more reliable than Chinese state media?--The Master (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It should get the same treatment as RT (formerly Russia Today) at WP:RS/P: "There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation." -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Xinhua is a useful source, especially for everyday news like the examples Albertaont gave above (new metro lines, industrial output, and so on). It's certainly not in the same category as the Daily Mail. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Xinhua should be put above medias like NYT and Fox news. It is a state media and has its reputations, unlike western media controlled by interest groups and aims at satisfying the bias of its readers. They only cares about money, that's the difference. Interview: Some Western media reporting on China biased, unfair: German sinologist--The Master (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@El komodos drago: points out to me Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Here are some references proving western media are biased in Chinese reports. I list below for you to verify. There is no reason to discriminate agianst Chinese reports before discriminating the biased western reports.

• 江力涵. 美国媒体对华报道偏差形成机理与影响研究[D]. 浙江大学, 2019.
• 张亚兰. 从西方涉华国际舆论中看西方国家对中国的偏见[J]. 视听, 2016 (6): 139-141.
• 高原. 谈西方媒体对华报道的偏差与失真[J]. 新闻战线, 2013 (5): 97-99.
• 吴奇志, 王眉. 西方涉华报道的偏见及成因分析[J]. 中国记者, 2008 (10): 82-83.
• 薛涛, 张荣美. 西方媒体涉华报道中的 “傲慢与偏见”——以两起恐袭事件报道为分析样本[J]. 现代传播: 中国传媒大学学报, 2017 (1): 163-165.
• Commentary: Time for West to get rid of bias and show world the real Hong Kong
• Interview: Western media reports on Hong Kong biased -- German sinologist
• Interview: Some Western media reporting on China biased, unfair: German sinologist
• Opinion: What's really going on in Hong Kong? Time for West to get rid of bias, double standards
• Western media's sustained anti-China bias: Global Times editorial
• Western media loses high ground with biased HK reports
• Pulitzer Prize won't alter Western media’s bias
• Western media reporting on Tibet full of bias--The Master (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• You have listed a large number of propagandistic, non-neutral and unreliable sources from Xinhua and Global Times, please stop promoting your anti-western sentiments, it's not helpful.--BlackShadowG^★ (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Please constrain yourself to addressing the argument, declaring a editor to have anti-western sentiments seems irrelevant to the discussion and seems, in my view, to amount to censorship of a political viewpoint. I mean, I agree that editors should approach Xinhua stories on issues where the Chinese government is a stakeholder with the view that is at least biased but can we not be accused of parroting "anti-eastern sentiments" from our government? To avoid this, we must listen to all the opinions from editors and assess the argument's validity per our own policies not simply discard them on grounds that we believe that an editor has "anti-western sentiments". I am sorry if I have sounded too harsh, and I agree with the general thrust of your post but I feel slightly uncomfortable with the general desire to flatly disregard The Master's arguments on here on the grounds that they are Chinese. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, looking at the sources, I see that the Journal of Democracy is part of the National Endowment for Democracy. While I have no serious reason to doubt the reliability of the article you cite or the journals as a whole, I am somewhat concerned about the link. For context, here is a New York Times article about some of the shady stuff the NED does. [72] ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

CGTN as a medium of English translations of Xinhua

I have seen that CGTN (or CCTV Int'l) has some content translated from the Chinese newsies published by Xinhua News Agency. They do this with a programme called Microsoft Azure. Should we allow CGTN translations of Xinhua while deprecating CGTN's own content? --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – I have found an example of the CGTN translation of Xinhua, while going through my view history.[73] --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• With more caution than Xinhua - while syndicated content seems to go through all the normal procedures, it getting published by the news organizations intended by the Chinese government for public consumption suggests that the piece is at least not negative for China and as such editors should be thinking about 'why has this piece been syndicated'. Try to cite directly to Xinhua. ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Ban NYT first because it has been awarded No. 1 in the fake news media list, presented by the president of its country of origin. Discrimination against Chinese is not justified by any sense before banning No. 1 fake news media. --The Master (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

What makes you think that Donald Trump is a good judge of a reliable and an unreliable source and that he won't do it just because he disagrees with them? ~ El D. (talk to me) 15:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The real reason some want to discriminate against Chinese official sources because they don't agree with them, though they declare a noble excuse instead. The same with Trump. --The Master (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... it may be the case that news organisations accusing CGTN of producing propaganda are doing so because they disagree with them but do you have any evidence for that, remember this is not a place for the verifiability, not truth. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Verify the bias of western media here: Interview: Some Western media reporting on China biased, unfair: German sinologist.--The Master (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you. While Wolfgang Kubin seems to be a very experienced academic, I am not sure that his personal opinions constitute conclusive evidence of western bias. I am sure you could find just as many academics who are willing to say that Xinhua is reliable (indeed see the two sources above that are published in academic journals). ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@El komodos drago: The user you are talking with is of Chinese origin. Chinese people will naturally follow their government. This is why this user wants to ban sources that criticise their government publications. The real reason we don't rate Chinese government publications "generally reliable" is because those publications have a lot of propagandas and fabricated materials, and Wikipedia is not a place for such materials. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

And I don't want to move this discussion to the reliability of CGTN in general, that's already discussed before. I opened this discussion to measure the reliability of CGTN's translation of Xinhua newsies. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not "wants to ban sources that criticise their government publications". What I see here is some user want to ban Chinese official source so we can only cite the biased western sources in Wikipedia. They want to do the contrary. That's ridiculous. --The Master (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be operating under the mistaken impression that there are only two kinds of sources in the world... The idea that we have Chinese official sources on one side and every other source in the world on the other is a false dichotomy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Treat as deprecated. Use another instance of wire copy if available - if a deprecated source is the only available instance of wire copy, that's reason for suspicion. If it's a translation, that's a work of CGTN and is their wording, which we have already decided we can't trust - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Treat as deprecated if theres another source then use that, if there isn't another source then it should never have been used in the first place and discussion is moot. Either way don’t use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

FITSNews - reliable?

