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

RfC on sources justifying a merge of "autism" and "autism spectrum"

Are WP:MEDRS sources required to justify merging autism and autism spectrum? And if so, do these sources meet the MEDRS criteria or not? Averixus (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a proposal to merge the pages autism and autism spectrum. The following sources were provided in the proposal as evidence that the terms are used synonymously:

List of sources

• The NHS's 'What is autism?' page
• The NAS
• Autism Speaks (sorry)
• Autism Society
• Autism Science Foundation
• Healthline
• WebMD
• NIH
• Autistica
• Psychiatry.org
• Scottish Autism
• Various papers: [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

There's been a suggestion that these sources do not meet WP:MEDRS criteria. There's also been suggestion that the MEDRS criteria don't apply here because it's a question of common-use names rather than biomedical information. Are (any of) these reliable sources to use for merging autism and autism spectrum? Are MEDRS-approved sources required for this case or are standard reliable sources sufficient?

The full discussion is on the autism spectrum talk page.

Averixus (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Do medical sources use them synonymously? If so then it would better to just use those sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by medical sources? Do the NHS, NIH etc not count as medical? Averixus (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You said There's been a suggestion that these sources do not meet WP:MEDRS criteria.. Are there any sources that people are saying does meet that criteria? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks. The person opposing the use of these sources has said None of the sources you have provided are MEDRS, so they believe none of the sources are suitable. Averixus (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm copying over my reply from that talk page, as it seems relevant to here.

While I don't want to speak on behalf of Wretchskull, I would point out that while the NHS is obviously a medical institution, its website (NHS.uk) is aimed at non-medical members of the public. A more appropriate source for current UK guidance, that is explicitly WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDSCI would be the guidance, standards, and pathways published by NICE. It will take me some time to read through it all in detail, as it has been updated since I last read it (most recent update was circa June 2021), however at first glance the following quotation stands out to me as relevant to this discussion In this guideline 'autism' refers to 'autism spectrum disorders' encompassing autism, Asperger's syndrome and atypical autism (or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified). Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue with that particular quote though is the context. Its specificially talking about 'autism' in general and so needs to explicitly clarify the guide applies to all 'autism spectrum disorders'. That does *not* mean the terms are used synonymously, otherwise there wouldn't need to be a clarification for medical professionals. That said, for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, the terms should be/are currently synonymous. For the purposes of a medical encyclopedia, no. The only real question is where do we sit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, except that the ICD 11 only lists five subtypes (6A02.0-5), with the variations being whether or not the individual also has an intellectual and/or language impairment. There are no other meaningful distinctions. Since the adoption of the ICD 11, within the UK diagnoses of Aspergers, PDD-NOS, or others are not issued. For comparison, the previously used ICD 10 listed Aspergers (F84.5), atypical autism (F84.1), and Kanner/childhood autism (F84.0) as separate disorders under pervasive developmental disorders, alongside other syndromes like Rett syndrome (10:F94.2, 11:LD90.4). While the existing diagnoses will obviously continue to exist for people who were diagnosed prior to the adoption of the ICD 11, both on paper and socially as part of their identity, from a new diagnosis perspective there is only autism spectrum disorder.

As for your question at the end, where do we sit? I'd say somewhere around the general encyclopedia area. While we should continue to have pages on Aspergers, or PDD-NOS, I would suggest that those should be made clear that they are largely historical and not applicable in 2022+. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why this is now an RfC? Is it really necessary to answer this question? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

These questions are the central consideration in deciding whether or not to go ahead with merging two large articles, and it's so far been difficult to reach consensus because of disagreement about whether or how to apply WP:MEDRS to this specific situation. Is there a reason it shouldn't be an RfC? Averixus (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems premature at best to have an RfC on this, when discussion is still unfolding. The original post here was just over a day ago, and per WP:RFCBEFORE this discussion has not been thoroughly exhausted yet.

I'd also like to quote from the page notice for this noticeboard Before starting an RfC please consider: is your question a one-off, or is it project-wide? Is it about reliability or prominence? A question of the form "is X source reliable for Y content on Z article" should normally be addressed at the article's talk page, but you can post a note here. This seems to be, at least currently, a one off question. It's not about the reliability of these sources in general, but whether or not the set of meets MEDRS criteria in the context of the autism merge discussion. I may be mistaken, but I suspect that even if this needs to be an RfC, that this is the wrong place for this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the question of the reliability of these sources in general is likely to go on being relevant. We have MEDRS stating that good sources include 'guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations'. The original citations included what seem to be NHS guidelines, as well as similar from Healthline, WebMD and NIH. If people are liable to dismiss such things as not meeting MEDRS requirements, I think we'll need a ruling on whether that's appropriate. Oolong (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

But this is asking about it in the very specific context of a WP:RM discussion. Starting it with that framing means it will be of limited applicability in other contexts. Basically it feels like this RFC is asking us to decide the RM indirectly without actually starting the RM itself - that makes no sense. If there's going to be an RM, that should be held on that page first, with an announcement here if necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but there's been quite a bit of discussion on the relevant page. One (former) participant in that discussion was insisting that none of the citations disproving his point counted, which is why the question came here. By the by, it's a merge request, not a move request.

I still think it would be helpful to have more clarity about the citation requirements for different aspects of something like autism: what are the bounds of what counts as 'biomedical', and is it acceptable to cite something like a public-facing National Health Service page in support of points which may or may not be considered biomedical?

We're talking about autism in particular here, but this kind of question is very relevant to other kinds of neurodivergence, disabilities including deafness, and contested psychiatric categories like gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria and various paraphilias. Oolong (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it makes sense to leap straight to an RFC here. What outcome, exactly, are you asking for? A page merge ought to be decided by a discussion on that page; leaping straight to an RFC at RSN to decide a specific thing that seems likely to require a RM on that page feels like WP:FORUMSHOPping. Examining the sources that might justify a move is normally part of an RM; a global discussion at RSN usually requires some indication that the problem is more widespread. Basically, why couldn't this question be settled via a normal RM? You can of course link or discuss the RM here if you believe it raises major RS issues, but it strikes me as off to try and preempt what might be a key question for it like this. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If there's disagreement as to the reliability of the sources being used to justify a proposed merge, isn't the answer to that relevant? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:1449:4A9E:866:5F64 (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• That depends a lot on what the sources are being used to cite and what the basic arguments for the merge are. Some arguments might be MEDRS sensitive (eg. if they focus on treatments for autism, or its diagnosis or prognosis) and others might not be (if they're based on usage, naming, available sources for non-MEDRS aspects of the topic, or discussions of how best to structure and arrange the available information.) As it is this question is too broad and vague for us to give you a useful answer. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: AllSides media bias ratings

Which of the following best describes AllSides's (allsides.com) media bias ratings? This question has been discussed several times at RSN (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but participants have mostly talked passed one another and editors recently disagreed on how to interpret the consensus. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Survey: Allsides

