User talk:Headbomb/unreliable

Iranian gov sources

Iranian government sources seem to be being leant an undue degree of leniency at present, with the exception of Press TV. A list of the various Iranian government news channels can be found here. The most spurious among them are the Fars News Agency, which is run by the IRGC and once posted a story about a time machine and also claimed the US was influenced by extraterrestrials; the Tasnim News Agency, which also has links to the IRGC and called Covid-19 an American and Jewish plot at world domination hatched by Henry Kissinger; and Mashregh News, which has also been described as close to Iranian intelligence, appears to repeat government writ verbatim and has been implicated in several content controversies as well - though it's the least concern. Past discussions of the first two sources can be found here and here Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Hey, do you monitor this talk, or have any thoughts on the above, or should I just take it back to the noticeboard? Would be good to have your input one way or another, even if it's just to tell me to take this elswhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I do, however, I'm fairly busy until early March. An clear RSN discussion makes it easier for me to not have to use my brain. You have some, but I haven't taken a look at them yet because of said business. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Jrank

Per past RSN discussions, this source should be highlighted as generally unreliable. Thanks. 137a (talk • edits) 18:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

EWG.org Generally Unreliable?

This link https://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf is highlighted as generally unreliable. What is that based off? I can't seem to find it in any of the "lists". Thanks {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC) This link https://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf is highlighted as generally unreliable. What is that based off? I can't seem to find it in any of the "lists". Thanks {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Environmental Working Group is an advocacy group. You can search for "EWG.org" or "Environmental Working Group" at RSN and elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 62#EWG) for a few hits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Are Advocacy groups usually considered unreliable? I don't see any consensus that they are "generally unreliable" on RSN. Just a few mentions (many are actually confirming they are usually reliable). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not all of them, but this one is an alarmist organic food advocacy group. See updated links above. Or this Forbe's article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece (and from a yellow link ;-)). The link to the fringe theories noticeboard is between two users with no sources. This seems a rather poor evaluation. The article on EWG is also poorly sourced in it's statement that it "has been criticized". I think we need more solid sourcing to reach this conclusion. It appears the script is marking EWG without any actual inclusion in one of "the lists" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll take Quackwatch's or the American Academy of Dermatology's opinions over your personal preferences on this one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Me too. Would you have a link to those sources?

Also: this means that some sources are marked as unreliable based on your own assessment but not necessarily based on community consensus? Doesn't seem specified here: User:Headbomb/unreliable#What it does?

Don't want to sound too critical here (this is YOUR script after all!). I would just like to know exactly what I'm using. Thanks. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

They're both in the EWG article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that AAD source from 2010 appears to be substantially out of date. It mentions "safe new chemicals" in sunscreens that the EWG has criticised "unfairly" such as oxybenzone. They mention that the only chemicals they support are "old technology" like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. However in 2021 the FDA supported completely what EWG was saying. The only chemicals they currently consider GRASE for use in sunscreens are Zinc and Titanium. Oxybenzone has been banned for various reasons around the world and linked to various negative effects such as killing off corals. Like they say: hindsight is 20/20 right?

Quackwatch still has them on the list of questionable organisations as of Feb, 2022.