Is FITSNews a reliable source? Chetsford (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for news about South Carolina As the question-asker, I think it's reliable since it has a demonstrated gatekeeping process, a physical presence and registered agent by which it could be held legally liable for libel [74], and objectively WP:RS outlets have sourced its reporting. (For full disclosure, I wrote the article on this outlet and intend to source the outlet in future articles if there's a consensus it's RS.) Chetsford (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC); edited 11:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

My specific comments about FITSNews not withstanding, I generally think that it is a positive thing for the encyclopedia when editors get the statements they want to make in articles published by an RS. What subject was your article on? ~ El D. (talk to me) 15:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your question. Chetsford (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it say local news or another limited topic area, in which case we may be able to find FITSNews reliable for that. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what "it" is in your question. To the second half of your statement, however, I'd agree with you that FITSNews should only be used as a source for coverage about South Carolina. We should definitely not source it for information about the Syrian Civil War, etc. I've edited my !vote accordingly. Chetsford (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to political news or non-political news? I could defiantly support it for non-political local news. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Use with caution - rated mostly reliable by MB/FC [75] though that's on the grounds of a failed fact check [76] so that is more of a concern than a website that is mostly factual because of lack of hyperlinks or extreme bias or minority viewpoints. The failed fact check is on a living person and the only other organisation that ran the story was InfoWars... so that's a concern. But generally looking at the coverage it has received I am leaning towards it being reliable. ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Many thanks! The only thing I'd note is that we've determined MB/FC is, itself, an unreliable source. This is probably with good reason as the site it referenced to determine the story in question "failed a fact-check" is not a member of the International Fact-Checking Network and doesn't adhere to its code of principles; in this case, the Fact-Check was written by an evangelical preacher, Rick Buehler, who doesn't appear to have any background in journalism. On looking at the original story, it appeared to be a routine roundup story reporting on the existence of rumors being disseminated by tabloids, rather than declaring the rumors were true. The InfoWars report cited FITSNews rather than visa versa (InfoWars's MO is to cite RS like the AP or Reuters, and then put a conspiratorial spin on it). Chetsford (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

A "roundup story reporting on the existence of rumors" seems a somewhat irresponsible thing for an RS to be doing and further the story [77] reports it not as a rumour but what multiple sources familiar with the allegation tell FITS. It calls it straight up the forthcoming scandal without any notes saying that it may be inaccurate. The apparent failure of this story to materialise anywhere did not prompt FITS to place an update or correction on the page.

On the subject of the fact-checkers themselves, while MB/FC is not accepted in article space, it is, as far as I can tell, well regarded on RSN. I know nothing about Truth or Fiction though, for what its worth, it is used as a source by USAtoday (a high-quality RS) in several of their fact checks [78] [79]. I did not mean to imply that FITSnews had picked the source up of InfoWars, only that it was the only other source listed by Truth or Fiction as running the story. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"while MB/FC is not accepted in article space, it is, as far as I can tell, well regarded on RSN"" Wow. That's concerning. Chetsford (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to engage with MB/FC's reputation here, so let's, for the sake of argument, say that it is not a good source to cite on RSN. Then FITSNews goes from 'mostly reliable with a failed fact check' to 'has a failed fact check' which I do not see as an upgrade. As for Truth or Fiction, it's current managing editor is ex-Snopes and it also employs a journalist who is a former Snopes editor. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• "The site has been described by Columbia Journalism Review as a "rabble-rousing mashup of blog commentary, breaking news, and pictures of 'hotties'"" (in Wikipedia, cited) - this does not make me feel good about the source? IHateAccounts (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Total garbage. Seriously? Why does this even need to be asked. Any editor wanting to use this is probably up to no good. Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Seriously?" Seriously! "Why does this even need to be asked." Because its reporting is considered reliable enough to have been been sourced by RS like The Island Packet, WPDE-TV, Politico, Sports Illustrated, etc., it was named by the Washington Post to its list of "best political blogs" in the United States, it has a gatekeeping process, and the South Carolina Press Association filed an amicus brief in a case in which it was a defendant in which it affirmed its adherence to journalistic norms. One can agree or disagree it's RS, but to say it's not even a reasonable point of discussion and anyone who dares ask the question is trying to subvert WP is probably just a bit dramatic. "Any editor wanting to use this is probably up to no good." Noted - thanks! Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• No. From all appearances, most of the reliable news it posts is reposting from other sources, and its only original work is opinion and commentary. Opinion and commentary are not appropriate for anything except directly quote the person expressing the opinion itself, and not for verifying statements of fact. --Jayron32 16:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• "its only original work is opinion and commentary" Hmmm ... I ran a five article convenience sample of current front page listed stories and got different results (3 original reporting, 1 précis, 1 opinion). A five article sample is not scientifically valid; typically we'd need two weeks of stratified sampling. However, in combination with the fact its straight news reporting is sourced by RS, I personally feel safe in giving it the benefit of the doubt in the absence of demonstrated evidence to the contrary.