• Option 2: I believe that broadly categorizing AllSides as either reliable or unreliable would oversimplify it. Their website consists of several different sections with different but related aims; they have drawn by far the most attention from editors for their media bias ratings, which attempt to describe the bias of websites' news reporting on a five-point scale. In making these assessments, they depend on a variety of factors; along with each rating, they include a section explaining how they reached the conclusion they did. Some of their explanations, like those for The New York Times and Fox News, are extremely thorough; others, like those for The Telegraph and The Atlantic, seem to rely heavily on surveys, which is problematic. (AllSides acknowledges this by noting that they have "low confidence" in the latter two ratings.) Their research seems reasonably well-done, they have solid editorial control, and they are frank in acknowledging their limitations. Personally, I think that we should approach AllSides on a case-by-case basis; the more exhaustive the methodology section is, the more likely the rating is to be reliable and constitute due weight. Ratings in which they have "low confidence" should probably never be used, while high confidence ratings are generally usable with attribution, though in some articles, editors may not consider them valuable enough to include. In some cases, content from the methodology section may be usable even when the bias rating itself is not, although when they are reporting what other sources have said, editors should prefer those sources. There are several other caveats that I believe editors should keep in mind when using AllSides: it does not consider opinion columns nor any television programming, it deliberately chooses not to assess the reliability of sources, and AllSides uses the concepts of left- and right-wing politics in their American sense, which does not apply very well to European politics. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. As I note in the discussion below, several media organizations that explicitly cover the source give it high marks for its bias ratings. Common Sense Media gives AllSides high marks, writing that the news analysis site attempts to offer a thorough assessment of recent media coverage -- and essentially succeeds at that goal and that Generally, AllSides does a stellar job of breaking issues down. CSM also notes some limitations of the methodology (the site's analysis solely involves online reporting, not broadcast or other print coverage). Deseret News's executive editor also appears to like the site's methodology. Several experts interviewed by Poynter gives the media bias rating methodology high marks. Allsides also has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor, which itself has a stellar reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The source's methodology is explicitly given, and the explicit statement in the confidence the source has in a particular rating should enable Wikipedia users to avoid using low-confidence ratings—this is a significantly better source than the number of media bias sites that don't state their methodology and/or don't give anything akin to a confidence interval. Overall, this has the reputation a WP:GREL source for labeling media bias; even USA Today explicitly uses the website as a source for the political orientation of media organizations in its own fact checks (1 2). — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Like the rest of the "media bias" aggregators, this site does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. There are reliable sources for media bias - published, peer reviewed papers. Further, reviewing the Poynter article, the methodology that AllSides uses to rate is beyond problematic - it's bad. "In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools." Just no. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In fact, the peer reviewed papers use AllSides as their data source for media bias. To say that there is a great deal of separation between peer-reviewed media bias literature and the AllSides ratings is simply not true. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You can use anything as a data source... This is a bit of a specific point but my dog once published a paper which almost entirely relied on Inspire (magazine) as a data source, that in no way means that the house publication of AQAP is a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • If you don't mind sharing on your dog(?)'s writings, can I ask what the data from Inspire (magazine) was used for in that study? — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 per my reasoning in the discussion section. They're a tool which may be valuable for use outside of wikipedia but as a source its a no-go and we have no use for such tools here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I agree with the assessment of Compassionate272, above. Judge it on a case by case basis… because a LOT depends on how confident they are in their own methodology and rating. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Generally unreliable. Placing ideologies on the political spectrum is inherently subjective, i.e., it depends on the position of the person placing them. Allsides groups CNN, The Nation and Jacobin as left-wing. In reality there is a large difference between CNN, which is corporate media supporting liberal capitalism, and Jacobin, which describes itself as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture." (It shows a picture of Karl Marx.) The reason anyone would believe these publications occupy the same place in the political spectrum would be if they were conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 I agree with most of the comments raised by Compassionate727, who previously I had a discussion with on the reliability of the source. It is indubitably subjective and should IMO certainly be evaluated case by case basis. The quality of AllSides likewise tremendously depends on its asserted quality, e.g., the high confidence ratings are definitely more reliable, but even though they clearly do not manifest Option 1 as generally reliable. For example, it lists the CSM as centrist with high confidence, vindicating that “As of May 2016, The Christian Science Monitor’s AllSides media bias rating remained the same, despite a small majority of nearly 2,500 community members disagreeing with our Center rating.” Nevertheless, currently most of the community disagrees with the rating, which the site states may lead to a re-evaluation, but this is not the case and the entry has not been updated. Besides, its low confidence entries are poor, including the Daily Telegraph one linking back to Wikipedia as a ref, which seems to be circular source IMO. As per Compassionate 727’s comments, some of its ratings are almost entirely based on Blind Bias Surveys that are attributed from people all over the spectrum with no noted expertise, which might be unreliable. As a result, to me AllSides could at best be used for rudimentary info preferably with attribution, and if other RS cover it they should be preferred over this.

Mhawk10’s comments are also insightful, but I do disagree with some aspects. Common Sense Media, an RS primarily for film and media reviews, give AllSides a favourable rating. This does not seem to make it reliable- it also awarded WP a four star rating, despite it being user-generated. Further, the source does not seem to have a reputation for accuracy, as almost all source can be found in peer-reviewed journals, including MBFC, but this does not likely warrant significant coverage. Therefore, to me this is not generally reliable even for the high confidence ratings and should be determined situationally. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• • The star-rating system you're referencing isn't a reliability scale. According to their methodology, Common Sense Media rates media based on both age appropriateness and, for digital media, learning potential. We rely on developmental criteria from some of the nation's leading authorities to determine what content is appropriate for which ages. And research on how kids learn from media and technology informs our learning ratings. Wikipedia is actually quite good for learning about new things—that is the entire purpose of having a free encyclopedia. And, CSM flags Wikipedia as Collaborative reference: Research with caution. If you read the extended description, it says that Kids must be encouraged to think critically about what they read and double check facts and sources if they are using anything for a homework assignment when viewing Wikipedia; it's not saying that WP is actually super reliable for asserting specific facts in a high school-level academic setting (or, presumably, in more serious settings). — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and I concur with your statements on WP, but you stated that CSM gave high marks, while also suggesting that it only determines learning potential, so how does that make this source reliable? The view expressed for the Poynter article is cherry picked, it states “But use them with caution” and likewise notes the similarities of AllSides and Ad Fontes, the later being generally unreliable. I am also tentative of the quality of the Deseret article, it labels as an opinion piece only and also said that “Meanwhile, the Ad Fonte Media Bias Chart—yet another respected gauge of bias”. Do you consider Ad Fontes also reliable?

Thanks for your helpful ideas and please comment below for any disagreements. Cheers and thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

When I say "high marks", I was not referring to the star-based rating system, but to the quote that immediately followed that statement and to the section of the page titled "Is It Any Good?" more generally. I apologize for the lack of clarity there. The caution Poynter is expressing is to not use bias to determine reliability; we capture this in our guideline WP:BIASED, but that hardly seems like a mark against the bias ratings provided by this source. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful clarification, and apologies for my misunderstanding. However, I would also point out that IMO the CSM's evaluation of 'Is it any good?' on its own is not a sufficient indication of reliability and is skewed towards learning potential. There are dozens of examples, but one of them is that it cites Britannica as the "most trusted resource" and praises it extensively, notwithstanding it being only marginally reliable upon a search on WP: Perennial Sources. In comparison, would you view that source to be as top-notch as CSM suggests? Further, the claim that the experts gave AllSides high marks might be erroneous, as that interviewed expert is Mastrine, who is the owner of the unreliable Ad Fontes and likely does not reflect the general view of professionals in media research (hence her praise is likely biased). The comment of USA Today's use of this source for the fact check is invalid as it also cites MBFC. Would you consider MBFC as well as Ad Fontes (please see my previous argument on your comments made for Deseret News article, which noteworthily is merely an opinion source) reliable? As a result, from my point of view, the statement of "USA Today explicitly uses the website as a source for the political orientation of media organizations in its own fact checks" is cherry-picked as unreliable sources are frequently utilised. It is present in some peer-reviewed journals but is tangentially mentioned (i.e., your discussion noted below, and like already said media bias sites are used for sure occasionally, including MBFC for the Iffy Quotient, but is too restrained for significant use). Nevertheless, AllSides is marginally better than Ad Fontes and MBFC because of its unambiguously stated methodology, still, it lacks IMO the status of a reliable source. Thanks again for your comments and time. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3. They are primarily opinion (and are mostly covered as such) but make no particular distinction between fact an option; the poynter coverage of them above specifically does not praise or even evaluate them in its article voice that I can see, and most of the usage or coverage consists of passing mentions; most of what it says is quoted from AllSides. "Raw data" types of websites are generally very hard to use because it's tricky for them to be anything other than primary for their own raw data; but we definitely couldn't use them to support statements in the article voice, and whether to cover things as their opinion is going to come down to due weight - which is often going to be lacking. Additionally, the very nature of AllSides means that their coverage of news sources is going to be indiscriminate, ie. a source having a rating there means little, as opposed to academic papers discussing their bias. There are just much better (and more specific) source available on the political outlook of sources when it is relevant, which AllSides shouldn't be weighted with and therefore isn't generally usable along; and if AllSides is the only source, it's hard to support using it because of its indiscriminate nature and blurring of reporting and opinion. This makes it difficult to see any situation where it would be an RS. --Aquillion (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 I agree with Compassionate. This should be on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes Allsides is great, using thorough fact checking methods, while other times it's a bit more of an online survey. For the Allsides ratings that are supported by other RS or appear to have undergone a good analysis they are generally reliable, but for the one's that appear to have received little attention and care, they should not be used. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Compassionate727. LondonIP (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - agree with Aquillion’s perspective. I will add that without years of training and hands-on experience learning how to approach a topic from a NPOV, most human-based methods are likely to be biased, inadvertent or otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 20:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2: RS always depends on the WP:RSCONTEXT, what the intended use is, and this question seems too vague to do much, but I’ll offer some specifics for UK publications. As Mhawk10 and Horse Eyes mention below, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and Independent already have stated political affiliations in their articles, so there seems no need, but if the Allsides view of them is being mentioned by third parties then sure, that could be cited. Third party articles with mentions to Allsides would be citeable because they are stable and presumably saying something. But a WP editor going and looking up that day’s ratings would not be usable in article space. Partly because that would be OR, but mostly that any online moving rating is perhaps not going to return the same values next week so mechanically is not usable in article space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Allsides

• Coverage of Wikipedia aside Allsides does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, their opinion may be notable when mentioned by a WP:RS but they are not themselves a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye's Back: Common Sense Media gives AllSides high marks, writing that the news analysis site attempts to offer a thorough assessment of recent media coverage -- and essentially succeeds at that goal and that Generally, AllSides does a stellar job of breaking issues down. CSM also notes some limitations of the methodology (the site's analysis solely involves online reporting, not broadcast or other print coverage). Deseret News's executive editor also appears to like the site's methodology. Several experts interviewed by Poynter gives the media bias rating methodology high marks. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the links. I'm not sure how much any of them demonstrate the necessary reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I'm not sure if we should even consider any of them other than the Poynter piece. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

