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

Association of Religion Data Archives and World Religion Database

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authoritative critical assessments

Religion studies scholars & statisticians

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missionologists

Added by Erp and Ramos1990:

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

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

Added by Æo:

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

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

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

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

Discussion (ARDA and WRD)

Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

one article reviewing the database states

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:IDNHT:

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of general consensus

According to authoritative assessments provided hereinabove:

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

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

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

Correction to the "summary of general consensus"

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

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

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

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

Replying to your points,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Please see:

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

Further considerations:

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

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

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

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

---

Please respond Yes or No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) All the users I pinged are those who already gave their opinion in the discussion above, and later I personally solicited Nillurcheier because his vote was missing; 2) given that you were already suspected of being Jobas in the past, my suspicion was perfectly legitimate and not a groundless accusation.--Æo (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Requesting closure by completely uninvolved editor

A completely uninvolved editor is requested to close this due to the nature of accusations that were made by at least 2 users.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• N.b.: I closed this RfC as at WP:RFCCLOSE I read "...if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion". Expecting that Ramos1990 would dispute it, as I am the same user who opened the RfC, I asked a final review to JzG. For the record, my summary endnote, which Ramos1990 has reverted despite I consider it perfectly balanced (it summarises the most salient points that emerged in the previous discussion, and those expressed by the yesses, by the no/buts, and by the nos), is the following one (no "emotions flared" from my side; on the other hand, Ramos1990's revert has been precipitous):

Yes: 4; no/but: 2; no: 8. There is no consensus at this time for the step of deprecation, which has been deemed extreme in this case. The sources in question, two statistical datasets (ARDA/WRD/WCD and Pew-Templeton's Global Religious Futures), are explicitly linked to some American Christian organisations (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), missionary projects (10/40 window), and philanthropic companies with roots in American Christianity (John Templeton Foundation; Lilly Endowment), and have been criticised for containing some systematic bias (overestimation of Christianity, underestimation of other religious and irreligious populations), and Erp «also noted [that] very few peer reviewed articles ...use the data outside of Christian mission related articles». Both of them are also old mathematical projections, "purely glassball", often misleadingly passed off as hard data from surveys (cf. Æo, NebY, Nillurcheier). It is clear from the discussion that the sources in question should never be used in place of data from censuses and statistical organisations, should be treated with a grain of salt and never accepted at face value. Even some of those who voted no and no/but agreed that «we can all agree that census data should be used where it can» (Pyrrho the Skipper) and that «in-text attribution should be required [to] ...alert the reader that there might be bias» (Blueboar). Those who voted with a clear no (cf. Foorgood, Jayron32, Ramos1990, Wareon, Dee, عبد المسيح) pointed out that some of the sources in question are published by respectable publishing houses, are listed on some academic institutions' websites, and some critical reviews underline the positive sides of them; however, Drmies «contacted one of the librarians on whose page the database was linked, pointed them to the discussion, and they told [him] they would rephrase the "recommendation" on their website – and noted of course how linking something is hardly the same as giving a wholehearted endorsement». Erp also highlighted that the datasets in question fail the CRAAP test: they (a) fail to list their sources or describe how they got their numbers in at least a few cases; (b) they are precise to single digits in cases where that is extremely unlikely to be accurate; (c) they don't give error bars.

Anyway, I agree that a completely uninvolved party closes the RfC.--Æo (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Look at your quote again: ...if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion". That makes sense. However, you yourself closed it as "No Consensus" so that clause does not apply since according to you the consensus was not clear. WP:CLOSE says If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Please ensure that any request there seeking a close is neutrally worded, and do not use that board to continue the discussion in question. Your closure looks very biased as it does not emphasize the majority votes - most of it instead definitely emphasizes the minority views as if there was agreement with them - there was not. And indeed another editor was stunned by what you wrote in your closure [24] and agreed with my reverting your closure in its entirety. And most did not agree with your RFC. What you posted in Green is an attempt at trying to influence the closure and the closer's opinion by providing your personal summary. We already had problems with your summarizing approach above [25] to the point that I had to issue a correction [26]. When editors disagree, we cannot be the ones that close these RFCs or discussions. What you are doing is WP:DISRUPTIVE and quite frankly disturbing as to how far you are willing to go to force editors to agree with your POV and even pre-selecting editors to side with "your" closure (looks like WP:canvassing to me) which even you admit could be considered biased [27]. For some reason you really want this editor to close it [28] with you telling him to go ahead and close it despite canvassing concerns [29]. If this type of obsessive and accusatory behavior on trying to control the discussion, the RFC, and closure continues I may have to take it to the admins.

On aside note, the closing request has been made and initiated already in the closure requests page [30] by the way. To ensure a neutrality. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"If consensus is undoubtedly clear" may refer to either positive or negative consensus, and I don't see where I expressed that the consensus here is not clear: there is no consensus for a deprecation. Regarding the "majority vote", RfCs are not ballots: "please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors... and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes", and I don't see a supermajority in 8 nos, 2 no/buts and 4 yesses (WP:!VOTE: "the use of the words "vote" and "voting" might not be the best choice when describing Wikipedia processes. While technically correct, such references may contribute to the misconception that we use a system of majority or supermajority rule... it is not the vote that matters, but the reasoning behind the vote that is important. While we do often seem to vote on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important..."; and, let me reiterate, in my endnote all the salient points that emerged from the votes – yesses, not/buts and nos – were summarised). Regarding what I wrote here, I am assuming the good faith and neutrality of that user. Regarding the rest of your assumptions of bad faith, I have already responded here. Æo (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not convinced since you explicitly sought votes after claiming it was not about votes, [31] for example. Not buying that the vote was "missing" either. They were already pinged by you early on in November 21, 2022 [32] for the RFC specifically and therefore notified of its existence. If they did not respond then, why seek them out months later requesting their vote after you said it is not about votes? I will hold up on the other vote seeking behaviors I am noticing. But will say that your "closure" wording emphasized numerical votes- even splitting by individuals as if to designate weight by number of vote. I also responded to the bad faith claims [33]. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, "vote" can be interpreted as "comment" (as described in WP:!VOTE), and my endnote divided the votes' values in yes, no/but, and no, as it seems a correct formality. You are assuming bad faith by interpreting pings and my message to Nillurcheier as what they are not. As already written, Nillurcheier expressed his will to take part in a discussion/RfC on this topic in the past, and since I assume the good faith and I value the experience of that user, with whom I have had various interactions about this topic, I notified him. And as I wrote here, I valued past discussions on the topic. The other pings are WP:MENTIONs of users who already took part in the previous discussions and made significant contributions to them, and note that I quoted them or linked to discussions with them, and I think pinging is a correct practice when one quotes another user. You yourself notified Foorgood of the RfC (and didn't bat an eyelid for his disruptive behaviour against me and other participants), but I never accused you of canvassing, as I interpreted it as a normal interaction between users. Æo (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And P.S., at WP:CAN we read "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Neither in my message to Nillurcheier nor in my pinging the previous participants I asked them to vote a certain way ("answer yes!"); therefore, none of them are canvassing and they fit with the appropriate notification rule (WP:APPNOTE: "on the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion"; "editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"; "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"; "editors known for expertise in the field"; and "notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief").--Æo (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I arrived at the discussion independently (no one pinged me to join). Plus Foorgood and I both made extensive contributions to this discussion which shows we were following it periodically. Its one thing to update editors already involved in a discussion who arrived independently at the discussion, it is another to solicit editors who were not involved in the discussion in the first place. You pinged multiple editors early on in October [34] who tended to side with you because you knew their views already (their RFC votes were predictable now that I see this [35]). In other words you pre-selected these editors to come here knowing their views. This alone accounts for the 3 of 4 yeses in the RFC by the way, you being the third. All the other votes in the RFC seem to be independent. Because you did accuse others of canvassing, I may escalate this to admins along with other behaviors you have displayed here. It is WP:Disruptive.Ramos1990 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is time that this be closed. Personally I'm not all that interested in who got here how; charges of canvassing may have validity but shouldn't really influence the close. I will say that User:Foorgood accusing me of participating in a witch hunt is completely tasteless (I didn't see that until just now)--but then their attitude elsewhere got them blocked already. Ramos1990 complaining about votestacking is silly also, considering that this discussion has been up here for two months by now; accept the result, which I hope will be forthcoming, and move on. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

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

RfC: 9to5Google.com reliability?