-Original reporting: "SC Firefighter Wanted For Child Sex Crimes Arrested In Georgia, Hires Influential Attorney" [80] Chetsford (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

-Original reporting: "South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson Criticized Over Facebook Contributions" [81]

-Original reporting: "USC Students Petition To Fire Professor Accused Of Harassment" [82]

-Précis: "Santee Cooper Bureaucracy Racked Up Millions In Bonuses As Covid-19 Pandemic Raged" [83]

-Opinion: "Amy Feinstein’s Southern Charm Recap: Lowcountry Broil" [84]

Chetsford (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A Secret Order: Investigating the High Strangeness and Synchronicity in the JFK Assassination

1. Source. Albarelli, Jr., H.P. (2013). A Secret Order: Investigating the High Strangeness and Synchronicity in the JFK Assassination (1st ed.). Walterville, OR: TrineDay. ISBN 978-1-936296-56-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

2. Article. June Cobb

3. Content. (Requesting general statement of reliability or suitability for use in the article.)

June Cobb is of interest to conspiracy theorists who speculate she may have had information (purportedly buried within unreleased CIA documents) linking Lee Harvey Oswald to Cuba/Fidel Castro in a plot to assassinate JFK. The Wikipedia article on Cobb heavily cites one such book by H.P. Albarelli, Jr. that was published by Trine Day. Alabrelli wrote that the chapter on Cobb was based on his own manuscript and that "because of privacy and confidential reasons, some of the FOIA and CIA documents, as well as private letters, diary entries and interviews used in this chapter are not specifically cited below." Trine Day's mission statement says: "TrineDay is a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key 'defect': a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America’s corporate 'culture.' TrineDay believes in our Constitution and our common right of Free Speech."

If the overall purpose of a source is to present a WP:REDFLAG claim, I am wondering to what extent that source can be used for building a Wikipedia article. Thanks! - Location (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really much, who is he?.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Albarelli is an author known for advocating conspiracy theories that science professionals find ludicrous: [85]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: Ugh, I had forgotten about the various discussions regarding his claims relevant to 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning. It looks like PaleoNeonate noted in one of those threads that Albarelli had also been used as a source in a number of other Wikipedia articles that may need to be double-checked for accuracy. - Location (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The publisher, TrineDay, is a BIG red flag. In light of that the author would have to be an unquestionable expert in their field for us to use them and I don’t see any evidence of that here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Right now my take as well, I need to see some evidence he is an expert in a relevant field.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

One concern that I have is that most of the citations are for statements that are likely true and possibly backed-up by primary sources, and that removing Albarelli would leave little left of the article. On top of that, there is at least one other conspiracist source in the article (i.e. Newman). Not sure how to proceed here. - Location (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Then we look for better sources if it is likely a fact others would have reported it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Albarelli also had a book about the JFK assassination published by Simon & Schuster,[86] which is owned by ViacomCBS. I don't have access to a copy, but it may mention Cobb in which case it would be more reliable. Personally I would avoid books that promote conspiracy theories. If it's the only source for something, it can't be that important anyway. TFD (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Comics Village

https://web.archive.org/web/20110207140124/http://comicsvillage.com/

The Comics Village wiki-article is currently nominated for deletion. One of the keep votes from stoshmaster (a Senior III Editor with familiarity in this topic area) claims that Comics Village is notable as a reliable news publication. This was contested by nominator Lullabying, whose objection is that it's not listed at WP:ANIME/RS.

Opening this discussion to get to the bottom of it. Darkknight2149 00:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliability does not confer notability. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals clauses 3 and 4 may apply here. Clause 3 sets the bar higher than reliability stating that it is notable if it is "authoritative". Clause 4 is a similar option for notability through reliability saying that it is notable if it is frequently cited by other reliable sources, a criteria RS/N often uses to determine reliability. But neither of these say that it is automatically notable if it is reliable. ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Manga Village (a co-equal part of Comics Village) is listed in WP:ANIME/RS. -- stoshmaster (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Flickr as a reliable source

This image[87] is being used as a source for a aircraft being dismantled in Alitalia Flight 1553. Is Flickr a RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 18 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thats what I thought, its just a place people upload pictures.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It is mostly user generated so, no. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the question is somewhat complicated. We use images published on Flickr all the time, and that carries with it an implication that we trust the authors to have made an accurate claim about what the image depicts, assuming we cannot verify it. The image here is also used in the article, in addition to being cited for facts, though there's no obvious way to verify the two central claims: that this is the aircraft that was involved in Alitalia Flight 1553, and that it is being dismantled in Rantoul, Kansas. That goes to the reliability of the individual photographer, and I suppose Aeroprints. Recognized experts might be allowable; otherwise reliable documents published on Flickr would also be fine. The broader question is whether facts can be cited to an image, independent of a reliable source making the same claim. I don't know if there is already a guideline that speaks to that, but I would think that the answer tends to be no. There's no way to verify this source. There's the entirely separate question of whether a fact that can only be sourced to an individual photograph is sufficiently important to be included in an article. Mackensen (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The general question is like asking whether YouTube is a reliable source. YouTube isn't the source, the person or organization posting is. If in this case the poster was a famed aviation expert, we could verify that that was his Flickr account, and the picture label made clear what it depicted, then yes, it would be reliable. But merely knowing he's "Dave from London" doesn't pass. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This here. There are official agencies that use Flickr for photo distribution, with verified accounts (for example, The US Army). If the organization is considered an expert source, and their captions on their pictures provide useful information, I see no reason why that would not be reliable, following the same reasons to use YouTube videos from similarly confirmed sources. Interpretation of such pictures though cannot be done; an editor cannot look at a Flickr photo from the Army and make the claim that a soldier is carrying a certain type of gun if that's not explicitly stated in the caption. --Masem (t) 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess that trying to include images in articles means that we do have to give a bit of credence to what the photographer claims the picture is depicting. As Gertler points out, the label is made by an RS (say a US Government account) then we can reasonably expect it to accurately describe what the picture is of. I see two other ways the label could be seen as accurate: (1) it is obvious from the picture (e.g. this picture shows an aircraft being broken up) or (2) an RS has talked about the event and the picture cannot be distinguished from one showing the event (e.g. this picture shows the XYZ being broken up as described by this Reuters article). Now if the picture makes any claims that are not in the RS (e.g. the plane, which was reported by Reuters as being broken up for scrap, has turned into this pink elephant) then you need an RS to confirm that new claim. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable with additional considerations – Although we use the phrase "pics or it didn't happen" to express the reliability of pics, they aren't always reliable thanks to photoshop. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Not Reliable In addition to Flickr being user generated content, the specific manner in which it's being proposed for use requires editors to engage in photo analysis which is WP:OR. For all we know the photo is of the plane being assembled, instead of disassembled (I mean, it's obviously not, but the assertion is still OR). Chetsford (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Scripture as sources. Again