      Well, Global News describes it as a fact-checking website that is recommended by the experts they interviewed. As I note in my !vote in the discussion section above, AllSides has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor, which has a stellar reputation for its reporting. USA Today also uses the website as a source in its own fact checks (1 2) for the explicit purpose of labeling the political lean of media outlets. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't Common Sense Media a paternalistic content rating agency? I don't think they're a WP:RS. Likewise CSM *used* to have a stellar reputation, they're so-so these days like with Deseret their links to a fringe religious sect have gotten more problematic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, Common Sense Media is generally reliable in the area of its reviews for entertainment sources. Its applicability to other areas has not been the subject of significant discussion, but it looks like a situational source. Christian Science Monitor is WP:GREL on WP:RSP for news and, as far as I am aware, has not seen its reputation change in recent years. Is there reporting from reliable sources that suggest this? Also, Deseret News is WP:GREL on WP:RSP for news, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a review of an entertainment source. Something can be less than stellar and still generally reliable. CSM's commentary has been getting increasingly extreme, for instance these pieces[6][7][8][9]. As Hipal pointed out the only thing we can actually use from what you presented is Poynter and they explicitly endorse All Sides as a *tool* not as a source so that has nothing to do with our discussion here. You also seem to have misstated the consensus on Deseret "The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news." not "news" as you said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect to Poynter, the only caution that they give is not to use the bias charts that they are discussing as a measure of reliability (centrist news sources are not always higher quality), and state that Media bias charts with transparent, rigorous methodologies can offer insight into sources’ biases and that such charts offer well-researched appraisals on the bias of certain sources. I don't really know what to conclude from that except taht they are well-researched and useful when their methodologies are transparent and rigorous; again, that's what a WP:RS is. With respect to Deseret, I don't think that anybody in the previous discussions made a distinction between local news and its news more broadly; it's a regional newspaper that tends to focus on LDS issues and regional topics, but I think that the word "local" in RSP is simply a mis-reading of the three discussions linked that unduly restricts the scope of its reliability. With respect to CS Monitor's opinions being published, I really don't think that we should consider its WP:RSOPINION pieces to be similar to its news coverage. In fact, all of those pieces you've linked are labeled as A Christian Science perspective, which plainly indicates that the perspective pieces are written from the viewpoint of a particular religious affiliation. The use of the source I linked is to establish that AllSides has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor the magazine—I think it would be silly to paint it as if the partnership were involved in one particular type of clearly labeled religious opinion column. You've also not addressed the coverage in Global News and the WP:USEBYOTHERS by USA Today's fact-checkers. If USA Today's fact-checkers are using the source in a particular way, is that not evidence of reliability for facts? — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When you're at the point down the rabbit hole were you're accusing someone of having made a mistaken RSP entry you should probably take a step back. USEBYOTHERS is not a trump card and alone isn't even enough, its just one piece of the puzzle and most of the pieces seem to be missing here. I would also note that for many sources AllSides separates out opinion and news in their rating, they do not do so for CSM. Also AllSides methodology is *not rigorous* its actually rather shit, if you tried to submit a paper to a polisci or media studies journal using their methodology you would be laughed out of academia. We aren't comparing them to other media bias groups (which are mostly unreliable) we're comparing them to actual reliable sources like journal articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You may think this, but a Routledge-published scholarly book notes that Allsides' use of multiple modes of analysis strengthens our overall confidence in their ratings. Hardly seems like this gets you laughed out of academia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

How is that related? They aren't using their methodology and they don't even say its reliable they just say they have some level of confidence in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

They are saying that they have enough confidence that the bias ratings are correct to use it as a variable in their analysis. In other words, they're saying that it's reliable enough for bias ratings that they have confidence using it in their analysis, with the confidence being bolstered by the multi-mode analysis that involves editorial oversight, surveying, etc. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What does that mean for us though? We do not do analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You keep claiming that AllSides's methodology is awful, but you have neither explained why in any particular detail nor cited anyone who makes this claim. Do you have anything you can point to in support of your position? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools. The readers, who self-report their political bias after they use a bias rating test provided by the company, only see the article’s text and are not told which outlet published the piece. The data is then normalized to more closely reflect the composure of America across political groupings. AllSides also uses “editorial reviews,” where staff members look directly at a source to contribute to ratings." So just to sum up they take bad data, run it through some opaque normalization algorithm, and then might or might not disregard it based on editorial preferences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure why you consider the data "bad"; it is entirely normal for survey organizers to solicit participants through their own networks of contacts in addition to the standard "other marketing tools"; in general, participants who are solicited through direct contacts are better than ones solicited via random survey distributors because many of those people are professional survey-takers clicking random responses as quickly as possible because they are being awarded per survey. There is no reason to expect AllSides's contacts to be unusually biased; even if there was, they normalize the results so that the personal bias of, e.g., some right-wing nut who thinks that all media that disagrees with him is far-left propaganda because Ben Shapiro says so doesn't skew the results. As for their "editorial reviews," it has already been noted that AllSides considers a number of other factors, including research by scholars and organizations like Pew as well as their own editors impressions of the source after reading its articles (see the Fox News bias rating for an example of this process), which of course will (and should) affect the final rating. On the whole, "I don't understand what they are doing" by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to reject a source. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"On the whole, "I don't understand what they are doing" by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to reject a source." if someone ever makes that argument I'l be sure to let them know. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• How would this information be used by Wikipedia? Sources like this I think are useful for RSN discussions but the discussion here suggests we would want to use the ratings of this company in article space. If a RS says "Allsides said X" well fine but if we are editing an article about the WSJ we shouldn't include a sentence like, "Allsides rates the WSJ as X [cite Allsides]". Springee (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the past RSN and other discussions, I added it to my list of problematic references in Dec'19, and started actively been removing them around Sep'20. I've found a lot of discussion, but very little attempted use. Generally better sources have been favored. My impression is that where it has been attempted to be used, it is to counter reputable, historic viewpoints. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In articles like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Irish Times, Newsmax, Jacobin (magazine), AlterNet, The Grayzone, etc. we already state the political affiliation of the source in the lead or infobox. This would serve as one reliable source among others that could be used in describing the political leans of publications. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

AllSides uses an American political spectrum, it would not be possible to use them as a source for the general leaning of outlets in other countries. You will note that for the foreign sources they do rate they only review their US coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mhawk10, do you agree that CNN and Jacobin occupy the same position in the political spectrum or that CNN is more left-wing than The Guardian? TFD (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

CNN and Jacobin don't occupy the same political ideology; Jacobin is generally to the left of CNN's online news coverage. There is tremendous diversity of thought in the left-wing to far-left; Maoists are not politically the same as Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists are not the same as hardcore left-liberals, and are Stalinists are not the same as La France Insoumise, which are each rather different that Juche practitioners and the anarcho-syndicalists of the Regional Defense Council of Aragon. Generally, however, the left-right framework would put all of those groups on the left, even though they tend to vociferously disagree. CNN's online U.S. political coverage follows a left-liberal line, while Jacobin follows a (democratic) socialist approach. The two are not the same, but in the context of AMPOL they get thrown in on the left side of the political divide. As for the news coverage, I haven't conducted a systemic review of CNN and The Guardian, but my inclination is that the two share a common left-liberal approach in the types of stories they choose to cover; they're both fairly comparable to Vox. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I just removed this addition as a new editor's only edit. Is is safe to assume WP:ARBAP2 applies to such edits? --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Another one [10], ARBAP2 definitely applies. --Hipal (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it applies, and I agree that both of those are inappropriate uses of the source. Biases should always be attributed, and there's rarely (dare I say never?) any reason to mention them except in a dedicated context. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC: Alexa Internet

In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles? -- GreenC 05:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexa Internet will be shutting down in May. We have 811 citations. They are used almost exclusively for site rankings (maybe some exceptions?). With Alexa offline the rankings are useless even misleading (maybe some exceptions?). Rather than archiving, the entire citation should be deleted along with the sentence that mentions the ranking.

A previous RfC removed Alexa rankings from infoboxes. Editors expressed concern about the accuracy and viability of site ranking generally, the reliability of Alexa, appropriateness for Wikipedia.