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

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

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

• Option 3: Generally unreliable: In two citations at GrapheneOS, written by a "Videographer" they mostly un-critically re-publish material from the subject's website[36] or from their Twitter[37]. Although their contact list[38] has some Editor titles, it looks like another ad-infested group blog site, intended to advertise and sell Google products with affiliate links.[39]

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

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

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

An attempt was made to discuss it at Talk:GrapheneOS in August 2022. It was archived already, with no responses: Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive_2#XDA_source_on_Camera_and_PDF_Viewer,_and_9to5Google_source_on_"early_12L_release"_parrot_Twitter? It has been used in many other articles.[40] -- Yae4 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally unreliable. Another technology rumour site, along with sister projects 9to5mac.com, 9to5toys.com and others. Not that they don't get things right; they most often do. But they also present gossip and speculation as facts or announcements. A businessperson, I'd never make any investment decision based on the content of these sites. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
• Came here from WP:VPM. I'd be wary of using a site like this. Their about page says, "We only run reviews of hardware and software that we deem interesting to our audience and worth looking at. This is the reason you don’t often see poor reviews on 9to5 sites: If we review something we don’t like or find interesting, we usually won’t post it." That's kind of a non-neutral bias. On the other hand, that's not really any different from, say, the New York Times' Wirecutter service, so maybe that's a silly complaint. I suspect they're accurate for non-controversial statements of fact. To pick one more or less at random, "Founded by ex-Googlers, Flatiron Health was acquired yesterday (via CNBC) for $1.9 billion by Swiss medical giant Roche".[41] I have no reason to doubt any of the facts in that statement, but it's really just a rehash of what CNBC said, so why not just cite CNBC directly? IMHO, sites like this are valuable as aggregators and filters of industry-specific news. They're a great place to start to research a topic, but it's not what I'd like to see a good wikipedia article based on. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Their "about us" page states that they use and publish sponsor-provided content and also accept training and equipment in return for some of their reviews. Definitely not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable Mishmash of unasked for opinions, sponsored writeups, low quality rewrites of content posted elsewhere, and basic stat data. Nothing useful can't be found from a higher quality source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Strong option 1, since no good evidence of unreliability has been offered. So far, the discussion falls far short of the rigous we should have when determining reliability. The "uncritically republished" material in the first two links are a set of release notes. "Uncritically" is simply false: the author points out ProtonAOSP is not the "stable update path", and recommends against using GrapheneOS altogether for "all the but the most privacy-conscious people". No proof has been offered that any of those articles' contents is factually incorrect, which is normally de-rigeur in such WP:RSN discussions. 9to5Google itself has been cited in numerous published books, including scholarly books: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. See WP:USEBYOTHERS. Importantly, they have done some good exclusive reporting, which seems to have good quality, and it would be a shame if we couldn't use it (if due, which is a big if for all WP:RS). They've been cited by the Financial Times[51], among others. The people behind them have credible prior journalistic careers.

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

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

I'll just add that all books I link to were published by academic publishers (Springer, in the case of the third link), so those books are reliable par excellence. The fact that they all cite 9to5G as a source for statements of fact, without any comments raising doubts about their accuracy, is quite a strong indicator in favor of option 1, again per WP:UBO.

As for their exclusive reporting: it's very extensively cited by established, reliable sources, like ArsTechnica, PCWorld, and ComputerWorld, as a quick Google search shows. The fact that other tech sources take their original reporting seriously is yet another sign of their factual reliability. Early comments focus on alleged bias, or misstatement of rumors as fact, yet I've seen zero examples of this whatsoever; for example, their about page stating that Google is an important (i.e. influential) company is factually true; not a statement of bias. DFlhb (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Extending RfC for another month, but may stop it a week or so after the last comment someone adds. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1, strongly – First of all, I'm bewildered that interested editors were not notified of this sooner. WikiProject Google may be dormant, and I realize there aren't many active editors in that space, but the WikiProject talk page still serves as a central location to notify editors of discussions within the WikiProject's scope. I'm relieved that I saw Yae4's talk page notices when I was slowly going through my watchlist to see what I missed during the holidays, I would hate to have missed this. As one of the most active editors who edit Google articles, I use 9to5Google all the time as a source, and I've seen it being used as a source on many articles for many years without a problem. Sure, it may not be as high-caliber as The Verge or CNET, but its articles are still of decent quality in my experience, comparable to publications such as ComicBook.com, Screen Rant, and CBR in the entertainment field. When possible, of course we strive for more reputable sources, but if none exist, it is considered acceptable to resort to these lesser-known, lower-caliber but still reliable sources. I have yet to encounter a sketchy article from them, and they do have editorial oversight as seen here. They're verified on social media, as are their reporters ([52], [53], [54]). They've been cited by The Washington Post, LA Times, Bloomberg News, The Guardian, CNET, Axios, CNBC, Business Insider, Fortune, Ars Technica, The Verge, XDA Developers, Gizmodo, Engadget, IGN, PCMag, etc. I'd be happy to go dig up more links, but you should get the idea by now. Business Insider and The Verge also found the site notable enough to report on an incident involving the site itself a few years back. Lastly, regarding the thing about "rumors", we deal with that the same way we do with every other RS: WP:FRUIT. If said "rumor" is their original reporting, then by definition it is not a rumor but a report, and it should be OK to use it. But if they're getting the rumor from an unreliable source, for instance a leaker whom they can't independently verify, then we can't use it. The allegation that they also present gossip and speculation as facts or announcements is false. As far as I know, rumors that they got from someone else are always labeled as "Rumor" in the article's title. The editors above who are basing their judgment solely on their About us page are clearly unfamiliar with the site's content and track record.

Addendum: I know this technically isn't part of the RfC question, but I glanced at Yae4's link to the discussion at Talk:GrapheneOS, and I would like to add that XDA Developers (note the bluelink) is also considered reliable — in fact, it's more reliable than 9to5Google, I personally classify it a mid-caliber source. Android Police is another one of those low-caliber sources I was talking about — it's still reliable, but a better source should be used if possible. PhoneArena is not reliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. I am very surprised to see this raised and don't find the criticisms compelling at all - or, to the extent they are, they are a criticism of the vast majority of Internet media. 9to5google isn't like, an academic peer-reviewed journal, no, and sure, you can find some empty "hey check out this story elsewhere" articles. But that's true of nearly all local newspapers that purchase stories from the Associated Press or the like, too. No compelling evidence is offered of actual problems as best I can see. A site that sometimes covers gossip & speculation is very different from a site that is unreliable. And I find the "Videographer" complaint baffling - is the problem that the article was published by someone whose title is "video editor"? That hardly seems a problem. Anyway, use common sense applies: don't cite empty slow news day non-stories (in the same way to not do this with legacy media like newspapers), but citing their usual work is fine. SnowFire (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Upgrade to strong option 1. Yae1's comment below makes me consider them unreliable on this topic. I was willing to grant that there was perhaps a grain of truth with the complaints, but Yae1's comment seems as if they're talking about an entirely different website - accusing the site of being user-generated? This isn't a wiki. What. SnowFire (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oh, let me think, let me think... Oh, I know! Option 1: Generally reliable! Because clearly a website called 9to5Google is going to be a completely unbiased and reliable source for all technology articles. I mean, who needs fact-checking and credible sources when you have a catchy name like that? Man-at-Bogomil (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, so by the same token, you believe Bloomberg News is biased when it comes to reporting news on Mike Bloomberg, and The New York Times is biased when it comes to reporting news on New York City? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  PinkNews has a well-documented magenta bias. DFlhb (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Summarizing what I see so far, following WP:RELIABLE categories. I agree there are some (i.e. more than zero) examples of decent reporting in 9to5Google; however, on balance closer to option 3 - unreliable, with rare exceptions is still my view.

Negatives:

• Biased and opinionated WP:PARTISAN
• Age matters (recentism) WP:RSAGE and Breaking news WP:RSBREAKING
• News organizations WP:RSEDITORIAL
• Questionable sources WP:QUESTIONABLE: Little evidence of editorial oversight, corrections or similar.
• Sponsored content WP:SPONSORED
• User-generated content WP:USERGENERATED: Examples have been given of using ...adding... Twitter or website post quotes as the primary basis for short articles with no other sources or quotes given, and no significant interpretation or comment.
• Quotations: WP:RS/QUOTE They use a lot; no signs of independent checking.
• Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources WP:RSPRIMARY: By republishing primary material, they are essentially a primary source proxy.

Neutrals:

• Context matters WP:RSCONTEXT

Positives:

• Usage by other sources WP:USEBYOTHERS.

Notes on InfiniteNexus examples: TheGuardian example subject was an advertising campaign (recentism, sponsored?), and 9to5Google looks like part of that campaign with links to YouTube. CNET is a Red Ventures platform, i.e. a publisher run by an internet marketing and advertising company. Axios: "Some editors consider Axios to be a biased or opinionated source." The example is one that was updated; however, it was updated to include tweets; not great per WP:RSPTWITTER. CNBC is not on WP:RSP WP:UBO is one of several criteria, but it is not a go/no-go criterion. "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims." The Verge: One good example. Perhaps having more than one contributor to the article is an indicator.

-- Yae4 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

All of these "negatives" are misapplications of policy. RSBREAKING applies to how we should treat breaking news stories, not to outlet reliability. Their articles are not user-generated, and their sponsored content is clearly marked. You say you haven't seen any corrections, but still haven't pointed to any factual mistakes which would merit one. Partisan-ness doesn't affect general reliability, and the alleged "statement of bias" was a misinterpretation. RSQUOTE again applies to us, not to them; reliable outlets routinely quote the subjects of their articles. The fact that they embed tweets has no bearing on their reliability (NYTimes does it too).