There's a discussion about scripture here: Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Books_of_the_Maccabees? In my opinion, this fallsunder WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. The problem with citing Bible books in history articles (as opposed to citing Bible books to describe its own storylines, per WP:PLOTSOURCE) is that it passes off what the Bible says as being equally relevant as to what historians says: "According to professor Bob Bobson of Cambridge University blah, but according to the Some Bible book not blah." It's even worse when it comes to numbers; the Bible is infamous for exaggeragating all kinds of statistics. We remove references to the Daily Mail and to Chinese dailies deemed unreliable. So references to Bible books should also be removed. ImTheIP (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Neither the Bible, nor any other text over the age of ~500 years should be seen as generally reliable (I am open to a later cut off point). These sources were prone to all sorts of pressures at the time that we do not know about. Almost none of them had meaningful editorial oversight in the sense that we would understand it (why God didn't get a university tenure is relevant here, the Bible may well be the ultimate truth but it isn't peer-reviewed scholarship). If what they have said is historically interesting, it will have been discussed in a recent reliable source with details about how likely it is. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• The Bible is a primary source. Fine for statements about what it says (though the circumstances in which such a use is justified are very limited). As a secondary source and/or a source used for statements about facts ... obviously not. Might as well use Harry Potter books. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Biblical archaeology is an attempt to salvage a dubious source "verifying" it via pots and bones. That might occasionally pass muster, I guess.Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• I second The Bible is a primary source. Fine for statements about what it says (though the circumstances in which such a use is justified are very limited). It is not RS for any statement of fact.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• I think we need a WP:ANCIENTTEXT. The Books of Maccabees were not written as scripture, and some and not others have been adopted by some but not other Christian (and other) sects. They should be treated like other ancient texts, scriptural or no. Similar issues have arisen recently in comments about the Historia Augusta in relation to Elagabalus. Some editors have impugned that text's unreliability and sought to remove references to the ancient texts on the grounds they don't meet Wikipedia standards. However, this leads to poor results. In any field, the ancient texts will necessarily be biased, incomplete, corrupt, and comprehensible only in translation. However, to varying degrees, the entire secondary field will be based substantially on those ancient fragments of ill-remembered propaganda, and the whole academic consensus rests on establishing meaningful interpretations of the long-vanished reality reflected by those fragmentary and venerated texts. I would propose a new category of source be listed and dealt with in a particular way: namely, that ancient texts can never be cited in support of statements of fact, but they may be quoted and the wording of the ancients compared with the conclusions of scholars about those texts and the characters and events therein. As a corollary, I would suggest that, where possible and desirable, the ancient text or scripture should be cited, or at least could be. In my eyes there is nothing more frustrating to read something like "Ammianus Marcellinus was present at the Siege of Amida and described the struggle at length" only to find the reference in support of this cited as something like "Smith, 1998, pp. 206-208" – what I really want is the reference to Ammianus Marcellinus's Latin history, which like all scripture and the majority of ancient texts has a long-established conventional system of chapters and headings which are vaguely consistent across languages, editions, and translations. If Wikipedia wants me to read something like "the Gospel of Luke says ...", I should be able to expect a citation to "Luke XX:20–30" as well as whatever reputable scholarship is backing up the exegesis. Removing citations to primary sources is misguided if it's being done purely because the words are old or because their formulations have been co-opted by religions as scripture. Wikipedia should be a tool to further research, and a blanket insistence on removing footnotes to primary sources because ancient texts are inherently unreliable is to misunderstand the use and usefulness of footnotes. Citations are there to support and develop the main text; they are not intended to signal that everything to which they are attached is correct and free of blemish. As part of this, I would recommend that {{template|bibleverse}} be used as the model for quotations from classical and Hellenistic texts like the Maccabees books. To some degree, what the texts say is relevant when it conflicts were scholarly judgement, and that should be noted. GPinkerton (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it is splitting hairs whether the Maccabees are Scripture or not. They are canon in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy but apocrypha in Protestantism. Take 2 Maccabees description of how a presumptive temple robber were stopped by divine intervention:

But when he arrived at the treasury with his bodyguard, then and there the Sovereign of spirits and of all authority caused so great a manifestation that all who had been so bold as to accompany him were astounded by the power of God, and became faint with terror. For there appeared to them a magnificently caparisoned horse, with a rider of frightening mien; it rushed furiously at Heliodorus and struck at him with its front hoofs. Its rider was seen to have armor and weapons of gold. Two young men also appeared to him, remarkably strong, gloriously beautiful and splendidly dressed, who stood on either side of him and flogged him continuously, inflicting many blows on him.