Proposal: Delete all citations and cited facts when related to Alexa site rankings. Use common sense to maintain an Alexa ranking score indefinitely if required by the text. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• OP Opine: Alexa is/was a marketing product, used by advertisers. It has largely been replaced by an entire industry that includes Nielsen, Comscore, etc.. if you want good site metric data you pay for it. The freebie stuff is questionable and keeping it updated on Wikipedia is challenging. There was nearly unanimous calls for removal in the last RfC because Alexa is "unencylopedic", a black box algorithm, many consider it an unreliable source. The last RfC was removal from Infoboxes only, this extends to all text, in light of pending shutdown. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure leaping straight to an RFC makes sense per WP:RFCBEFORE (this seems like the sort of situation where we'd want to have a proper discussion to figure out options.) But honestly I don't think we should have been directly citing Alexa numbers directly in the first place for the reasons mentioned above - they are vague about their methodology and there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of the free data they provide. The one value that they (debatably) provided was up-to-date data; now even that will be gone. The only alternative to removing them seems to be using archive links, which I definitely don't think we should do. "This site had an Alexa rating of X in June 2019" seems to me to be using specific data to the point of basically being WP:OR - ie. why that date? As time passes it will come to carry a specific meaning not in the source - though really any Alexa ratings do, because they're almost always used to imply something about the source that Alexa itself doesn't actually attest to given their vagueness about what those numbers mean. In my experience Alexa was almost always used to make an implicit argument of "this site is popular, and therefore important and noteworthy", which it shouldn't be used for given its limitations and the WP:OR risk. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

We did discuss it 1.5 years ago at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_173#RfC:_Alexa_Rankings_in_Infoboxes where there was near-unanimous RfC consensus against these links existing on Wikipedia Infoboxes, but also against the links generally. This RfC is required because the first RfC was limited to infoboxes which is an arbitrary criteria in most cases. -- GreenC 05:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• @GreenC: Thanks for raising this issue. Could you please rephrase the RfC statement as a neutral and brief question per WP:RFCBRIEF, e.g. "In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles?" Your rationale can be moved anywhere below the first timestamp, preferably to the survey or discussion section. — Newslinger talk 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• These should not be deleted, but piped through Internet Archive to preserve them, if possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Of course dead links are saved automatically anyway. The question is why are we keeping these links? To know that on June 12, 2010, XYZ.com was ranked #34 by alexa.com and this statistic will never be updated again but frozen forever on Wikipedia? If there was some reason this stat was important, great, but in most cases there is no reason. It's unencyclopedic trivia, arguably inaccurate and unreliable, outdated and outmoded. If someone wants historical Alexa data for a future project, they can get it from the Wayback Machine in more complete form. -- GreenC 06:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  As ScottishFinnishRadish and GretLomborg put it below, sometimes a site's popularity at a particular point in time is encyclopedically relevant. E.g., EFF.org was once the fourth-most-linked-to website in the world, and was for several years (behind Microsoft, Netscape, and one of the pre-Google search engines). I agree with CaribDigita below that when the intent is to show current popularity, then we should use newer tools like Netcraft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete it. I was wondering this. Things can get replaced by Netcraft.com website indexing services (from the same era as before Amazon bought Alexa). Most old internet site rankings after a few years may not matter all that much, and Amazon could disable it if they put no-index in the header record as that purges it from Internet Archive. CaribDigita (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Fine to remove them when found, although I wouldn't go out of my way searching them out. I would keep them, however, if they are used to show the ranking at a specific notable time frame, e.g. Website A was had an Alexa rank of Graham's number, but after it's breaking of the story that Cold fusion and the EM Drive both work, it's Alexa rank rose to 7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• I agree with SMcCandlish: the links should be archived. I think it makes sense to remove links to Alexa if the purpose is to show current popularity, but I think I read somewhere that a source doesn't necessarily have to be accessible *now* to be usable, so if the context was popularity at some particular time the cite should stay. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Aquillion, and SMcCandlish. It is too soon, and we should WP:Preserve when possible. Huggums537 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, but no - or at least not now. Looking at the list of uses, I will say respect and PRESERVE, except as usual replace wherever a better source is available. It perhaps always whiffed a bit of OR and just a snapshot in time to state the Alexa rating or profile, but it was also widely followed and it is hard for me to see where one can replace the Site Profile information said in the article on the .bw domain. So in general I conclude replace with open writings if able but definite no to a simple ‘removed from all articles’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete them all, no piping to IA. There's nothing to preserve if the measuring facility itself is dead. If Alexa had bellied up in say 2004, would it be notable now in 2022 that Yahoo! was #1 at the time? Unlikely. Zaathras (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Indeed

Is Indeed a reliable source? I used it once on the Hamburger University page, but the edits were removed per WP:COPYVIO because that page was copyrighted. AKK700 08:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable for what purpose? What is the text that is being cited to Indeed... It's a job-search website, so there's probably not a lot of use for it, but it always depends on what text you are citing in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 11:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would say mostly no. At best it might be a WP:PRIMARY source for what the organization says about itself, but since it exerts no editorial control it is basically WP:ABOUTSELF at best - it's not published for RS purposes. And even within that narrow window I would be cautious about most stuff there, since it's likely to be too self-serving for ABOUTSELF usage. Even basic numbers and figures from there are likely to be selected to try and be appealing to job-seekers. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Indeed is a platform that hosts self-published/user-generated content. If an Indeed page is confirmed in some way to have been published by a company, it can be treated similarly to a page on the company's own website. — Newslinger talk 06:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Generally unreliable: User-generated content is generally reliable (exactly what Newslinger said) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Ars Technica's Eric Berger

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Ars Technica's Eric Berger on SpaceX and other space-related articles? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Added {{rfc|prop}} tag. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Reliable, but may require further investigation
• Option 3: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 5: Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated

Ars Technica's Eric Berger

• Option 1: Generally reliable, like Ars Technica overall per existing consensus. Also the author of a book about the topic with positive reviews in Space.com [11] (calling Berger a "veteran" space reporter), the Financial Times [12], and the NYT [13]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1:' On both counts: Ars Technica is a scrupulously reliable source on technology-related matters, and per the analysis above, Berger appears to be a reliable space-related journalist. Seems fine to me. As an aside, who is questioning the use of Berger's work on Ars Technica? What is their rationale for questioning it? --Jayron32 15:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Concerns from the GAR as too interested and too much of an insider? WP:BIASED is obvious, yet not a reliability issue. I'd think WP:Recentism would be the primary concern considering the nature of the reporting and what Berger's audience expects. fiveby(zero) 15:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: with a nod to WP:RECENT and always WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. @Urve: notifying. fiveby(zero) 15:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: As noted above, Ars Technica is about as good a source as we are likely to have for the "technology news" sector. As such, Mr. Berger falls under that umbrella unless and until there's some reason he doesn't--and perhaps I am missing something, but I have seen nothing to that effect. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Obviously Option 1 Ars Technica is generally reliable for technology news. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RFC, since it seems like this is being asked in order to influence the result of the the GAR, where much more specific questions are raised about Berger which you didn't disclose here (despite, I can only assume, intending to turn around and use the result of an RFC here to try and influence the answer there.) More generally, I tend to get leery when people ask extremely obvious questions here with no context. At a glance, Berger has written extensively about Musk and has spent a great deal of time with him, to the point where he might be considered WP:BIASED. Ars Technica is obviously a WP:RS and there's no reason to doubt Berger's overall reliability but I would be cautious about not giving him excessive weight on this topic as a result. But those aren't reliability problems and I'm concerned that this RFC may be asking an "easy" question which will then get turned around and used as the answer to a "hard" one that wasn't asked, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't want to influence on the GAR, and I have stated multiple times elsewhere that I fully support the decision of delisting the article. ([1], [2], [3]) I do think however that I am biased and others should make the decision on whether the source is reliable or not. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  The issue that Aquillion is raising is not one of reliability of the source, but that the additional considerations from context in which you are likely to want to use the source are not being raised as part of the RfC. In the GAR various editors raised concern that Berger is biased towards SpaceX, not necessarily that he was unreliable. Additionally, I don't see any criticism of Ars Technica which would warrant raising a thread. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, a lot of other SpaceX and other private space corp articles use Eric Berger as a main source. In my opinion, I do feel that the Eric Berger is reliable on the area of expertise, but given my bias on the topic as well highlighted by other editors I think that having uninvolved editors making judgement would be the best idea. I have no ill-faith intents here – if Eric's unreliable, I just have tossed a good chunk of my hard work away. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: (or bad RfC): Thanks for pinging me, Fiveby and Aquillion. Yes, my concerns about Berger's writing were more specific than reliability, but there's no doubt that he reports factual information accurately. But for content, this RfC has no bearing on what I was troubled by: Whether we can report as fact what Berger writes as aspirational. The article said: "When linked together, these facilities act as a production line, making Starship construction quicker". Berger says this is Musk's desire: "Musk wants a linear flow through the tents ...". I think Berger has an interest in reporting on the speculative parts of SpaceX's development operations. If an insider look is just reporting on aspirations for recently-devised manufacturing processes, then even if it's reliable, I fail to see why we should include it. After all, if this information is not reported in other reliable sources (ignoring the source-text incongruity), then is it due to include every new development wish? This is not a matter of reliability but editorial judgment. Urve (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC No context is given so there is no basis on which to decide. If someone thinks a particular claim is a problem then it should be discussed as RSN was used until editors got it in their heads that every dispute should become a RfC that decided a general reliability question. Springee (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that an RfC here seems very heavy-handed. Even if someone wishes to get a formal closure for a reliability discussion, an RfC is not requireed for that purpose. One can just post it at WP:ANRFC under "Other types of closing requests". A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: With regards to this specific topic the neutrality of Berger is highly questionable, if even debatable. I regularly read his content on Ars Technica, and as others have noted his technical descriptions come off as highly aspirational. It's common to see him reporting SpaceX/Musk talking points as certainties , which in reality frequently never come to pass. In summary, his reporting is faithful on an events and facts level, but highly colored by his connection to Elon Musk and SpaceX. On this particular subject I consider Berger WP:BIASED. Ebolaisariver (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Per Jayron32, and Aquillion. Both seem to be fine, and I don't understand any of the context of the question as Aquillion pointed out. Huggums537 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC Journalists are not experts and therefore the reliability of their writings depends on the publication and the nature of the claim. An article written by an anonymous journalist for the New York Times for example is reliable for news, no matter who wrote it. OTOH, a signed opinion piece by a Times editor is not, per News organizations. TFD (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ars Technica is a generally reliable source for news, with a technology and science focus. It is operated by Condé Nast, which owns a number of other generally reliable publications, including GQ, The New Yorker (RSP entry), Pitchfork, Vogue (RSP entry), and Wired (RSP entry). Ars Technica tends to be more in-depth than most technology websites, and falls under option 1. Eric Berger's articles that are published in Ars Technica are also generally reliable (option 1), including his articles on space or SpaceX. The reliability of Berger's articles that are published in other publications would depend on the reliability of those publications, and Berger's self-published articles would be judged by the WP:SPS policy. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• This RFC should include {{rfc|policy}} and/or {{rfc|sci}} tags. And to add to the procedural pedantry: I'm not sure why this ever needed to be an RfC; it could have been an normal discussion/question. JBchrch talk 22:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  Added {{rfc|sci}}. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines RfC category is usually intended for changes to policy/guideline pages. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 I'd like to offer a different perspective than just parroting that Ars Technica on a whole has been found to be reliable. I've been working specifically with Eric Berger's reporting on Space Launch System, and I've found him to be extremely reliable (alongside e.g. Philip Sloss and Jeff Foust). While finding and checking citations, I've on many occasions compared direct NASA sources to his reporting, and found his summaries to be fair, due, and accurate. Even in the case of controversial issues, such as discussed here and here, looking back with the perspective of two more years of history, his reporting was vindicated and the opposing sources were proven to be too optimistic. So, from my experience on specifically that topic over the course of multiple years, I would say that specifically Eric Berger's reporting for Ars Technica on the topic of spaceflight is generally reliable. On the other hand, I would have to say that per WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications., I do have to disclaim that Eric Berger's Twitter (or other personal social media, separate from Ars Technica) should not be treated as a reliable self-published expert source. On numerous occasions he has tweeted unverified rumors and speculation, presumably too unverifiable to put into an actual Ars Technica article, that was later proven wrong. Leijurv (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