It's unusual for a source, which is used by Springer, Wiley, and The Guardian (among others), to be brought up at RSN without any examples of misstatements of fact. Could we at least see some evidence of misstatements?

(Note: I've actually found one case of 9to5Google being inappropriate used as a source on GrapheneOS for a statement it didn't support; now fixed.) DFlhb (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This comment, wow ... no. It's neither WP:PARTISAN, nor WP:QUESTIONABLE, nor WP:USERGENERATED. I am struggling to see why you think so. WP:RSAGE, WP:RSBREAKING, and WP:RS/QUOTE have nothing to do with this, I strongly suggest you re-read those links to see what they are actually referring to. WP:RSEDITORIAL content is perfectly fine to use for reception info, and WP:SPONSORED content is clearly identified. The WP:RSPRIMARY claim is absurd, secondary sources that reprint statements from primary sources do not automatically become primary sources. And all of what you said can very well be applied to highly reputable sources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus, DFlhb, and SnowFire:, Your opinions are appreciated, but not the only ones. I count opinions at:

• Option 3: ||||| (two unspecified but interpreted as 3-)
• Option 2: |
• Option 1: |||

I will make a short addition to my WP:USERGENERATED comment above. If a source interprets and elaborates significantly on the Twitter or website posts they quote, that is one thing. Basically repeating the posts with only insignificant comment is another. In my examples above, it's another IMO - they basically just re-publish the posts with little to nothing of significance added.

DFlhb, I note the affiliated site 9to5Mac is cited a few times at Mac_(computer), sourcing is still an open item at the GA nomination, and at Talk:Mac_(computer) ProcrastinatingReader criticized 9to5Mac as one of many "Apple-focused news sites". BTW, I don't entirely agree with your changes at GrapheneOS. Also, the "Pointy" comment was inappropriate IMO. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yae4: No, that is not what WP:USERGENERATED is about. Please re-read the essay. It's about stuff like wikis, Facebook, or nearly-anyone-can-join blogs like Forbes contributor sections. If a hypothetical news site did nothing but re-post material from elsewhere, albeit filtered through a real human journalist picking the content rather than a bot - that wouldn't fall afoul of USERGENERATED. Such a site is probably crappy and might be downranked on other grounds, of course, but not USERGENERATED. As long as there's a staff journalist doing the vetting and posting, it's in the clear.

More generally, regardless of the policy cited, I'd want to see evidence of Actually Problematic Use. Such stories are not necessarily a problem if used for what they are. The "value add" of a 9to5google repost is essentially "this is considered relevant by at least one journalist" compared to the sheafs of press releases and patch notes that nobody cares about. If such a "lazy repost" is cited merely for that - that company XYZ released this and said blah - then it's fine. If it's treating the company's more contestable claims as truth, then that can be fixed by making the Wikipedia text match the citation and qualifying the claim, not by deprecating the source. (And this kind of story is not a majority of their posts anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC on sources of West Herzegovina Canton symbols

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone have a word with David Gerard

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

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

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

The reliable source guidelines [[55]] here says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firefangledfeathers and Andrevan.

What are you talking about?

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

As I've proven, it follows the guidelines.

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

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

It does not involve claims about third parties.

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

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

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

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

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

Zaathras it is about herself.

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

This is why Wikipedia annoys the hell out of me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrevan I repeat:

"Usually in articles about themselves or their activities"

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we can easily find better sources. There's no reason to use the Daily Mail in this situation, even if we could - higher-quality sources are always preferred over lower-quality ones, so even if the Daily Mail weren't deprecated we wouldn't want to use it here. More generally, while it's sometimes unpopular, removing low-quality sources (and, sometimes, things cited to them) is a necessary part of maintaining an encyclopedia. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is an extremely valuable and high quality source when it comes to writing about women in popular culture, a well known blindspot of Wikipedia's content. It writes more stories than any other newspaper, has a large cadre of respected women journalists and contributors, and as such, has a market leading proportion of women readers. These are inconvenient facts for Wikipedia editors, who have never let the reliably reported facts about the Mail's actual business practices as observed by neutral industry analysts get in the way of their at times visceral hatred of this one specific publication. Views that by and large are only ever presented here alongside highly biased if not highly inappropriate sources to support them. The irony is always palpable, and highly relevant. DefJamKlapp (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Why is the Daily Mail reference uselful?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry I missed this, Andrevan. I re-read RSP and it turns out my understanding is not grounded in any explicit statement. If you ctrl-f for "aboutself" on that page, you'll see multiple other sources that have similar notes about ABOUTSELF, most of which make it clear the exception is meant for statements about the publication or its publisher. I think it's reasonable to think this means that the Daily Mail's exception is meant for the same sorts of things, but it would also be reasonable to assume that the different language means the exception is different. Shrug. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• I agree that The New York Times does not meet WP:MEDRS. We should rely on scholarly literature not newspaper articles.--عبد المسيح (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this the same Daily Mail, that erroneously described Constantine II of Greece as being a nephew of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh? -- GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

To the people commenting in this section, what is being said about the actual validity of the source for this specific statement? Are the actual claim here that the Daily Mail wrote a fake article and published it under the name of some lady, with completely fictitious quotes talking about a TV show she made? This seems both implausible and easy to confirm/disprove: can't we just ask her if that's what she said? jp×g 04:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Extensive timewasting from blocked sockpuppet account

@JPxG: You have pretty much summed up the official Wikipedia position (in as much as the Wikipedia position is merely the collective will of its volunteers, even though by sheer volume of edits alone David Gerard does seem to have a disproportionate influence over this matter). Wikipedia believes the Daily Mail knowingly and deliberately fabricates any and all material to be found in the publication, in any medium and under any brand/topic (as such, even the idea that they would say truthful things about themselves, seems absurd, but this doesn't seem to be important to them). They believe all this in spite of the fact this must mean that a large proportion of the British public must be complete morons, and all the well respected and highly intelligent contributors to the publication must be complicit in this large scale fraud. Wikipedia is happy to assume the Mail could well have fabricated this story, for no better reason than to make money, and it is apparently not relevant to them that it would be trivially easy to ask the woman involved, because of course, their position is held in part because they believe she could very well be a willing part of the fraud. Wikipedia gets away with this sort of absurdity simply because the hosts of this service cannot be sued, only the individuals making these claims, even though it seems clear that these claims are originating not from individuals as such, but as a collective institutional smear. DefJamKlapp (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC) This isn't difficult. If there were not literally hundreds of examples of the Daily Mail fabricating stories (or simply deliberately exaggerating or distorting facts), it would not be deprecated. Further, if something is true, is important, and is in the Daily Mail, it'll be in a more reliable source anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC) It apparently is difficult. I have certainly never seen a list running into "hundreds", which without a source certainly sounds like a deliberate exaggeration. Nor any acceptance that, for a publication a prolific as the Mail, even "hundreds" might rapidly pale into statistical insignificance over time. Bearing in mind, Wikipedians in apparently all seriousness, regularly cite example from more than fifty years ago. And that on Wikipedia it is often remarkable how often the same few examples are thrown up again and again, showing quite well I think that it seems to be widely known here that finding "hundreds" of examples of the Mail being unreliable in ways that would show this is something unique to the Mail and being done deliberately, would be quite impossible. So it isn't done. It is merely claimed to be true. Because it is desired to be true. And of course, the circular logic of using the Mail's editorial selections to define what is and is not important to Wikipedia, is beneath anyone seeking to have a serious debate about the true motives behind its systematic exorcism from this supposed encyclopedia. DefJamKlapp (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC) This needs closing, the place to discuss user conduct is not here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Arguably this is no longer about Gerard specifically, but Wikipedia's chronic gender gap and how the ban on the Mail probably only adds to the issue. A 90 year old woman has chosen to write about her pioneering contribution to feminist media back in the 60s. She has chosen to write about it in the Mail, because the media in question was a Mail initiative and she was a Mail employee. Wikipedia editors have taken the position that what she has written is not only not an example of the Mail writing about itself, but is also quite possibly fraud because of their prejudiced views of the Mail, and want us to believe that the fact other media has ignored it can only be interpreted as a sign it is unimportant, rather than an example of the long running issue where of course the BBC and rival newspapers never want to run positive stories about the Mail if they can help it. Wikipedia editors see no problem with instead only relying on contemporary sources to support content related to these events, even though that misses out on a large amount of historical context and in turn exposes it to the biases of the era. Not for the first time, you get the sense the outcome would be different if there was just one single women editor present. DefJamKlapp (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC) We had an RFC that came to a decision, to overturn that and needs a new RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC) And what are the chances of such a thing being allowed to run to term and being closed by someone genuinely independent of the Wikipedia movement (but suitably briefed on the relevant closing procedures, such as weighting)? I say nil. DefJamKlapp (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Trying to leverage the gender gap as an excuse to reinstate this miserable publication is quite the take. Shirley Conran is covered on WP, as is her connection with Femail and the DM. The absence of the DM as a reliable source has not affected the gender gap issue at all, so far as I'm aware. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC) The fact that all Wikipedia currently says on the matter is that "She wrote for the Daily Mail and in 1968 became women's editor and launched Femail, the newspaper's first dedicated women's section" proved you are wrong. What is being left out of that biography, the very reason she was picked by the BBC to make the programme in question here back then, is clearly detrimental to the noble goal of ensuring women's roles and voices are being fairly represented. The reason is the ban. And it is one thing to claim that their omission from other source somehow proves these things are unimportant to Wikipedia. It is quite another to claim Shirley would be complicit in writing a fraudulent article for the Mail, some fifty years after the events in question. DefJamKlapp (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC) As far as I recall (as a participant) the RFC that deprecated the DM did not even mention her, it was not depreciated due to her input. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC) The point is, she is affected by the ban. Her coverage in Wikipedia, is directly affected by the ban. A fact that could have been foreseen, had the proper weight been given to those who pointed out at the time that contrary to the unevidenced smears of the majority, whose prejudice against the Mail was palpable, the Mail is quite clearly a significant publication in a wide range of fields, including women's role in society. Gender is quite obviously the reason why, given that when the debate did touch on such matters, it only seemed to be the loss of football results that concerned people here. Men's football, naturally. I wonder how many biographies of lesser known women footballers here suffer as a result of this ban, especially if they date back to the time when Shirley was driving the agenda. One of many questions I suspect Wikipedia wants no part in asking, especially not under the conditions of an RfC. DefJamKlapp (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC) So are a lot of men, so this is not aimed at silencing her, or any woman. She is not banned, the DM is, she can write for other newspapers that are not banned. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox News