A source that describes how temple robbery was stopped by flogging angels cannot, in my opinion, be considered a reliable source. Another example I alluded to in my comment is numerical exaggerations. In ancient texts or in Scripture you might read: "Half a million soldiers perished in the battle." In reality, the carrying capacity of the region perhaps didn't exceed 25,000, making 500,000 casualties highly improbable, to say the least. Should we then write "According to Scripture/AncientHistorian 500,000 soliders perished in the battle.[ref-here]"? I'd say no, because it's misleading. ImTheIP (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, why? With something like the Battle of Kerbala, for instance, no-one is ever going to know what really happened, so the rather later Shia'a reminiscences of what must have been a very insignificant fight at the time are basically all we have. Citing secondary sources alone obscures the significance of the primary sources and hides the fact that all the secondary debate is generated by the primary texts themselves. It has been pointed out that the further away in time one gets from the 7th century, the longer and more detailed the biographies of Muhammad became. There must by now be thousands of books about the late Roman Empire in the middle fourth century (say), but the ever-swelling mass of secondary sources should not be allowed to get in the way of analysis of Ammianus Marcellinus, who for all his superstitions, political hero-worship, and religious bigotry is the most reliable source we have for the period (and even then most of the chapters are missing and because of damage to the one MS, the are a few missing words in every single line).

If the texts say half a million died, that is only unreliable information insofar as actual numbers of actual soldiers are concerned. It is unimpeachable evidence that, at the time and place of the text's composition or recession, there were at least some who thought the battle was of such significance or narrative importance that a half million ought to have died. Similarly, when our sources speak of the seventy-odd warriors martyred at Kerbala by an overwhelmingly enormous army, we don't have to repeat this as fact; rather, we should quote both the traditional reckoning and the modern-day analysis. The analysis on its own is pointless otherwise. GPinkerton (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You said it best yourself in May 2020, Wikipedia is not a Sunday school, a madrassa, or rabbinical conference. There is plenty of secondary and tertiary material to cite, and nothing will be gained from resorting to original research on the content of ancient texts. Absolutely nothing should be referenced to scripture alone! and exts considered holy are very often mainly translated and edited by religious minorities (all religions are minorities) and their translations are inherently POV as a result. There is no possibility of neutrality in deriving Wikipedia's NPOV from scripture without the mediation of reliable scholarly sources (i.e. ones not written by the religions themselves centuries ago).

You say that no one will ever know what really happened at the Battle of Kerbala. So that is what the Wikipedia article should say! The religious view, clearly delineated, can also be added to say that only 72 persons died and that it was seen as a glorious victory for the Lord, etc. But in many Wikipedia articles, you have the religious perspective mixed in with the historical perspective which I think is completely objectionable. For example, here is Jonathan Apphus's article, an important historical figure. Good luck separating the fact from the fiction! ImTheIP (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• What El D. said, pretty much. The Bible and Flavius Josephus are at best primary sources, and if modern historians use them to some extent, that's up to their judgement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  Gråbergs Gråa Sång, historians have to go on Josephus and the various sacred literature because there is nothing else of similar scope and detail in the texts. The other major source for events of the period are the Dead Sea scrolls, which are, well, unreleased pirate copies of an early unauthorized rough draft of the Bible. The major textual work for early Roman Gaul is Julius Caesar's in-third-person account of his own conquest, as written for his political friends and rivals. GPinkerton (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Talking about scripture from Abrahamic faiths specifically, sects originating over ~500 years ago to use the same cut-off, not only are those all primary sources but they have so much secondary and tertiary sourcing, it seems like there's no justification for presenting them by themselves, even just going on existing policy. None of them will have been reputably published, to quote WP:PRIMARY, and besides that you're never going to run into a situation where the scripture is the sole source for any fact, not even a religious tenet. Sure, link to a carefully-bibliographically-specified edition of the scripture, but never without the secondary and tertiary sources. (I mean seriously, when it comes to these sorts of scriptures, it's pretty much source-Inception and we could talk about quaternary, quinary, senary, hell let's just go all the way to hemi-sexagenary sourcing.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  Struthious Bandersnatch, while I agree that scripture and premodern texts should only be presented in company with reliable sources commenting on relevant passages, and that there's no justification for presenting them by themselves, I would still argue that the idea you're never going to run into a situation where the scripture is the sole source for any fact, not even a religious tenet is wrong. Any discussion of Pontius Pilate's wife is inherently based on conjecture using ancient texts; no other source exists. The Droste effect could be short-circuited by simply citing the same passages as are cited by the scholarly authorities we should already be using. GPinkerton (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  GPinkerton: The thing is, what you're calling “the Droste effect” here is actually desirable under Wikipedia sourcing policy: it's an aspect of verifiability for a secondary or 𝑛-ary reputably published source to affirm that a (WP:NONENG, in fact pre-English) scriptural source says what another citation claims it says. At this point in history none of the scriptures we're talking about pass WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 07:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• I believe the Bible should never be used as a historical source, be it the Old or the New Testament; and this refusal includes apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and gnostic texts (e.g. Nag Hammadi texts). Veverve (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

One Peter Five (1Peter5)

Is this website reliable? Its description is a manifesto and does not precise what type of website they are (blog? reflexion journal?). It accepts drafts from anywhere. It would be really helpful if users could give some feedback, as this website is the main soource used at Document on Human Fraternity. Veverve (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a magazine, generally I'd say yes given the number and quality of contributors but I am reluctant to accept sources on controversial subjects like theology. I don't think that taking contributions from anywhere is a problem provided they are subject to proper editorial oversight. The article is most confusing (are these footnotes? further reading?), I'll have a look at reworking it into a more understandable format and then come back to you on this. ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, update. The authors are: Roberto de Mattei (notable historian), Bishop Schneider (a Bishop), and Steve Skojec (the website's founder and, if his page is to be believed, frequently quoted catholic figure). The website appears reliable and the figures important enough to have their views considered but I am concerned that these are opinions and not framed in the article as such. ~ El D. (talk to me) 15:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Unclear reliability, definite bias the source has a lot of contributors who seem to at least have the appropriate qualifications but I see nothing to make me confident enough to say that a source that mainly speaks about theology has meaningful editorial oversight. Additionally, it clearly isn't about to say something negative about catholicism and it is written in a magazine-style where every piece is fundamentally pushing some sort of an opinion. I am not saying either that it has never published any relevant news or that it is clearly unreliable - I simply do not know.