US Congressman as an authority on Nazis

Here is the text: “Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion (until September 2014), is a neo-Nazi[2][3][4][5] unit”

here is reference #2: Kheel, Rebecca (27 March 2018). "Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis". The Hill. Archived from the original on 27 February 2022. Retrieved 27 May 2021. Ro Khanna: the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.

To be clear, I have no doubt The Hill is a reliable source imho that Ro Khanna said this. But he is a lawyer who sits on an environmental committee. Is he a reliable source for the above statement?

I am less sure whether the statement is true, but if it is, I think the references need to be reliable whether we agree with the statement or not. Thanks for any brainpower applied to this Elinruby (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean. He’s talking about the *budget*; context matters Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Not reliable: political statement by a non-expert. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As a general matter, a politician's subjective characterization of someone they don't like should not be considered reliable.Adoring nanny (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

For context, this is the article Azov Battalion, which had an RfC a year ago which was closed as saying the lead should say the unit is neo-Nazi, so that can't be changed without a new RfC. However, most of the current footnotes supporting it are very weak, this one being the weakest. I agree not RS for the factual claim it supports, only for the politician's opinion. RS-focused editors might be interested in the extensive current talk page arguments about RS use and interpretation in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

He is an RS for his views, not for them being true. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The source is reliable for quoting or paraphrasing the person in question, with in-text attribution, but not for speaking in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 11:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Khanna’s characterization is obviously unreliable. The article is reliable for its weaker statement that the Azov Battalion has openly accepted some neo-Nazis into its ranks. John M Baker (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The Hill is generally reliable for politics, and can be trusted to accurately convey Ro Khanna's quoted opinion. However, Khanna is not a subject-matter expert and his statement is not reliable for a factual claim about the political orientation of the Azov Battalion. The source should not be used in the Azov Battalion article to support the neo-Nazi descriptor without attribution or with only a generic attribution (i.e. "has been described as", without naming the entity that described it). On the other hand, this source can be used to cover Khanna's description of the Azov Battalion in the Ro Khanna article, if it is due in that article. — Newslinger talk 09:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

As it is already clear Khanna is not RS, I have moved the reference away from this claim, along with other sources that were not relevant. There is now only one citation for this claim in the article's lead, a piece by Lev Golinkin in The Nation. There is some discussion on the article talk page on the reliability of that too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Like I said on the talk page, Golinkin is a memoirist. He describes Biletsky as the commander of the Azov Battalion in a 2017 Hill article, but Biletsky left the Azov Battalion in 2014. I don't think Golinkin can be considered an expert on the Azov Battalion if he doesn't know who the commander is, three years later. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The Lancet on All the Light We Cannot See

I am currently working on the article for the novel All the Light We Cannot See and am planning on creating a themes section and/or a style section. While looking for academic articles, I came across an article from the Lancet, "The judgement dilemna", which analyzes the rejection of stereotyping in the novel. I know the Lancet is already considered reliable because it is well-established, prestigious, and peer-reviewed, but it's a medical journal. Literature is not its expertise. However, both of the authors do seem to have credentials in literature and English, and it does validate Doerr's intention. Would this article from the Lancet be usable in the article for All the Light We Cannot See? Lazman321 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• The article is in a "Perspectives|From literature to medicine" section, and the abstract includes "Although he exaggerated the toxic nature of the physician–patient relationship, he captured startling elements of hospital culture". As you note, the authors have expertise in the subject matter, and there are more articles in The Lancet with a focus on literature, e.g. articles by by Marchalik, articles by Jurecic. With reliable authors published in a reliable journal that regularly publishes this type of work, it appears to be reliable WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this purpose. Beccaynr (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, depending on the proposed article text. Mostly I would caution about making too much of it for WP:WEIGHT concerns. Daniel Marchalik was Doctor of Urology with many other articles or literary reviews in the Lancet, Ann Jurecic was a doctorate in English and instructor with Rutgers University who collaborated with him on a couple dozen pieces. The Lancet is a well-known and respected publication. So WP:SOURCEDEF has these as solid supports, but their article is not particularly famous. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Legacy.com used for info on a subject's family

Hi. Is Legacy.com, in particular this obituary of Roger Sale, reliable to use to support the claim in his article and that of Tim Sale, that they were father and son (which someone recently added to the article article here)? Nightscream (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream, the source is the Seattle Times, not Legacy.com which is just supplying the linked material. But the obituary alone isn't enough to say that it is the same Tim Sale. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream, what the articles need is something like this article from the Seattle Weekly that explicitly links Tim and his parents. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, both for the info on Legacy, and the more appropriate article. I tried to search for one via Google, but couldn't find one. How did you find that? Which search terms or key words did you use? Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream, I tried lots of combinations and got nothing until I used Tim Sale parents Roger. One's previous searches seem to make a difference too. It's all a matter of luck with Google algorithms, especially when a word like "sale" is involved which has another meaning and pulls up unrelated pages. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Zigmas Zinkevičius' writings on the Polish language and Poles in Lithuania

Zinkevičius was already partially discussed on W:RSN in 2008.

Zigmas Zinkevičius is a Lithuanian historian and linguist, now deceased, known for his multi-volume history of the Lithuanian language. He was an active politician, Minister of Education of Lithuania and a member of the ultranationalist organization Vilnija. As minister, he became famous for his efforts to close Polish schools in Lithuania and for his efforts to "relithuanize" Polish people. His writings are full of prejudice against Poland, Poles and the Polish language. Under the guise of being scientific, he presents numerous theories, the main goal of which is to deny the "Polishness" of Poles in Lithuania. As a result, his writings on Polish topics are not credible. I do not comment on his competence in the Lithuanian language, because I am not competent myself. Below is a brief summary of his activities by researcher Barbara Jundo-Kaliszewska and examples of Zinkevičius' controversial and often false statements. Zinkevičius is a fairly frequently quoted author on Wikipedia, for example in the Poles in Lithuania article. Where his theses don't miss the truth, I think you can certainly find other sources, so his exclusion won't be a problem.