A small group of editors at the Twitter files article have refused to consider the use of Fox News as a source for the article, even though it is the mainstream media outlet that has done the most extensive reporting on the issue. It also appears that one or two admins have blocked IP editors who have suggested using Fox as a source. Has Wikipedia blacklisted Fox News site-wide, or only in political articles frequented by the same established editors and admins? 152.130.15.15 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• From WP:RSP; "For politics and science, there is consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas.". Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "small group of editors" on one talk page, but all of the editors who discussed the issue here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not all who discussed there agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Unanimity is not a synonym for consensus... --Jayron32 20:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

... which is why people shouldn't claim it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The point being that OP is mischaracterizing the consensus as among only a small group of editors. Andre🚐 15:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

While Fox is certainly a "main" media outlet, after Trump it has become a fringe media outlet pushing conspiracy theories, fake news, and directly repeating Russian propaganda from Russian media sources. Main does not equal mainstream. At Wikipedia, a source's popularity with a segment of society (increasingly radicalized and far-right wing) does not guarantee reliability. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox News should not be considered reliable for this instance. A recent RFC found that it is not generally reliable for politics, and should be used with care for controversial topics. WP:FOXNEWS recent RFC Andre🚐 22:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The RfC found no consensus on the reliability of Fox for politics. Editors who claim it was found to be generally unreliable/not reliable are misinforming others. I will note Andrevan is correctly stating it was not found to be "generally reliable" but the yellow category is a considerations apply, not "do not use". This is certainly a story where information reported by Fox should not be dismissed on a procedural basis. Springee (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is "do not use" for controversial claims, which Twitter Files are. Andre🚐 14:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is case by case. Also the Twitter files as a whole are not a controversial claim. You would have to look at the specific claim being added to the article to say "exclude as controversial". Springee (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not case by case for controversial claims. It is only usable in routine and uncontroversial situations and better sources should be used when available. Andre🚐 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree, case by case for controversial claims. That also means we agree it can be used for controversial claims in some cases. Springee (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Huh? I just said, no it cannot be used for controversial claims. Andre🚐 14:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, then you are wrong per the guidelines. "Other considerations apply" != "can not be used". Springee (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you need to read it, it is not a high-quality source for controversial claims. It may be used for uncontroversial and routine claims. Andre🚐 15:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Per the above, this has been discussed many times (see WP:FOXNEWS for a list of them), and the general consensus is that while Fox News is generally reliable for some subjects, it should NOT be considered a reliable source for politics, especially for exceptional claims which are not corroborated by other sources. It should generally be avoided; if it is the only such source, then it shouldn't be used, and if its reporting is corroborated by strictly reliable sources, use those instead. --Jayron32 14:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Sigh… Has anything changed since the last 10 times we discussed Fox News? If not, give it a rest. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• No it seems not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• To be fair, not everyone that comes asking was privy to the earlier discussions, nor knows how to find them. Much better to be empathetic with people new to the area, and gently help them understand the current consensus and where to read the discussions to know how how we arrived there. It may be the 10th time you've dealt with the matter, but it's the OPs first. And when it's your 11th, it will be the NEXT person's first as well. --Jayron32 20:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Since the RfC was closed as Yellow for Fox News and politics, it shouldn't be excluded as a view on the subject. A number of editors have incorrectly taken the RfC to mean Fox should never be used for political claims other than in about self type instances. That is not what the closing said. Instead it should be evaluated on a case by case basis and typically attributed. If Fox is saying something that may be different from other sources then including with attribution should be fine. Note this does not apply to cases where the Fox News story is referencing a Fox commentator. Springee (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that it can be used with attribution, though I would try to find something better if possible. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Recommend you read the close again as well as the description of a marginally reliable source. The close clearly found a consensus that Fox News is not generally reliable for politics and should not be used for contentious or controversial claims. It may be attributed for opinion, but it should be avoided for situations where it is saying something different than other sources. This RfC establishes Fox News's marginal reliability not through an absence of consensus as to reliability (as determined in the July 2020 RfC) but instead through an affirmative community consensus that Fox News does not qualify as "generally reliable". Andre🚐 14:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not green != generally unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. In this case the specific claims being attributed to Fox would matter. Springee (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  The claims would have to be routine and uncontroversial facts. Andre🚐 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, if it isn't routine/uncontroversial then it should be reviewed and discussed. It should not be dismissed out of hand based on the false idea that RSP yellow=never use for anything other than.... Springee (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's not what is going on. What's going on is that a consensus of editors on the Twitter Files have determined it shouldn't be used for those, and some editors don't understand how the system works. Andre🚐 15:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at the article talk page the question about Fox wasn't asked well since it just said "Why no Fox?" That could be as simple as "we haven't found a claim that we needed to source to them". However, the answers that amount to a blanket ban on the use are wrong and do not align with the closings of the RSN discussions. Springee (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  There's nothing blanket about it, it's a specific context of controversial political article topics and statements. Andre🚐 18:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not "generally reliable" is not the same as do not use for politics. Again, this is the problem with editors who have taken reasonable claims (Option 2, use with care/considerations apply) and turn it into (don't use for politics). With something like the WSJ we generally will assume the information is good if reported there. With Fox we should look and think before including. That does not mean, never use or only use for very basic claims. If Fox is saying something different we need to ask what is being said and in what way is it different? Is it a conflicting interpretation (ie both claims are interpretations but Fox and CNN reach different interpretations)? In that case we could include Fox with attribution. Is it a medical related claim that conflicts with the CDC? In that case we shouldn't include it. Is it a non-interpretive fact that other source having mentions, in that case we can include it assuming it's relevant. That we are cautious when using Fox is a good thing (and should apply to more sources). That we think total exclusion is a good idea moves us towards systemic bias. Springee (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fox News generally does not qualify as a high-quality source[] for the purposes of substantiating exceptional claims. That includes basically everything about the Twitter Files and the Covid vaccine claims being made therein. Andre🚐 14:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Generally dose not!= do not use. Additionally, we need to be clear what counts as an exceptional claim. "Biden was found to be on Russian paylist" = exceptional claim. Without knowing the specific Twitter claim in question we can't say it was or was not "exceptional". Springee (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  There's a consensus of editors on the Twitter Files talk page that it shouldn't be used for the Twitter Files. Andre🚐 14:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  It appears that "consensus" is based on a limited number of editors who are misapplying WP:RSP. I would encourage any editor who thinks they are being stonewalled by editors who assume Fox cannot be used for politics vs should be used with care to start a RfC. Then editors can try to make more coherent arguments and a a RfC closing can decide if "Fox not OK for politics" arguments can be dismissed. Springee (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, again, look at both that and this discussion, there is a consensus that Fox News should not be used for controversial claims. A new RFC is certainly not necessary as there is a consensus. Your opinion is not changing the consensus. Andre🚐 14:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  You are wrong about what RSP yellow actually means. Yes, that is how many use it and often numbers trump the actual guidelines in question but that is not the correct read. Additionally, a local RfC on the content supersedes the RSP RfC. It both satisfies the "considerations apply" part and would allow editors to decide if the specific claim in question is actually "contentious"/controversial. Springee (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  By virtue of editors determining this material is contentious and controversial and by determining that Fox News shouldn't be used in this instance, the RFC is satisfied as well as the local consensus. There is no consensus that Fox News may be used in this instance. There is a consensus that Fox News is not generally reliable. Andre🚐 15:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Since no specific claim was proposed it is inappropriate to issue a general statement that Fox cannot be used. We also do need to be careful when local consensus is based on a relatively small number of editors with a similar view on the subject. I've seen cases where local consensus says one thing but when a broader group looks at the question the consensus flips. Still, since we don't have a specific claim and source in question all we can reasonably say is, there is no blanket ban. Specific claims need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  The local consensus and the project consensus and the noticeboard consensus all say that Fox News is not reliable for controversial political issues. Andre🚐 18:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think one can make a blanket statement like basically everything about the Twitter Files and the Covid vaccine claims being made therein, it depends. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  One can make such a statement if one has the support of consensus. Andre🚐 14:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure but we are talking about the RFC here, not a local consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  But that also means editors who simply argue "Fox not allowed for politics" aren't offering a meaningful reason to decline the information. They might as well say "Fox not OK because we don't know what the fox says". Springee (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Who is arguing that? Would you read the OP's post again? Fox News cannot and should not be used per the OP's argument. Andre🚐 14:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  The OP asked if Fox is blacklisted. The obvious answer is no it is not. Since the OP didn't say what specific claim was being added we can't answer if it considerations have applied or not. Springee (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  The OP is referring to a conversation about the Twitter Files. Andre🚐 14:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  The question here was if Fox can be used at all, no specific claim is or source article has been presented here. Springee (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  You just need to read what the OP wrote again, because that is not what the OP wrote. Andre🚐 15:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's not clear to me, the OP should refile like the old days, is Fox News reliable, with attribution, for (some statement). Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good suggestion. One of the worst things to happen at RSN was the creation of RSP. It basically encourages editors to try to get sources bucketed based on their preference rather than doing what RS says we should do, consider if the source is reliable for the specific claim in question. Springee (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  The ship has sailed on this. Andre🚐 15:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Let's see if the OP does refile, I am withholding judgement until then. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not quite. One of the key questions with marginal sources (which is what we concluded Fox is, when it comes to politics) is whether a claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL or not. It can be used for simple unexceptional statements; it can't be used for shocking things, political scandals, or other claims of an exceptional nature. This is article is clearly focused on the latter - it posits an extensive conspiracy between various political actors, the government, and the former management of Twitter based on virtually no evidence or on evidence that essentially all reliable sources have said they're misrepresenting. More generally, it should be obvious that when it comes to this topic, statements that are only citable to Fox are quite frequently going to be exceptional - a common problem when trying to cite marginally reliable sources, so it generally shouldn't be used here. Fox is still used in all sorts of places for all sorts of unexceptional claims, but the fact is that most of the areas we're likely to come into dispute on are going to be cases where Fox says exceptional things. (In fact, OP essentially acknowledges that this is exceptional when they say that only Fox is writing about these aspects - the easiest way to demonstrate that something is unexceptional is to show multiple sources covering it.) More generally, the simple reality is that yellow sources should be replaced by higher-quality sources whenever possible; and when they can't be replaced because they're the only source for something, that's often a reason to examine that statement very carefully to make sure it's not exceptional. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I've read the Fox News articles on the Twitter Files in comparison to more typical media, and the usual problems with Fox and politics shine there - they are taking the claims of Elon Musk and those he shared the files with as undisputable facts, whereas most media point out that the files only point to typical moderation choices that would be handled at a large internet forum board. The only place where Fox news has any relevance is they are one of the dogwhistles to try to boost the importance of these files beyond what they actually are (something we can source to more reliable sources) Masem (t) 15:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I would still like to see what it is exactly the OP seeks to have an opinion about, it reads more like a complaint about our classification of Fox and doesn't actually say anything specific about Twitter files (I had to look that up). Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Twitter files is 100% political, as it is claims of Twitter censoring conservative voices including collusion with the federal gov't to do so. Given that most mainstream sources pretty much ignored the antics of the Twitter Files while the right-leaning media (including NYPost and WSJ, in addition to Fox and others) dove into the claims, it tells us that we need very careful handling of how they should be reported, and certainly not taking the original reports at their word. Masem (t) 15:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, but if there is attribution, we are not taking the reports at their word, we are not making claims in WP voice as fact. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The contents of the Twitter Files (which are the original stories posted by individual journalists typically not associated with any work) should definitely be quoted and attributed if used, and attributed if summarized. That said, when we summarize, we should not summarize ourselves from the primary source (that clearly would include OR), so we need a secondary source to tell us what the summary is. That is where we need reliable secondary sources that shouldn't be stretching the truth of the original primary source (eg: we should not interpret Supreme Court rulings ourselves but rely on this type of reporting from secondary sources to tell us what is important, and to that end, we want good, quality RSes for that that will not twist the truth).