However, with regard to this case, it is being used to cite opinions. Given the nature of this source (Catholic which has a manifesto as its about us page) it is hard to give appropriate weight based on it and I suggest treating as self-published for the purposes of this discussion. That isn't to say that these opinions need to be removed from the article but that they need to be considered based upon who is making them, not who is publishing them. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Soap Hub as a reliable source

I would like to make a case for Soap Hub to be deemed "reliable." It publishes daily recaps, as well as interviews with many soap stars, and reviews of specific storylines. Majority of the staff includes seasoned soap opera journalists, who are not only fans of the genre, but have worked in the industry either writing for soaps themselves, or covering them. Diane Brounstein interned as a writer at three different soaps, and went on to work as the Senior editor for Soap Opera Magazine and was the managing editor for Sony's soap oriented website, Soapcity.com. Hope Campbell also worked for three different magazines, including Soap Opera Weekly. Contributing writers include famed soap journalists Janet Di Lauro, the former west coast editor of Soap Opera Weekly, and Michael Maloney who wrote Bill Bell's authorized biography and was the West Coast editor of Soap Opera Digest. The staff also includes a many others.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 03:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Limited reliability for sourcing content about soap opera-related topics other than BLPs. It has a gatekeeping process evidenced by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy, it has a physical presence by which it can be held liable for libel, a quick Google News search for the phrase "SoapHub reported" finds that it's been sourced by RS like the Miami Herald etc., and it doesn't appear to primarily be an advocacy outlet. Its newsgathering and reporting capability appears limited to soap operas so it would not be RS for topics on architecture, planetology, etc. Chetsford (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Andrew Rossos Reliable?

Hello, is historian Andrew Rossos reliable? He is currently a professor at Toronto University and has a book published by Hoover Institution Press Publication.

On the other hand, he has been criticized by a number of other historians that can be viewed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Rossos#Career.

His historical theses also diverge from the mainstream consensus of historians such as that Tsar Samuel of Bulgaria was not Bulgarian but Macedonian and that Alexander the Great was not Hellenic/Greek but a separate Macedonian ethnicity. Thanks for your input. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely reliable but possibly biased on the subject of Macedonia and Macedonians. Some additional information. This has been raised with respect to his work regarding the activities and political alignment of Slavic-speaking Greeks/Greek Macedonians in Bulgarian-occupied eastern Macedonia during World War II, specifically the background to the September 1941 Drama uprising. Rossos is a Greek-born Macedonian-Canadian Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Toronto, not just a professor (a position he first commenced in 1982). He has published many books with scholarly publishers as well as scholarly chapters and articles over several decades, and was asked to write the afterword for Sabrina P. Ramet's Civic and uncivic values in Macedonia : value transformation, education and media (2013) published by Palgrave MacMillan, and a Macedonian-focussed chapter in Brad K. Blitz's War and change in the Balkans : nationalism, conflict and cooperation (2006) published by Cambridge University Press. His Wikipedia article is a bit of a hatchet job, to be frank, and includes a link to an Australian high school student's essay that mentions him. IMHO this is a classic case of editors with various POVs wanting to exclude from an article an apparently eminent academic that happens to have a different perspective on the Macedonian question from theirs (apparently Greek and/or Bulgarian). I think, given there has been some non-Greek/non-Bulgarian academic criticism of some of Rossos' historical work on Macedonian issues, he should probably be attributed inline for anything controversial, but he certainly should not be excluded because he may be biased. Few if any historians are complete unbiased. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see how Rossos can be reliable when he makes claims in his book 'Macedonia and the Macedonians' such as that Tsar Samuel Of Bulgaria actually felt like an ethnic Macedonian when there is actually no primary sources of this. Instead Rosso's sources two Yugoslavian historians called Stjepan Antoljak and George Ostrogorsky who are both Yugoslavian historians therefore they are not reliable due to the Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour which made it illegal to proclaim that you are Bulgarian and that you spoke the standard Bulgarian language. Furthermore, it set out to differentiate the Bulgarians and the Macedonians by pushing the thesis that the Macedonians have continuity since Ancient Macedonia despite it being a Hellenic kingdom and the Slavs arriving 900 years after the fall of the kingdom/empire. These theories have since been rejected by authoritative Serbian historians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_of_Bulgaria#Nomenclature). Furthermore, in this book Rossos conveniently misses stating that Samuel's nephew Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria in the Bitola Inscription describes himself as "Bulgarian by birth". As well as that Samuel's dad Nicholas was a Bulgarian noble of Armenian origin. I don't believe that just because Andrew Rossos is a professor at a well-known uni and has work published that he is automatically reliable. I can also share the download link to the Andrew Rossos book in a bit

shorturl.at/yCHN2- Download link for his book (expires in 1 week) .--StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• • The book is cited by 186 sources. That's a strong indication of its reliability. It also received a rather positive review.[88] (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

StoyanStoyanov80, two Yugoslavian historians called Stjepan Antoljak and George Ostrogorsky who are both Yugoslavian historians therefore they are not reliable is not at all correct. George Ostrogorsky is a highly respected mediaevalist and Byzantinist, one of the foremost scholars of his generation. Some of his highly influential ideas about the "Byzantine Commonwealth" concept are contested, but are frequently discussed and cited despite their age. He was a Russian émigré, not a Yugoslavian, born and raised in Petrograd and educated at Heidelberg. The characterization Yugoslavian historians therefore they are not reliable is wrong in both fact and sentiment. GPinkerton (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • For example on the Tsar Samuel page 20th-century Serbian and afterwards the Yugoslav historiography used the location of Samuel's state mainly on the territory of then Yugoslavia, to reject Bulgarian claims on the region.[169] Thus, the Russian-born Yugoslavian historian George Ostrogorsky distinguished Samuel's Empire from the Bulgarian Empire, referring to it as a "Macedonian Empire", although he recognised that Samuel's state was politically and ecclesiastically a direct descendant of the empire of Simeon I of Bulgaria and Peter I of Bulgaria, and it was regarded by Samuel and the Byzantines as being the Bulgarian Empire itself.[149]