What about the other point I raised about the script? Thanks {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What other points? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Are some sources marked as unreliable based on your own assessment but not necessarily based on community consensus? I don't see that specified here: User:Headbomb/unreliable#What it does?. Thanks. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it's technically possible, but I don't recall making unilateral judgments except in very clear cases of nonsense (like flagging certain satire sites like The Beaverton). There are some differences with WP:RSP's classification, like arXiv being flagged in yellow, rather than red, because preprints are often used in lieu of their published version (or alongside them). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I ended up here through a rabbit hole of sorts, but I will echo Headbomb's comment on the EWG. Whether it's on-wiki or just us university agricultural scientists speaking up IRL, it is well known as unreliable for misleading or outright fearmongering purposeful misrepresentations dealing with chemicals. For those of us that to deal with legitimate chemical safety issues and concerns, EWG has us starting in the negatives for public education rather than just square 1. Just calling them a "boy who cried wolf" type organization is already being pretty generous. There hasn't really been a need to designate it over at WP:RSP though since the only people I've seen really pushing that it's reliable are usually those who end up topic banned for pushing fringe advocacy. If more people get caught off-guard by the group though on-wiki, it may be worth adding it to the list someday though. KoA (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have some additional up to date sources to report? I'm editing Environmental Working Group as we speak and most of the critical voices are 10+ years old. Since then it seems to me that they have been largely proven right by history - there WAS a wolf! E.g. the sunscreen report they have been publishing since the early 2000s: some of the substances they have criticised turned out to be harmful and are basically only used in the US nowadays and even there they are banned in several places. FDA is reviewing their classification. In addition to this, reliable sources routinely cite them, and large industry players have partnered with them. I don't think that makes them qualify as a generally unreliable source. Surely not in such an egregious manner that it shouldn't even be discussed. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Congralutations, you've found a brocken clock. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm starting to see WP:COATRACK problems related to that one when EWG's actions really aren't discussed much in that regard later on. That Gtoffoletto is describing them is largely proven right by history is a huge red flag when it comes to WP:FRINGE advocacy groups like this. There just hasn't been that much advocacy on-wiki related to this group that we've needed to spell it out in terms of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP/WP:NOTBURO, and that's mostly because those of us who deal with MEDRS/FRINGE issues handle issues from these groups when they come up without much issue. KoA (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, documents published by NGOs in the field of human rights, consumer protection, environmentalism, health or development need to be cited with care. If e.g. it's about their position on a certain point, this needs to be clearly stated. For instance, the hazard score of a chemical in EWG's Skin Deep database may be provided, if it is made clear what kind of organization EWG is. The same holds true for other organizations with a (potentially) biased view such as companies or trade organizations. CropLife International and American Chemistry Council, for example, are cited in 19 articles and 53 articles, respectively. On the other hand, all references to the Pesticide Action Network and its Pesticide Info database are regularly being removed, even though it is an accredited stakeholder organization regularly contributing to UNEP work (example). Furthermore, a self-statement on accuracy of data is provided, the Arizona Department of Agriculture states This environmental group maintains a pesticide database that presents current toxicity and regulatory information. Notable features: sources for information (including EPA) completely transparent; site is very easy to navigate. and an assessment of toxicological databases concludes that the PAN Pesticides Database met the inclusion criteria and ranked in the midfield of the evaluated 21 databases.
Overall, actions of certain users seem to have led to a bias in the selection of references used in this field. --Leyo 23:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with this view. This is a very slippery slope towards an extremely dangerous bias. Picking and choosing which advocacy groups are allowed/reliable and which aren't based on the opinions of a few bloggers really bothers me. I find it worrisome that many of those bloggers only tend to criticise advocacy groups that don't align with industry. We should definitely give an equally cautious treatment to content coming from any advocacy group and especially those tied to a specific industry (for obvious reasons). We should always strive for independent and reliable scientific accuracy, and that doesn't mean giving industry a free pass without allowing any questioning. If Wikipedia doesn't already have it, I think a general policy on how to treat content by advocacy groups would be an important priority. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 02:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

pesticideinfo.org

I request that pesticideinfo.org be removed from "Generally unreliable source" in User:Headbomb/unreliable.js, since this judgement is unfounded and actually contradicts the evidence:

• Self-statement on accuracy of data
• Assessment of toxicological databases: PAN Pesticides Database met the inclusion criteria and ranked in the midfield of the evaluated 21 databases
• Arizona Department of Agriculture: This environmental group maintains a pesticide database that presents current toxicity and regulatory information. Notable features: sources for information (including EPA) completely transparent; site is very easy to navigate.

Leyo 20:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The group is part of those outright denying the scientific consensus on GMOs and related pesticides, so that'd be a pretty hard no for me.[1] This is 2023, so we should be long past the point of people trying to argue these groups are reliable. KoA (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

A user's judgement is certainly not superior to the reviews linked above. --Leyo 22:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You're trying to claim a science denial advocacy organization is reliable. Full stop. Since we're on usertalk, I will remind you that I had to caution you for disruptive behavior in this subject in the past, especially in a discretionary sanction/contentious topic. This really does not look good, especially for an admin. KoA (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You are describing your own behavior here, in past and now. You are on thin ice. As stated, your opinion is not given more weight than Arizona Department of Agriculture or an evaluation in the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology. --Leyo 23:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)