Fortunately in the case of the Twitter Files, we do have RSes that explain the take that right-leaning sources are taking, alongside a less nuanced take on what the impact of the files really are, so there's no need to evoke the primary source (outside of showing where they came from) and poor RSes like Fox. Masem (t) 15:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Masem Wow, thank you for that enlightening and not at all tedious explanation of how to properly attribute sources. I mean, who needs to actually read the primary source when you can just rely on some 'reliable secondary sources' to tell you what's important? And thank goodness we have those trusty 'RSes' to guide us away from those pesky 'right-leaning sources' and protect us from the dangers of actually thinking for ourselves. Truly, this is the height of Wikipedian integrity. Man-at-Bogomil (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC) [troll blocked; Drmies (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)]

This is a core aspect of WP:NOR and WP:PSTS. We prefer reliable secondary sources over reliable primary sources as the secondary sources will help explain why something is important and avoid editor's own OR to make such a claim (as it would absolutely be for a case like the Twitter Files). Masem (t) 05:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this gets to what I've argued all along, we need to see the specific claim and the specific source. I agree that if "Musk says X" we shouldn't treat that as anything other than a likely self serving claim made by Musk. If Fox quotes it we have to decide if Musk's opinion on the subject is DUE. If Fox treat it as fact we should not and should consider if it should be included (I'm not inclined to believe Musk). However, we should not kneejerk reject any inclusion of Fox as a source. Springee (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem is exactly right. Andre🚐 15:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see where the IP/OP has provided any example here nor there. So, why are we wasting time? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• The nuance of our RSP listing is important… while it is accurate to say that we do not consider Fox generally reliable, that does not mean we consider it generally unreliable. It is currently in a wishy-washy in-between state. And THAT means we have to examine whether it is or is not specifically reliable (ie reliable for a specific statement, in a specific article). So, until we know the specifics, we can not answer the OP’s question, except to say “no, we have not banned Fox outright… but there are restrictions, so we need more information”. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're ignoring that OP has provided a specific article and it is a controversial one. In that case, no, Fox is not reliable. Andre🚐 18:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The OP only asked one question Has Wikipedia blacklisted Fox News site-wide, or only in political articles frequented by the same established editors and admins? Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Just glossing over the opening sentence that elucidates the context. A small group of editors at the Twitter files article have refused to consider the use of Fox News as a source for the article. Andre🚐 18:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Context, background, who knows? That's why I said I would wait and see if OP refiles, if not there is nothing to debate. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup… a dif or two would be helpful here, so we could see what specifically is not being accepted and the context in which the OP wishes to cite it. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Response to IP. I believe the Wiki-community has already decided on which news outlets are reliable, which aren't & anywhere in between. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• The focus of the article is clearly on exceptional claims about politics, which are not appropriate to cite to a marginally reliable source like Fox. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Digitaljournal.com

This site was discussed in 2011, and deemed not reliable. I encountered it in MC Luna Trine, which uses this article as a reference. As you can see, it is complete rubbish and shouldn't be used on enwiki. However, I notice that digitaljournal.com is used on 1707 articles[56], including many high profile ones. Many of their posts are just AfP reprints it seems, so these can be get from other sources. Do others have similar experiences with the source, or is this just a one-off aberration? Fram (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fram: I've run in to this one a thousand times, always on those kinds of articles. It's a mix of limited original content, and a large amount of aggregate news feeds and paid placement/press release material. The only point in their favor is that they do not try to hide the source; articles have a clear indicator of which press release feed (iNewswire, CDN Newswire, Newsmantraa, TheExpressWire, etc) provided the material, or if it from a "real" news feed. That one is "GetNews", which seems to just spew out PR and crytobro stuff, so not in any way RS. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I ran across another new article using such a "Get News" promo article as a source. Is there an easy way to get this source restricted or blacklisted? Fram (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Horror Obsessive

Is this source reliable? They appear to have an editorial team. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 23:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Having an editorial staff is necessary, but not sufficient. I don't see any other reliable sources citing this website. I note that Rotten Tomatoes does not accept its reviews except where written by a couple of specific reviewers, which means those reviewers are notable and reliable, but not the website itself. If it's not good enough for Rotten Tomatoes, it's not good enough for Wikipedia. Banks Irk (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes accepts all kinds of self-published blogs as "Tomatometer approved". Being accepted by Rotten Tomatoes is meaningless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Being rejected by Rotten Tomatoes, on the other hand, is pretty much the kiss of death when it comes to reliability. Banks Irk (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of children's publisher Gareth Stevens