I accept your decision about the reliability of this source, however Yugoslavian sources about Bulgarian and other histories in the region are not always reliable. Due to laws such as the Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour that made it illegal to proclaim Bulgarian identity and it saw Bulgarian national figures such as Marko Tsepenkov becoming ethnic Macedonians despite no evidence of Tsepenkov ever identifying as an ethnic Macedonian. What difference would it make if Ostrogorsky is born in Russia, if he breaks the law in Yugoslavia he will be sent to the labor camp. It's just interesting how they both 'know' that Tsar Samuel felt as an ethnic Macedonian despite there being no primary sources of this from him or his relatives. But thanks for your input nonetheless, I consider this discussion closed. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

One Mile at a Time

Should onemileatatime.com be used as a source for new routes. IPs keep adding this source for new route. I know that it is a personal blog but just want to be sure before removing. 47.13.131.227 (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Please can you link to a specific example? ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

https://onemileatatime.com/air-india-bangalore-san-francisco-route/ 47.13.131.227 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

And please could you given an example of a page someone was trying to add it to. ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

O’Hare International Airport. Here’s the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=O%27Hare_International_Airport&diff=995176191&oldid=995073837. Article protected for 2 weeks. 47.13.131.227 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Lucasta Miller in The Guardian

• Links to past discussion: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Guardian
• Source: Miller, Lucasta (21 June 2003). "The composer who never grew up". The Guardian. 8th paragraph.
• Article: Frédéric Chopin#Decline
• Content: "... Sand published her novel Lucrezia Floriani, whose main characters – a rich actress and a prince in weak health – could be interpreted as Sand and Chopin. The story was uncomplimentary to Chopin, who missed the allusions when Sand read the manuscript aloud to Delacroix in Chopin's presence."

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It is all substantiated in the article except for the content between the dashes. Is there any particular complaint about it? ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The actual question being whether the source is reliable – sorry, forgot to mention. The phrase between the dashes could be replaced by something like "a heroine oppressed by her lover's increasingly irrational demands" (or is that too much of a close paraphrasing?). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable: the original book is preferable to snippets from The Guardian review of the book.

The book

• Eisler, Benita (2004). Chopin's Funeral. Penguin Random House. ISBN 9780375708688.

has been reviewed several times in the press within months of its release in the UK and the US. Chapter 14: "Lucrezia Floriani" concerns the roman à clef by George Sand. Prior to its publication, Sand read out chapters aloud to Eugène Delacroix and Frédéric Chopin, when they met at her residence in Nohant. Two sentences describe that in the featured article Frédéric Chopin. There has been WP:CONSENSUS for using Eisler's long and detailed book as a source. Chapter 14 only concerns Delacroix, Chopin and Sand. There is a thumbnail summary of Eisler's material in the brief Guardian book review, with some details elided:

"In the painful final stages of their affair, Sand fictionalised [Chopin] unkindly in her novel Lucrezia Floriani, in which the heroine dies suffocated by the emotional demands of her increasingly irrational lover. When Sand read the manuscript aloud to Delacroix in Chopin's presence, the painter was shocked at the brazen way in which she was prepared to carry out such a character assassination in front of the victim. What astounded him more was Chopin's polite, even enthusiastic, response. Was this a bravura display of the unruffled aristocratic good manners on which Chopin prided himself? Determined to find out, Delacroix questioned him in private and came away perplexed. Extraordinary as it seems, the composer had not recognised the obvious portrait of himself."

The painter Delacroix is mentioned several times in the FA, including a lengthy quotation about the garden at Nohant ("the songs of nightingales and the fragrance of roses"). The snippet above also mentions Delacroix in a significant way, so its omission cannot be justified. At the moment there has been consensus on the article talk page. Mathsci (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not see why being a review of a book makes it any less reliable, and it defiantly does not render it unreliable. I also do not understand what you see as an omission? ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that using the book over the news source is preferable, but I see nothing that would suggest The Guardian is not reliable... And you don’t appear to be arguing that either, at most your argument is that the book is better but you havent actually argued that The Guardian is unreliable outside of the heading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) In the current article there are two relevant sentences, both sourced to Eisler's book: "In 1847 Sand published her novel Lucrezia Floriani, whose main characters—a rich actress and a prince in weak health—could be interpreted as Sand and Chopin. In Chopin's presence, Sand read the manuscript out aloud to Delacroix, who was both shocked and mystified by its implications, writing that 'Madame Sand was perfectly at ease and Chopin could hardly stop making admiring comments'." Mathsci (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The book is lengthy and has been used elsewhere. Sometimes direct quotations are used, translated into English. It is easy to find the users who have helped make it a FA. That process also involves evaluating sources, such as journal articles and books. Occasionally newspaper articles are used (e.g. for medical matters). In this particular article, I am not aware of a book review being used instead of the book itself. Things like this are usually decided by consensus on the article talk page, not here. Mathsci (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason against both the book and the review being reliable. As I understand it, your dispute is over wording, and while I prefer Schonken's wording (on account of being more focused on Chopin and shorter without losing relevant information), this board is not the place for that dispute. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Should scholarly publications be given equal weight to opinions of non-notable individuals?