• Excerpt from Barbara Jundo-Kaliszewska's article The Ethnolinguistic Essence of Lithuanian Nationalism and the Anti-Polonism of Lithuanians in the late 1980s and early 1990s:

  Speaking about the anti-Polonism of the late 20th century, one cannot ignore the theory, widely propagated in the media at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, of "polonised Lithuanians". This was a thesis taken from the interwar ideology, which was later propagated, among others, by a contemporary leading Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevičius. In 1996-1998 he held the office of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania in the government of Gediminas Vagnorius' government, contributing to the intensification of the policy of Lithuanianisation policy of the so-called South-Eastern Lithuania. In the early 1990s Zinkevičius propagated the view that there are "no Poles" in Lithuania - there are only "polonised Lithuanians" who should be facilitated to return to the bosom of the nation. There were voices raised on the necessity to "relithuanise" Poles, who had been "forcibly" polonised in their time, to which Lithuanian Poles reacted very negatively. The above-mentioned linguist belonged to the group of promoters of the thesis of "tutejszy" and "po prostu". He was one of a group of scholars who proved the theory of the so-called "wicz", which boiled down to the claim that the so-called local residents living in the Vilnius region, whose surnames end in "vich" and who speak a Polish-Belarusian dialect, are ethnic Lithuanians. He wrote: "In this part of the country are very popular all kinds of myths - nonsense spread by polonophiles. [...] The local language of Poles, which we have to deal with north of Vilnius and more or less up to Vilnius [...], is Belarusian. However, try explaining this to those who don't want to hear it. They will start proving to you that it is a local Polish dialect. Is this not a myth? And abroad in Lithuania the same language, which does not differ in anything, is called Belarusian". (...) Later, this theory was developed by another Lithuanian historian, Alvydas Butkus, who calls the language of the Polish minority in Lithuania "relative language". In his opinion, this variety of language came to Vilnius at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Therefore, it cannot be any of the dialects of the Polish language. (...) In 1988 nationalist organisation Vilnija (Vilnius region) was established, which is still active today. Its main aim was the fastest possible Lithuanianisation of the so-called South-Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius region) (...) From the very beginning of its existence it had a mainly anti-Polish character and as a "public benefit" organisation, which aims to promote the Lithuanian language and culture in the so-called Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius region), it was subsidised from the state budget. The most prominent activists of Vilnius during the period in question were, among others, the above-mentioned scientists - Zigmas Zinkevičius and Alvydas Butkus, but also other members of the Sąjūdis initiative group (Romualdas Ozolas and Professor Arnoldas Piročkinas). The chairman of the association - Kazimieras Garšva - for 20 years held the position of a "social advisor" at the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Lithuania, and the members of Vilnius have held high official, advisory and scientific positions since the establishment of the organisation.

• An excerpt from a review of the Zigmas Zinkevičius book "The history of the Lithuanian Language" written by Robert Boroch:

  Zinkevićius' book also deals with the sensitive issue of Polish-Lithuanian contacts and the "intentional Polonisation" of Lithuania (...) Zinkevićius completely excludes the credibility of Polish sources and studies (Zinkevicius uses the term "occupation activity" in relation to Polish activities on Lithuanian territory"). He believes that the polonisation that took place in Lithuania during the "Polish occupation" was also reflected in scientific literature (...) The influence of the Polish language on the Lithuanian language, according to Zinkevićius, was significant, however, he comments as follows: "From the very beginning, the Polish language in Lithuania formed independently. A specific variety of the language was formed (Poles called it Lithuanian Polish), which is still used in oral form. And it is from this language, and not from the language used in Poland, that the Polish borrowings in the Lithuanian language originate". (s. 245). Researcher divides the Polish language into the language used in Lithuania and the language used in Poland. He does not explain the criteria of such a division, allowing one to think that Vilnius Polish cannot be regarded as an integral part of Polish, which, of course, is wrong, as differences in pronunciation cannot constitute a distinctive feature sufficient to distinguish a given language. Zinkevićius' position is justified only from a propaganda point of view. The division into Vilnius Polish and Polish as separate and independently functioning linguistic systems makes it possible to place Polish in Lithuania in the position of a secondary and dying language, which does not have its own grammar, and any scientific and literary activity is not recorded by this language. Zinkevićius, I believe, intentionally does not mention the Polish press currently published in Lithuania (...) From a philological point of view, Zinkevićius' book is a valuable voice in the scientific research on the Baltic languages, all the more so because the work has been presented to a wide range of readers - due to the language of the lecture, which is English. However, it seems to me that the weakness of the work is its lack of objectivity, mixing ideology and scientific facts.

Examples of some controversial, misleading or straight-up false statements from his book:

• Восточная Литва в прошлом и настоящем (1996, English: Eastern Lithuania in the past and present, (according to review by Jan Jerzy Milewski):
  • Vilnius region under Polish rule became backward and served as a springboard for expansion into neighboring countries
  • Lithuanians had it worse than under Tsarism, they had no press and could not defend themselves in court
  • Lithuanians were prosecuted for distributing newspapers, national education of children, listening to Kaunas radio
  • After the occupation of Vilnius in 1920 by Zeligowski there were pogroms against Lithuanians
  • In 20 years only 20 Lithuanians graduated from the university (in fact only in 1929 there were 42 Lithuanians)
  • During the interwar period there was an almost complete denationalization of Lithuanians (in fact, Lithuanians were particularly resistant to attempts at Polonization)
  • The Home Army was a colonial army, rearmed by the Germans
  • During the war, Polish priests promised 40 days of indulgence for every Lithuanian killed
  • Stalin settled 200,000 newcomers from Belarus in order to polonize Lithuania

• The history of the Lithuanian language (1996):
  • p. 80: Poles formed the absolute majority in the ecclesiastical chapter of both [Lithuanian] dioceses. They did not even attempt to learn Lithuanian - that's incorrect priests were learning a language, first two bishops of Vilnius, who were born in Poland Andrzej Jastrzębiec and Jakub Plichta knew the local language, Polish clerics were in Lithuania before the union, they needed to learn the language in order to preach the new faith
  • p. 244: Poles sought not the union of both countries, but rather the annexation of Lithuania to Poland. That is exactly what happened in 1569 in Lublin - Lithuania wasn't annexed to Poland in 1569, GDL was a junior partner but still a part of the closer union
  • p. 245: Right from the start the imported Polish language in Lithuania began acquiring its own unique traits. The so-called Lithuanian Polish language was forming (the Poles call it "polszczyzna litewska") and is still spoken in these regions today. It was from this language, and not from the Polish spoken in Poland, that Polonism began flowing into Lithuanian - artificial divide between Polish language spoken in central Poland and in Lithuania, ZZ tries to prove that the "real Polish" was never actually spoken in Lithuania
  • Samuelis Boguslavas Chilinskis (...) while abroad decided to translate the Bible into Lithuanian (...) Howevery because of the hostile attitude taken by influential activists in the Synod, especially by the Pole Jan Krzysztof Kraiński (a Lithuanian Bible bein an unnecessary luxury) and their intrigues, the work was seriously criticized (supposedly it was "full of mistakes") and its publication was stopped - that's literally ZZ imagination not based on anything
  • p. 256: There were relatively few true Poles (those coming from Poland) because the laws did not allow them to get a job or acquire lands - ZZ refers here probably to the ban on the acquisition of estates and the assumption of offices by noblemen from outside the GDL, as expressed in the second statute, ignores the fact that this ban was lifted by the Union of Lublin and the Sejm constitution of 1607. Which is confirmed by the practice
  • p. 256: Polish priests fought against all that was generally Lithuanian, hence thry were against the "pagan" Lithuanian language which seemed to them the antithesis of the "Catholic" Polish language. It is a known fact, that peasants were punished for saying their prayers in Lithuanian. Lithuanian was diven out of Vilnius churches: they stopped giving Lithuanian sermons in the oldest parish church at St. John's in 1738. Schools were assigned the task of merging all the Commonwealth's ethnic groups into one common national group which was to be Polish - ZZ is consecutively painting an image of a forceful polonization. The author later omits to mention that a grammar of the Lithuanian language began to be published en masse in Lithuania in the same year
  • p. 256-257: Polish-speaking priests used to address and give sermons to Lithuanians peasants in a flawed language filled with Polonisms (...) they used the same jargonized language when they wrote religious books (...) In this way great damage was done to the normal development of Lithuanian - that's the way languages normally develope, they borrow words from other more developed languages, just like English is filled with French words. ; the use of this foreign language in official establishments resulted in the distortion of Lithuanian personal names and toponyms - Polish-speakers were using Polish surnames, for ZZ this is something abnormal. It is a historical justification for denying Lithuanian Poles the right to write their names in Polish. Once again there is talk about "strange, unnatural language" used by Polish speakers in Lithuania
  • p. 287: The diocesan hierarchy [late 19th century] considered it a crime for a priest to speak Lithuanian, and called such a person "litvoman", a heretic and insulted him in many ways. Since early times they still considered Lithuanian to be a "pagan" language which God does not understand" - no references to back up this claims, they are repeated numerous times
  • p. 302: The names of people and places changed. Officially people had to use Polonized form of their surnames, which were the only ones priests were allowed to record in birth certficates - not true, no reference
  • p. 312: The recovered [in 1939] Vilnius territory was not as economically advanced as independent Lithuania and it was difficult to integrate it - popular myth that Vilnius region suffered deep backwardness when it was part of Poland; Many people who identified themselves as Lithuanians no longer spoke their ancestral language (...) Polish activists did their utmost to ensure that Polonization would continue - even during the war only interest of Polish people was to denationalize Lithuanians, as they were doing in interwar period
  • p. 314: Germans did not prohibit [after 1941] the opening of Lithuanian schools in eastern Lithuania (...) Unfortunately, all this was presently undermined by the Polish underground (...) because of its [Homey Army] "activities the Lithuanian spirit was completely obliterated in many place
  • p. 316: According to the terms of the 1944 treaty between the USSR and Poland, approx. 200,00 people were repatriated from Lithuania. Among them there were many Lithuanians who identified themselves as Poles in order to escape Stalin's terror because we all know there is no better cover against Stalinism than pretending to be Polish; the countryside was filled with immigrants from the neighboring Byelorussian districts, who inundated the Vilnius territory and became "Poles" (...) Lithuanian (and even Russian) schools were extensively changed into Polish schools. The Stalinist Polonization of the Vilnius territory had begun and was more brutal that that of the Poles during the occupation - that's just absurd
  • p. 319: It was forbidden to speak Lithuanian publicly [in communist Poland] until 1950 (by phone - as late as 1990) - total absurd