Sadly this is treated as a reliable source in many articles.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=%22Gareth+Stevens+Publishing%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1] Maybe some of the authors are experts, I didn't find any. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says that it specializes in "non-fiction reference" works aimed at Children. While this may mean it is simplified or written at a level appropriate for younger readers, that doesn't automatically make it unreliable. Such sources are likely tertiary sources, but otherwise not particularly due more or less scrutiny than other tertiary sources. --Jayron32 15:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 As I implied, the authors I saw were not subject matter experts but writers of children’s books. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, then find different sources. --Jayron32 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How is that in any way a useful reply. That's just another way of saying I shouldn't have brought this here. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if you don't find that it's reliable, don't use it. You asked for people's opinion on the reliability of the source. My opinion, as I stated already, is that one should use different sources because this source doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS. I'm not sure why you are upset given that it seems you are of the same opinion. Weird. --Jayron32 19:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think juvenile non-fiction such as this (textbooks for kids) are acceptable as an WP:RS (WP:TIER3 IMO). I wouldn't use it for anything controversial, but for basic facts, I don't see why this publisher should be considered unreliable. Obviously I'd change my mind given specific evidence of unreliability by this publisher. But is it unreliable just because its aimed at a juvenile audience? No, I don't think so. Obviously we can do better in terms of sourcing, but that doesn't mean it can't be used. Levivich (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that publications targeted to schoolchildren should not be used as sources. WP: TERTIARY says that introductory-level university textbooks can be used as reliable sources. Elementary and secondary level textbooks are not listed as examples of reliable tertiary sources. I think that omission is telling (and I can think of a number of reasons that schoolbooks would not be reliable...but I won't belabor that question). I believe that the publications at issue here, which are heavily illustrated 40-50 page books consisting of dozens of paragraph-long mini articles on the general subject-matter of the book, are not reliable sources. If you look at how these books are being referenced, the cited text is never more than a passing, incidental factoid. If these books are to be used as reliable sources, we might as well base literary plot summaries and character studies on Classics Illustrated. Banks Irk (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just to add that this was my take and the reason I brought it here. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

georgia today

Is https://web.archive.org/web/20180321134612/http://georgiatoday.ge/news/3112/American-Ex-Paratrooper-Joins-Georgian-Legion-Fighting-in-Ukraine a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ola Tønningsberg (talk • contribs)

I would say yes. It seems like a standard English-language newspaper with an editorial team in a democratic country. Unless there's some disqualifying factor that I'm not aware of, it should be fine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Forbes as a source

User:Horse Eye's Back has asserted that Forbes is not always considered a WP:RS. I am working on a draft article. I had wanted to include that the subject studied ballet in her youth per this source. However, this edit contests the verifiability of the source. Is this really the case.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FORBESCON, Forbes staff and Forbes contributors are two very different sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thx -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The same content regarding her ballet experience is included in this podcast. The aformentioned contested verifiability edit summary says something about this source being OK. Can I add that she studied ballet in her youth based on the podcast content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess that would be a listed exception. Sorry.

Resolved

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sufficiency for status as advocate/activist

What is sufficient to support the claim that a subject is advocate or activist for diversity? this and this seem to support the claim. However, User:Melcous asserts this claim is not verifiably supported per this edit. Do I just need to reword the claim or is something wrong with this source?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger My point was that a person saying in interviews that there should be more diversity in an industry (which all the source you cited at the time said) does not make them an activist. Please also note WP:COI which says If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. This is about a WP:COI article about my sister that is currently at Draft:Carla Vernón.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Melcous, So if I am understanding you that was not an issue with the source, but my editorial interpretation. If it does not make one an activist, does it make one an advocate. What about with the second source? I think there may be other sources on the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I stumbled across this diversity advocacy on her social media.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger my main issue is that you are writing about someone you have a close personal relationship with and you are interpreting sources in ways that tend to overstate and "puff up" their achievements, which is one of the reasons WP:COI editing is a problem - it is hard for you to be objective about this. Nothing I see in any of the sources you have pointed to would support the inclusion of this content. Also note that the tweet you are referencing is not publicly available, tweets are not independent sources, and generally speaking (without being able to see the tweet) a tweet in and of itself is not what is generally considered advocacy (and in fact the reply that is publicly viewable simply says "Thanks for sharing your experience". Melcous (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Source sufficiency for Hidden Figure claim

• This is about a WP:COI article about my sister that is currently at Draft:Carla Vernón.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Although the publication seems to be an RS, I am not sure I can include the Hidden Figures content. Is this interview a sufficient source for the content to be included as it? Since Biz journals have an editorial structure do we assume the content is sufficiently varified by their publication? Alternatively, can that content be sourced to this podcast?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources and twitter

I see sometimes on the reliable sources verified accounts on twitter can be a source. I was wondering if the account is not verified but it is shown in multiple reliable sources such as the time, the Guardian... that they mention the username that it's the real one, can it be used then?

For more informations , I found a draft called Draft: Edward Hayter and have been editing it since then as he is one of my favourite actor. The reason of the main question is because he doesn't have much articles about him but he has collaborated with Victoria Emslie and she has stated in these reliable sources her twitter username, and she does mention him and it would make more reliable sources and content I could use such as proving he was in a music video with her

Veganpurplefox, if I understand your question correctly. If the Guardian states "this twitter account belongs to that person", then IMO that "works" for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes. However WP:SPS is quite strict here: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Emphasis in original. So it will not help you in WP-land. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

So it says "you can follow (this person) on @(this person)". So it's quite hard to know how I can use it. Also is a Spotify podcast where they are being interviewed a reliable source?

List of possible impact structures on Earth uses a number of unreliable sources

Links to this site [57] are used quite a bit, and I note that when the site does source it is often or usually to conference papers, etc. In the actual article searching for conf. turns up 9 conference papers. Also 10 uses of ironically a Roger Weller [58] who is a geography instructor at Cochise College which offers associate degrees. 15 links to meetings. Most if not all of the two word citations are links to the Russian site. A bit of a mess. Am I correct about my assessment of these sources, esp the Russian one? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a question of list inclusion criteria, and whether these references are even required. RSN is for global discussion of specific sources. Let's take the discussion to Talk:List of possible impact structures on Earth. — hike395 (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Soap Opera News for the dob of an actor?

Is this page at Soap Opera News relaible for the date of birth of actor Mike Manning? Nightscream (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The source doesn't really pass the "sniff test". The About Us page looks rather amateurish. For certain banal things like perhaps episode synopses and air dates and stuff like that, it might be better than nothing, but I wouldn't hang any WP:BLP-type stuff on it, especially not birthdates. --Jayron32 02:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

ThisIs50.com

Could use a wider perspective here - this site "thisis50.com" seems to be popping up quite frequently alongside known SEO/PR sites that pretend to be news. It's usually pretty easy to spot these kinds of SEO sinks, but this one appears to be different: it seems to be group blog created by 50 Cent and others, branding itself a "Top Entertainment & Hip-hop Blog." It's not clear how any of the names being dropped are still involved on the site.

While there may be legitimate content in there somewhere, there is a tremendous amount of material that is PR/SEO puffery, and is not clearly labeled as paid content, nor is there any hint of an editorial process. Worse, there are dozens of ads for paid placement on other PR sites (examples: [59], [60]). There are also SEO "experts" on fiverr and other gig sites promoting the same "guaranteed placement".

Since there's no attempt to distinguish the paid placement from any legitimate content, if any, I'd like to start removing the 230+ references to this source, but would like to make sure I'm not missing anything, given the context. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The business model seems to heavily involve undisclosed paid content, so I would support removing the references. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

new update software

updating software 223.233.74.137 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Is OhNoitsJamie wrong or right? When and where can the allegations of Castorina's perjury be included in his article?

OhNoitsJamie sent this.

Final warning; please take it to WP:RSN[edit] You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. It is not appropriate to make allegations of perjury in the WP:LEDE of a WP:BLP article based on primary source from a single journalist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MY RESPONSE:

1. Frank Parlato broke the story in a series of articles:

https://frankreport.com/?s=castorina

2. Frank Paralto is bonafide:

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist. His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents. His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez. Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS. Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded. Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022. IMDb — Frank Parlato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Parlato,_Jr.