This is what is being argued at Talk:Telewizja Polska, along with insistence on quoting the president of the organization on how great it has become. (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

X-Plane First Party Sources

I’ve being looking at flight simulator pages as I want to make sure each one is accurate and as detailed as it can be.

I have added a little to the X-Plane page, however I have noticed that the bulk of the sources come from first party information, including their own development pages and also a Twitter post.

Are these reliable sources? Almost all are first party, so I haven’t linked examples as they are on the page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Plane_(simulator)

PopSugar

Should PopSugar be considered as an reliable source or not? I asking this because I don't know there was a discussion on this website. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Limited reliability for sourcing non-BLP, entertainment-related subjects. It has a gatekeeping process, a physical presence by which it can held liable for libel, a quick Google News search for the phrase "according to PopSugar" finds that it's been sourced by known RS like the Desert News, Houston Chronicle, and Kansas City Star, and it doesn't appear to demonstrate any of the telltale signs of advocacy media. That said, it obviously doesn't have any newsgathering capability outside of the realm of entertainment and lifestyle topics. It would not be an acceptable source for articles like electromagnetic radiation or 2019 Canadian federal election. Chetsford (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chetsford: If I use this source from PopSugar in album-related articles. It's okay? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Tibetan Political Review

This discussion is an offshoot of Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism, where Normchou, Esiymbro, and I agreed that the Tibetan Political Review does not appear to be a reliable source. This is disputed by Pasdecomplot on the basis that it has not appeared at RSN yet.

Tibetan Political Review is self-hosted on Google Sites, has no affiliation with any academic publisher, is not listed in major journal indices, has no evidence of academic peer-review, and does not appear to be reviewed or discussed by established RSes (that we could find). It only existed for 7 years and often reads more like a blog than a research journal (e.g. the first article).

As such, it does not qualify under academic and peer-reviewed publications (WP:SOURCE) or reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and likely falls under has not been vetted by the scholarly community. This is much closer to:

journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Perhaps someone else could shed further light on the usability of Tibetan Political Review though, or draw a broader consensus on its reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Appears to be a collection of opinion pieces? Run by a poet and a couple of lawyers, so definitely not a scholarly journal. They accept unsolicited submissions. Doesn't appear to even have been discussed before. I don't think this can be used for anything other than what they themselves are saying, and since neither the Tibetan Political Review nor the writers appear to be notable, I'm not sure why we'd ever even be quoting/attributing them. At any rate, not an RS for anything other than their own opinions, attributed. —valereee (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify the dispute, both the independent scholar Warren W Smith and Tibetan Political Review are being challenged at Nyingchi. I propose that the focus of this RSN be broadened to include Smith as an author, as well.

Tibetan Political Review was founded in June 2010, and its editorial board is comprised of academics and jurists in the U.S and India. These include Nima R.T. Binara, Wangchuk D. Shakabpa, Bhuchung D. Sonam, and Tenzin Wangyal. Their web site was [89] as listed on the Tibetan Political Review page at fr.wikipedia [90], but is presently [91]. Their Wikipedia page doesn't list the editorial board's other professional interests, even if they are published poets.

It's cited by Courrier International[92] which is published by Le Monde; included in University of Minnesota's Human Rights Library

[93] for reliable accounts of conditions in Tibet; listed in Oxford University's Press Oxford Handbooks' Scholarly Research Reviews [94], cited by Harvard Kennedy School Asian American Policy Review [95] and by Harvard Law School [96]; cited by Tibetan Review[97], and by World Tibet News/Canada Tibet News Network[98] as well as by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for reliable accounts of conditions in Tibet

[99]. The list could continue, but might be seen as "bludgeoning" the issue that Tibetan Political Review is effectively peer reviewed, is cited, and definitely found very reliable by both academic institutions and a governmental agency vetting reports from Tibet, MarkH21 and Esiymbro and Normchou.

Warren W Smith has a scholarly piece in Tibetan Political Review, and it's what led to this RSN; a very knowledgeable and respectable piece covering modern history in the region.

[100]. Any editor with the same knowledge base would agree, regardless of its "hosted" url. That's why it was provided as RS. Amazon's bio says,Warren W. Smith Jr., an independent scholar in Alexandria, Virginia, received his Ph.D in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.[101] Smith's specialty is "Tibetan nationalism, Sino-Tibetan relations and the issue of Tibetan self-determination". Smith also has a page at fr.wiki[102], where it's noted that a critic Barry Sautman is himself criticized in his own page's lead for espousing PRC views[103], as in Ses positions sur le Tibet sont jugées comme étant proches de celles de la République populaire de Chine.

At Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism it's clear Smith's scholarly views of China's Tourism policies in Tibet as presented in Tibetan Political Review are an issue. And, Tibetan Political Review has also become an issue, although the author and RS's stability dates from 30october, when it was discovered while digging for RS on the Middle Way Approach. My dispute is not about a lack of RSN on these topics, but the effective silencing of a scholar's criticism of policies due to random issues, such as the URL and such as ignoring the academics on the editorial board and the academic institutions which find Tibetan Political Review reliable - including Harvard University, Oxford University, and the University of Minnesota. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

None of these sources seem to establish peer review, and only the Canadian Immigration Board calls it a journal. As valeree points out, the editors are distinctly lacking in qualifications in the relevant fields (between the four list on the about page only 1 has a relevant degree - a BA in Political Science). Warren W Smith may be an SME, but I personally would not call anyone a SME unless they had an English Wikipedia page. While I generally overlook this, in this case the claim is deeply controversial and the post provides no supporting evidence. The fact that it reads like a polemic, not an academic paper (tourism is aimed at turning Tibet into something like a theme park where Chinese can go to indulge their fantasies about primitive Tibetan society doesn't sound like something I'd see in a serious journal) does not help me. ~ El D. (talk to me) 01:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)