That's not all, basically, every time any Polish matters appear in the book, they are presented in an extremely negative light. Here I quoted the most obvious absurdities, but my accusation applies to all ZZ's writing that is permeated with anti-Polish bias.Marcelus (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Police in Belarus as an authority on Ukrainian military

I am sorry I keep coming here with these questions, but editors at Azov Battalion are now trying to cite the descriptor "neo-nazi" with an article about a man who was beaten in Belarus for wearing a Punisher T-shirt. For real.

The article: "Belarus torture survivors take legal action in Germany". dw.com. The Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment fighting in eastern Ukraine... At the time, Samalazau was wearing a T-shirt bearing the skull logo of The Punisher, a Marvel comic book character. Because of the T-shirt, Belarus police accused him of sympathizing with the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment fighting in eastern Ukraine. The group's logo, however, does not actually feature a skull.

The context: "is a neo-Nazi[2][3][4] unit of the National Guard of Ukraine" in the lede sentence.

Please send help.

Yes DW is a great source and yes it does say neo-nazi, but this is a news blurb about a lawsuit in Germany whose reporter was definitely not focused on examining beliefs about Ukraine inside the Russian information bubble. Elinruby (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Deutsche Welle is generally reliable for news. However, as WP:RSCONTEXT states, "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." As a result, this DW article should be assigned a low weight for this particular claim. The neo-Nazi descriptor is a very exceptional claim, and if this article is one of the three sources cited for that claim, it calls into question whether the existing sourcing is adequate for the descriptor. — Newslinger talk 04:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a bad time to criticize the DW, banned in Russia. DW publishes in several languages, so perhaps some language wersions are reliable, here the English one, but general rating of the reliability of all versions would be more difficult.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Maybe I should specifically mention that DW is considered a really good source. The problem with using this article to source that dubious statement however is that it eventually boils down to “Azov is neo-Nazi because a policeman in Belarus was not familiar with the Punisher and had a head full of Russian propaganda.” There is no doubt in my mind that there is such a lawsuit, which is what the article is about. The “neo-Nazi” word it’s supposed to source was probably on a police report, or is a second-hand account of what the man who was beat up says that the police said to him. Which (guessing) is probably true also, but the important thing is that it is probably also what Russian TV is telling people in Belarus and not non of all that proves anything about Azov or is the sort of detailed examination of the group that is necessary to call a military unit s name like that, especially when it validates Russian propaganda. This is an article about a lawsuit not about Azov. Does that help? Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I've got to agree that it is a very poor source for such a claim. The article isn't about the Azov Battalion, and there is no reason to assume the writer is doing anything more than reporting that the Belarus police used this description ('neo-Nazi') as a justification for a questionable arrest. Neither the police nor the DW reporter should be seen as reliable over this. Better sourcesare needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Newslinger and AndyTheGrump, this is a bad source for this particular claim. There are a huge number of RS articles about Azov, so it is silly to cite in the lead (for an exceptional claim) one that only mentions Azov in passing and is ambiguous as to whether it is passing on the Belarus police opinion or saying neo-Nazi in its own voice. As per previous comments, this is not a negative judgement on DW as an RS (it is, in my view, gold standard) but on its use in this context. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue this discussion. True, dw.com mentions this in passing but there are other RS that do it in articles about the battalion [14], [15], [16]. Alaexis_¿question? 12:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

NOte, if a source says water is wet, and so is ice, that does not mean water is not wet. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've now removed the DW source and added two others in its place.Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The Independent on Azov Battalion

One of the sources currently cited for the neo-Nazi descriptor in the Azov Battalion article fails verification, because the claim is found solely in the article headline. As WP:HEADLINES states, "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source." While The Independent is generally reliable for news, the article body does not explicitly describe the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazi. There are only two instances of the term neo-Nazi (or a grammatical variant) in the article body:

• "For all of that, it should also be observed that Ukraine is not entirely free from the stain of neo-Nazism either."
• "In March 2015, Mr Avakov announced that it would receive specialist training from the US Army, only for that offer to be withdrawn in June when the group’s neo-Nazi connections became more widely known and the US House of Representatives moved to block them from benefiting from any American aid."

This source cannot be used to support the claim that the Azov Battalion is neo-Nazi in a Wikipedia article. However, it can be used to support the lesser claim that the Azov Battalion has had "neo-Nazi connections". The article also states that the Azov Battalion is "known for wearing black fatigues, sporting Nazi tattoos and going into battle with swastikas drawn on its helmets" and has "fought under an explicitly Nazi symbol – a tilted version of the Wolfsangel"; the article can be used to support these lesser claims as well. — Newslinger talk 05:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point - sorry about adding this. I've now removed it and have replaced it with a Foreign Policy piece which states "Minority media narratives focusing on the activities of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion participating in Ukraine’s defense have not generated broader fears that Ukrainian refugee flows harbor potential terrorist elements..." (emphasis mine). This looks like it could be a column of sorts but is written by two experts: Simon Frankel from the School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne (Australia's top ranking university according to THE) and Christopher David LaRoche from the Department of International Relations, Central European University. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera on Azov Battalion

This cited article also fails verification for the claim for the neo-Nazi descriptor. While Al Jazeera is generally reliable for news, WP:HEADLINES states that both the headline and the subheadline of the article are unreliable. The article body does not explicitly label the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazi. The article makes a number of lesser claims, including that the Azov Battalion is "accused of harbouring neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology" and that its "uniform carries the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol". The article also says that adjacent organizations Patriot of Ukraine and Social National Assembly (SNA) have "engaged in xenophobic and neo-Nazi ideals", and the article applied the neo-Nazi descriptor to the SNA.

The article does quote The Nation – "'Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces,' a correspondent for the US-based magazine, the Nation, wrote in 2019." – but that is an attributed claim not made in Al Jazeera's voice, and the Azov Battalion is not mentioned in the selected quote. The linked article from The Nation is already cited in the Azov Battalion article for the neo-Nazi descriptor.

This source is also not usable for the unattributed claim that the Azov Battalion is neo-Nazi, but it can be used for the lesser claims that are explicitly supported by the text of the article body. — Newslinger talk 06:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Y Yeah I picked this up too - sorry I was lazily going off sources another editor mentioned in this thread or another on the topic. Now removed and replaced. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, there are no headline-related issues with the currently cited sources. The article in The Daily Telegraph is less explicit in the article body ("militia groups – some openly neo-Nazi", followed by "The Azov battalion has the most chilling reputation of all"; and "Ukraine’s government is unrepentant about using the neo-Nazis.") than I prefer, but it can be interpreted in a way that would pass verification. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The thing is that media around the world describe them as neo-Nazis.... Here is one from Spain -->[17] I personally would not go so far but we follow what RS say. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Here, I'm not making an evaluation of whether the neo-Nazi descriptor is appropriately used in the article; that's best discussed in the upcoming RfC that is being drafted at Talk:Azov Battalion § RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov Battalion. I'm only evaluating individual sources here. Exceptional claims should be supported by rock-solid sources, and citing sources that fail verification would only distract editors from the superior sources in the RfC. — Newslinger talk 06:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Got it - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger for raising these headline issues and thanks Vladimir.copic for adding in RSs that actually support the claim made! I agree the citations are now finally all robust. The question of whether the preponderance of RSs support this wording can be resolved via the renewed RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: As someone with decades worth of lived professional expertise in this region (greater MENA + Iran and Central Asia), I don't regard AJ as a reliable source on pretty much anything. Far too much baggage. Has been widely regarded as sectarian and special-interest since the Iraq War, and totally lost credibility in the aftermath of the "Arab Spring" (see it's controversial coverage of Syria, Yemen, et al conflicts). For Wikipedia's purposes, I would recommend it only be used as a source for uncontroversial news that, for whatever reason, is unable to be found in the Wire services (AFP, AP, Reuters). Perhaps due to a paywall. Oh, and there may be "soft news" pieces unique to AJ features, that might be of use to some articles, although I'd seriously doubt it. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

*Cough* pot *cough* kettle *cough* black *cough* also this is not a general discussion of AJ's reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means, but please do join the discussion if you have anything to add. You're more than welcome. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Euromaidan Press on Azov Battalion

• Comment Not necessarily claiming this as a reliable source (I don't know enough one way or the other), but this web-article yesterday from Euromaidan Press gives a counter-narrative that should perhaps at least be investigated. Author is identified as a long-standing research analyst for a Ukrainian human rights NGO (Linked-in, NGO website). At the moment our article doesn't seem to give any rebuttal points, even to dismiss them. Jheald (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Can these multiple sources be used directly in articles?