3. Click on the article. There are also:

Filed Court Transcripts

Filed Court Documents

Here is the link to the Filed Court Documents:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FljjGb1Vy0xnOWHqkVi0rcVrvB7c7SEK/view?usp=sharing

4. Here is another source:

https://luthmann.substack.com/p/luthmann-files-motion-to-vacate-fake

5.This story will probably break BIG in the NY media over the next day or two. RALafontaine (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

In hindsight, I probably should've suggested that you take this to WP:BLPN, but there are overlapping issues here; mainly, that a single, questionable primary source is not suffucient to publish perjury allegations in the WP:LEDE of a BLP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie is correct. We cannot accuse a living person of a crime based on a self published blog post, even if the blog poster is a well known journalist. If it does break BIG in the NY media then we can wait until it does and then cite a major news outlet. MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

So who counts in NY? The NY Post, the NY Times, the NY Daily News? RALafontaine (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a question of "who counts in NY." It's a question verifiability via multiple third-party reliable sources, especially for allegations as you've tried to post. See WP:RSP for examples of sources that are considered to be reliable (or not). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I have to agree with OhNoitsJamie here. I certainly believe that the source is reliable, but for BLP issues "exception claims require exception sources". And I don't see the source rising to that level, addition high quality sources would need to publish the allegations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if, as RALafontaine suggests, the news story does "break BIG in the NY media over the next day or two", then sources will soon be available and there's no harm waiting for them. If it doesn't, then perhaps it's not that important and doesn't need including! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC: People Make Games

Which of the following best describes People Make Games's videos in the area of video games?

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

Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1 People Make Games is reliable for video game journalism. They've been cited several times by multiple sources we consider reliable (including PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Polygon, Wired, and even the Washington Post somehow), and all their contributors are professional video game journalists. You can even see in the WaPo article (and other places) that they follow basic journalistic standards like asking their subjects for comment before publishing a story. Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 They seem legit, given that other scrupulously reliable sources treat them as reliable. --Jayron32 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• As we describe on its page, Nuclear Gandhi is an urban legend that Gandhi in the original Civilization was particularly likely to nuke people because of a bug. However, it's come out recently that in fact such a bug did not exist, nor was Gandhi even particularly likely to use nukes, and that this was purely an urban legend the entire time. On the page, we cite this dodgy Russian-language source (translation) for several important claims about it.

However, the source we cite openly says it got this info from the People Make Games YouTube channel, in particular this video, which originally broke the story. And by all appearances this video is a very reliable source. People Make Games is staffed by professional video game journalists, including the one who broke this particular story, they've been cited by other sources we consider reliable (like PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Polygon, Wired, and even the Washington Post somehow) and the video itself contains multiple interviews with the developers themselves saying no such bug exists. In my opinion, PMG is about equal in reliability to Bellingcat for the specific area of video games, and for basically the same reasons.

Yet not only do we not cite the video here, we don't cite People Make Games anywhere, about anything, as far as I can tell. Even for stories that they broke, we always cite someone else just repeating what they said. I believe this is primarily because they publish in video format, on YouTube, rather than in text, and we don't consider "YouTube" reliable. I think this is a silly bias against video content that we'd never allow if PMG was a news channel, and I'm aiming with this RfC to establish that just because PMG publishes its investigations on YouTube, that doesn't mean they're unreliable. Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

While I enjoy watching PMG, they are arguably a self-published source, and thus shouldn't be used as a directly cited source for non-self BLP claims, eg their allegations of abusive behaviour by indie developers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Bellingcat is also arguably a self-published source, yet they're green on WP:RSP, and have absolutely been used for BLP claims before (e.g. they named several Russian intelligence officials involved in the Skripal poisoning). That's why I brought them up, to prove that we don't have a general policy against citizen journalism even in BLPs.

To be clear, I believe the actual situation in both these cases is that PMG/Bellingcat is the publisher and the particular journalist breaking the story is the author, making neither of them WP:SPS. (This is the same as the situation with, say, the NYT; if we said that every employee of an organization is that organization no source would be reliable.) One of the key distinctions between self-published and independent sources is that independent sources have organizational editorial standards, which both PMG and Bellingcat clearly do. Loki (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Per Loki, what makes a self-published source self-published is the lack of a layer of editorial control between the writer and the publication of the information itself. People Make Games is not self-published; they appear to have an editorial staff and vet their stories as well as any other journalism organization. --Jayron32 12:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

People Make Games is a YouTube channel run by 3 people who all collaborate together, far less than the number of journalists working on Bellingcat, so I don't possibly see how it could satisfy having a layer of editorial control between the writer and the publication of the information itself. Most major scoops by PMG have been covered by regular video game journalism websites, so this is really moot anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

But the fact that they keep getting covered by regular video game journalism websites shows that other video game journalists consider them reliable, even despite their small size. And just because other sources frequently cover their work doesn't mean that we don't need to mark them reliable. So for instance, they did an interview with the creators of Blaseball that we ought to be able to quote from, even though to my knowledge it hasn't been cited elsewhere. Loki (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Video game websites cover a lot of shit, frequently including stuff like Twitter posts.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Question Do they have a corrections policy? Do the follow it? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  They don't have a website outside of YouTube and Patreon, so, as far as I can tell, not a published one. However, they have responded to criticism of their work before at length. Loki (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure why we need this source when Sid Meier himself has said this is a myth. But it's not the countless callbacks and references that make the nuclear Gandhi story so funny to me. It's the fact that none of it is true. The overflow error never happened at all. (Sid Meier's Memoir!: A Life in Computer Games p. 262) Although it did exist as an Easter Egg in Civ V. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's not just Nuclear Gandhi I'm talking about here, they've broken other scoops in the past as well. Loki (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Journal article discussion at Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam

Hi Wikipedians, hope you are doing well. Need your comments on Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam. I want to cite one peer reviewed journal article, but before citing need comments on its reliability. Many thanks. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is still ongoing, though it shouldn't be. The paper under discussion is using multiple blogs as secondary sources (see pp. 179), including a blog blacklisted by Wikipedia (!), used for the claim that 27.123.253.x would like to add to the article (https://www.qadrishattari.com/p/habs-e-dam.html but replace .com with .xyz). The website of the journal also cites Global Impact Factor (GIF) as a credential, which redirects to a section in our article about impact factors on 'Counterfeit impact factors'. See also the thread below on SJIF, which might be similar.

It would be perhaps be helpful if a few more editors would weigh in on Talk:Badi'_al-Din#Habs-I-dam, because 27.123.253.x is explicitly refusing to drop the stick. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money"

CNet, usually regarded as an ordinary tech RS, has started experimentally running [61][62] AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors. Currently these articles are under the byline "CNet Money". So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn't. I haven't found any yet, but any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Since November, no less, per your sources. If they haven't yet given up on it, it's concerning. Could it be time to downgrade CNet? I note that at WP:RSP, they are green, but the RfC is dated. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is very worrying... Its one thing if an AI assisted and human edited article is up to the normal standards but I think we do have a real problem here with the content being so much less accurate than their standard content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping this is one high-up editor or publisher with a bee in their bonnet, and the reputational damage will put paid to the initiative before it spreads too far. I've never been a huge fan of CNet, but even at my most cynical about it I wouldn't have classed it with SEO spam blogs - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have always thought that CNET was a mediocre source, but this is really on another level. I would support downgrading the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Is downgrading necessary? These articles don't affect the rest of the articles they make. Just putting a note on RSP that any with the byline CNet Money are unreliable should be good enough. Silverseren^C 19:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur - just that for now would be more than enough. Hopefully they come to their senses. FWIW, the AI articles are all under www.cnet.com/personal-finance - I just looked through them all, and Wikipedia has 24 articles with that string in their source, and none are from the bot - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree for now. Seems like there is consensus among the participants here. Do we need an RfC? Or can we just do it? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that if we have some reason to believe that CNET's personal finance section has a lot of stories with material inaccuracies, we should put a clarifying note for editors using this department to reference articles. I'm not sure if futurism.com is a reliable source, but the things they've pointed out seem to be obvious errors (like if you deposit $10,000 into a savings account that earns 3% interest compounding annually, you'll earn $10,300 at the end of the first year). These are the same kind of errors that human writers tend to make, so I don't know if this is a special case, apart from the apparent failure of editorial oversight. jp×g 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Futurism is an ehhhh source, a lot of reblogging, but they've been doing some good journalism lately.

On CNet, I'd wait until and unless this is more of a problem. I was posting more to warn editors to look out for this sort of thing.

I do think in general, any source that starts putting up AI-generated text in this manner warrants a close inspection - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I just read this article from The Verge, which corroborates Futurism's report. Very concerning, but it would seem only their Money-related articles are affected. At this stage, I wouldn't suggest they be blacklisted, but this scandal should be noted at RSP and editors should be warned against citing Money-related articles published since November 2022. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a note, WP:RSP currently has no link to or mention of this discussion, or the brief one from spring last year. The last linked discussion was back in 2015. This may be a concern.

Do we maintain an exhaustive list of reliable sources?

An editor claims the Mint (newspaper) and Open (Indian magazine) to be "not reliable newspaper sources" as per "wikepedia relaible source list." Hence, they cannot be used to source what he feels to be "extremely rude, negative, and controversial" fact. Opinions are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPMISSING may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the above, the editor is incorrect about how RSes work at Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

newton.com.tw

what is the reliability of this website [63] when i googled it says, "Chinese Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia website involving all Chinese knowledge fields, providing you with the latest and most complete Chinese encyclopedia entry knowledge." I'm not aware whether its user generated site or not. Can it be considered reliable for citing as a source for a Chinese artist? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources are unreliable, until proved to the contrary. The website in question does not disclose its editorial policy, and is an unreliable source. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable, it does appear to be user generated content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with everyone else, this doesn't look like a reliable source. I can't find any details about how they acquire there articles, not find anything online showing nthe site as reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Current Affairs (magazine)

Over at James A. Lindsay, there is a dispute occurring that seems (to me, at least) heavily predicated on what we make of this source. There are also opinion/news issues, but I think this is the place to start. The mechanical parts of reliability (staff and whatnot) seem largely met to me, but it does describe itself as "surreal" and the like. Moreover, while I have tried to investigate whether it has an appropriate reputation for an RS, the unfortunately common name is frustrating most of my attempts. I would love to get others' opinions. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Its reliable but I think you've identified that like with similar sources the opinion/news issue is going to be the major stumbling block. In particular articles by Nathan J. Robinson should probably be treated as self published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll paraphrase my position at the James lindsay article here. The magazine appears to deal with publishing arguments and persuasive style articles. I would put it's content as equivalent to editorial content on a newspaper, as such reliable for the opinions of the author, but not reliable for statements of fact. When looking into the magazine, I didn't find any indication of it's use by others to see if the opinions covered by the magazine are of high enough quality to be included in a BLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is certainly a charitable paraphrase of your position, the one on the article talk page flirts with the fringe a lot more. There you seem to be questioning whether there really is an academic consensus that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the sourcing provided doesn't meet the requirements called out in WP:RS/AC. I don't weigh in on the subject at all. If we want to assert academic consensus on a subject, we have to source it appropriately. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not how it appears to an outside observer, you appear to be casting shade on the very academic consensus itself (you do agree that the academic consensus exists, correct?) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that meets WP: RS/AC? Our opinions on the matter are irrelevant, and RS/AC actually makes that point. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that makes it appear to impartial outside observers that you are pushing a fringe theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, enforcing our sourcing requirements means pushing a fringe theory. Good to know that that is your position on the subject. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

And now you're just being disruptive and facetious. Have a nice day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This section is about the use of Current Affairs, which is simply used to support that Lindsay has promoted the conspiracy theory. Sourcing for statements to the effect that there is no secret conspiracy of academics who are attempting to destroy western civilization is a separate issue - but if we're going to litigate that here as well: The sourcing standard for that is not WP:RS/AC but WP:PARITY. - MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest any discussion on the merits of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is done on the talkpage of that article. It will only lead this discussion into chaos otherwise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. We should focus on Current Affairs Magazine. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

My question is answered to my satisfaction: reliable source, but as with many, need to be cognizant of opinions. Thanks to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene

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

---

The sources cited for tagging Marjorie Taylor Green a "far-right conspiracy theorist," are HIGHLY biased. It is improper for Wikipedia to state AS FACT, something that comes from such biased sources. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Ariadne5844 (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ariadne5844: Can you say which source in particular is not reliable for the information in question? You don't indicate which problematic sources are being used. --Jayron32 19:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have concerns about a specific article, then you should post on that article's talk page. You can find the relevant talk page at Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene. But I will say you're going to have a tough time making this case; all of the sources are standard media outlets, and Wikipedia is just a summary of what standard media outlets say. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Syed Faruque Rahman and "The Londini"

Is this website a reliable source for anything, in particular a BLP?[64] No author and its Facebook site makes me think it's more or less a personal website.[65]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Per [66] and [67], anonymous WP:SPS, so not really good for anything in WP-verse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång's analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources on Azerbaijan and Armenia

Are the following authors and works reliable sources with respect to Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)?

• Baberovski, Yorg (2010). Враг есть везде. Сталинизм на Кавказе [The enemy is everywhere. Stalinism in the Caucasus] (in Russian). Moscow: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN) Fond «Prezidentskiy tsentr B. N. Yeltsina». ISBN 978-5-8243-1435-9. Archived from the original on 8 October 2022.
• Balayev, Aydyn (1990). Азербайджанское национально-демократическое движение 1917-1929 гг [The Azerbaijani national-democratic movement in 1917–1929] (in Russian). Baku. ISBN 978-5-8066-0422-5. Archived from the original on 7 November 2022. {{cite book}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 6 November 2022 suggested (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Coyle, James J. (2021). Russia's Interventions in Ethnic Conflicts: The Case of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59573-9. ISBN 978-3-030-59572-2. S2CID 229424716.
• Hasanli, Jamil (2015). Foreign Policy of the Republic of Azerbaijan: The Difficult Road to Western Integration, 1918–1920. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-36616-4.
• Kazemzadeh, Firuz (1951). The Struggle for Transcaucasia, 1917-1921. New York: Philosophycal Library inc. ISBN 9780802208347.
• Korkotyan, Zaven (1932). Խորհրդային Հայաստանի բնակչությունը վերջին հարյուրամյակում (1831-1931) [The population of Soviet Armenia in the last century (1831–1931)] (PDF) (in Armenian). Yerevan: Pethrat. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 February 2022.
• "Les musulmans en Arménie". Le Temps. 25 July 1920.
• Levene, Mark (2013). Devastation: The European Rimlands 1912–1938. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191505546.
• McCarthy, Justin
• Mammadov, Ilgar; Musayev, Tofik (2008). Армяно-азербайджанский конфликт: История, Право, Посредничество [Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict: history, law, mediation] (in Russian) (2nd ed.). Baku: Graf and K Publishing House. ISBN 9785812509354.
• Tarasov, Stanislav (7 July 2014). "Зачем Азербайджану Новая «Историческая Родина»" [Why does Azerbaijan need a new 'historical homeland']. iarex.ru. Archived from the original on 14 October 2022.
• Volkova, Nataliya G. (1969). Gardanov, V. K. (ed.). Кавказский этнографический сборник [Caucasian ethnographical collection] (PDF) (in Russian). Vol. 4. Moscow: Nauka. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 July 2022.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Some of these seem to be good academic sources: Coyle, Hasalni, Kazemzadeh, Levene. McCarthy might or might not be acceptable; would have to be attributed ("according to"...). The Le Temps article is a hundred years old and would have to be treated as a primary source. The others are very hard to evaluate. Basically, we are looking for academic texts by academic historians. There are academic journals on genocide studies which may

Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF)

In this talk page thread, there is a discussion about the reliability of a paper published in the Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science (website). There are various reasons why the paper itself is not reliable in context (see the thread on Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam above), but here I have a question about a metric used by the journal itself to present itself as reliable.

On the journal's website, it cites a Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) of 8.28. But this SJIF factor (see http://sjifactor.com/masterlist.php) itself seems rather dodgy. Whenever I type in the name or ISSN of a journal which I know to be highly reputable (e.g., Middle Eastern Studies, Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies), I get 'There is no record with this parameter'.

I'm wondering whether this 'impact factor' includes any reputable journals at all, and if so, in what proportion? More broadly, is SJIF a reliable metric? Interestingly, Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science on its website also cites Global Impact Factor (GIF), which redirects to a section in our article about impact factors on 'Counterfeit impact factors'. Would SJIF perchance be similar? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: you called SJIF "fake" here; would you happen to know more? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thompson Reuter's JIF is the gold standard in that space. I believe that SJIF and RJIF are competitors of questionable merit, not sure they're fake exactly but certainly not as widely used or reliable. IMO JIF is the only one I've ever seen used to evaluate an academic for a position or tenure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The only impact factor that has any weight is the ones compiled in Journal Citation Reports, all others are fake. That includes SJIF, GIF, and anything else with the word 'impact factor' in them that is not produced by Thomson ISI/Clarivate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that WP:UPSD will flag the SJIF as a dubious metric. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Why Behind the Voice Actors should not be considered a reliable source

I continue to believe the BtVA should be considered an unreliable source. I started an RfC a couple of months ago on this topic but it failed to attract any attention. I said this then: How on Earth did it manage to get listed as reliable this year? That they claim to do research does not make them reliable, since we have no way of checking that they did indeed do research and they are quite happy to list credits without any sort of public source. That their response in their FAQ to "your credit is inaccurate" is to defend their honour rather than provide information on a correction-submitting process is not a good sign, in my opinion. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no correction-submitting process, which is a severe problem for any source hoping to be considered reliable, especially as I know for a fact, using actor's websites as sources, that their credits for at least one video game are wrong. If we have no means to know if they are actually doing research and fact-checking, yet keep them as a reliable source, why shouldn't we allow every random website that claims to have a fact-checking process as a source? I know someone will bring up the green tick, but if a credit has a green tick that means there's another, almost certainly better, source we can use. I appreciate this comes very soon after a previous RfC on the same site, but I wasn't aware of that until today and it seems to have been waved through based simply on its own claims of accuracy. I still agree with everything I said. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Without any links to, well, anything, this is not a useful post. Can you explain exactly what is the problem here, using diffs to guide editors towards the problem you are describing? Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look reliable for very much, if anything. What do you mean, it was listed as reliable? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)