Hi. can I use these articles directly in Wikipedia articles?

• A short review of biological research on the development of sexual orientation - ScienceDirect

  Homosexuality and scientific evidence: On suspect anecdotes, antiquated data, and broad generalizations - PubMed (nih.gov)

For more see my talk page. JackP111 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

See the note at the top of this page: You need to tell us which articles you are proposing to cite them in, and what statements you are proposing to cite them for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump Hi. In homosexuality article. "For example, much of the evidence cited by the APA to exclude homosexuality from the list of diseases is inaccurate." Can I use the above articles? JackP111 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

PMID:26997677 is in a non-MEDLINE journal, so probably best avoided for this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you cannot use a couple of cherry-picked articles to contradict the conclusions of the American Psychological Association. Wikipedia articles are based around the consensus view on subjects, rather than material specifically selected to promote contrary viewpoints held only by a few. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The second source (here's the proper link[18]) is from the The Linacre Quarterly, the official journal of the Catholic Medical Association. The journal's homepage is explicit about its POV. With proper attribution as coming from a non-neutral viewpoint, it may cited as an opinion, of course considering due weight. –Austronesier (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

And the first source does not support the statement. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• No, there are several reasons why we wouldn't do that. In addition to the issues raised above, WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. This hits almost every one of those warning points - they are isolated studies, making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that contradicts more established secondary sources, specifically within the complex and abstruse field of medicine. And beyond that (while this goes outside of WP:RS to become a WP:NPOV issue), when dealing with topics, like this one, that have massive amounts of coverage, we have to reflect viewpoints in accordance with how well-represented they are - it is possible to find a few academic papers questioning climate change or the effectiveness of vaccines, for example, or which advance scientific racism, but those are WP:FRINGE viewpoints among academia as a whole. The same is broadly true here (the second source is even written in a "dissent" sort of way that makes it clear that it is expressing a fringe viewpoint.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Can these considered as a reliable sources?

1. [19]
2. https://www.livemint.com/Companies/bA8zYVd3lP3V9SadRgQDnM/Oakwood-Asia-Pacific-launches-serviced-apartments-in-Pune.html
3. https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/oakwood-launches-serviced-apartment-in-india-107070601085_1.html
4. https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/oakwood-worldwide-plans-15-operational-properties-in-india-by-2012-109071000188_1.html
5. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oakwood-mapletree-20140501-story.html
6. https://www.nestfinder.cn/apartments/55.cshtml
7. https://www.mingtiandi.com/real-estate/finance/mapletree-acquires-oakwood-serviced-apartment-chain/
8. [20]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anis.ali (talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You ignored the instructions. At the top of this page—and in an Edit Notice that popped up when you started to add your question—are the following instructions: "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available: ... Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. ... Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports." Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If these sources are intended to be used for a new article about Oakwood Worldwide or another organization, please note that WP:CORPDEPTH excludes "routine coverage" of corporations and organizations from counting toward the subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 05:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• It depends on the intended use or WP:RSCONTEXT that it is for, but in general I would think the Business Standard and L.A. Times would be viewed as WP:BESTSOURCES due to being larger publications so showing the notability and WP:WEIGHT, and having a more independent third-party view. If the context is for some technical detail, then a more closely focused publication such as Hotel Management or Mint might be preferred. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

CINTAA

CINTAA (Cine & TV Artistes Association) of India, is being used as a source for date of birth in biographies. The website is accessible only to members (the artistes) on payment of a fee. At the time of applying for a membership, the applicant provides their bio details and uploads proofs.

Can it be used as a reliable source? How can an editor not having a membership verify the details at the source? Some articles making use of it are: Dharmesh Tiwari, Kulraj Randhawa, Ziyah Vastani, Rajesh Khera. Jay (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Without any statement on the reliability of this one particular source, in general paywalls are not a matter for reliability. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources states "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives." --Jayron32 14:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of sources on Jewish views on Birthdays

Any opinions on the reliability of this site or this site when it comes to describing the views of birthdays in Judaism? My unreliable sense is tingling, but I'm not familiar enough with sourcing on Judaism, and I know there are a lot of sects and rabbis disagree, and all that. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thehalacha looks like it could be used with attribution as the webpage is controlled by a potentially notable author/rabbi who has other published works. The first one, shemay, I am not seeing any editorial control to make a determination that they are a reliable or authoritative source.15:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Tastytrade

Hi! I'm wondering if research from the think tank (and talk show?) Tastytrade could be considered reliable? They produce research on financial options and I haven't found a source of comporable quality. They have a six-person research team which produces research for them, which they then disseminate in the form of videos. I want to use this for the article covered call. I genuinely cannot find another source for 99% of this information. (I should note I have a bit of a COI here- I sometimes email the CEO questions for my own trading.) Here is a couple examples of their research: (you can click the button to the bottom right of the video to only view the slides) (Comparing Buying Power Requirements), (Tradeoffs With Covered Calls), (Delta / Theta Ratio). TraderCharlotte (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I should also note that they have a brokerage arm, Tastyworks, but I'm not going to cite anything where that may be a potential COI. (again, they're my broker!) TraderCharlotte (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Mx. Granger: since they seem to know a bit about options. TraderCharlotte (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and they're sometimes sponsored by the CBOE, but again, I'm just trying to cite somewhat basic information from them, so that shouldn't be a problem? TraderCharlotte (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a pretty marginal source. To a significant degree it's promotional of their affiliated options broker and other products, and it rarely or never sees use by others. On the other hand, they do seem to have some legitimate expertise, so I'm hesitant to say that they could never be used. Have you looked at other ways to obtain good sources, such as Google Scholar? Books such as Lawrence McMillan, Options as a Strategic Investment, and John Hull, Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives? (Although both are kind of pricy.) John M Baker (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Tastytrade, but I agree with User:John M Baker that I would prefer to rely on scholarly sources and well-respected reference works where possible. My experience has been that for options trading topics, it's sometimes hard to find good sources online, so I often cite offline sources like Hull when working on this topic area. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked at McMillan and also Natenberg. I haven't seen Hull's book, so I'll check that out. The problem I'm having is I can't find sources for stuff that seems obvious to options traders but not obvious to everyone else, like how the greeks work for a specific strategy like a covered call (like, does it have positive theta, or negative gamma?). Tastytrade has videos on that stuff. I'm not sure that I agree that Tastytrade is necessarily promotional for their own products (they don't really even mention it in their videos), but they probably do have bias. This is all for the rewrite of the covered call article I'm working on in my sandbox. I'll try other sources first, but I'm worried about the obvious stuff. TraderCharlotte (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, I could find sources besides Tastytrade that said that short calls have positive theta decay, but not a source for covered calls. TraderCharlotte (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

For something like this that's obvious to someone familiar with the field, I am more comfortable relying on marginal sources like Tastytrade. I would avoid them for more controversial or groundbreaking research. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Alright, thanks; that's the way I'll approach this. TraderCharlotte (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"white people" and historical editing on Wiki

A few months ago on the White people talk page (last Fall actually - I gave it some time), I raised a bone of contention by disputing the credibility of the following line,

"By the 18th century, White had become well established as a racial term. Author John Tehranian has noted the changing classifications of immigrant ethnic groups in American history. At various times each of the following has been excluded from being considered White: Germans, Greeks, White Hispanics, Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Slavs, and Spaniards.[250]"

On the White Americans article I raised the same objection to what was essentially the same line, sourced similarly.

I explained to these editors that the studies which are generally used to support such statements do not emanate from one particular subset of history, but from within a body of theory known as "whiteness studies". I informed them that this school of thought has produced what's an extremely controversial thesis (the same one that's referenced in these Wiki articles), and is described that way in reliable sources [21]. Whiteness scholarship has also been described as operating outside traditional or 'mainstream' areas of social and ethnic history (p. 405 [[22]]).

Mainstream historians who specialize in ethnic histories, on the other hand, have either ignored this theory altogether or have publicly discarded it. Historians of Irish immigrants, for example, have been disputing this theory for decades - also indicated in reliable sources [23]. While I haven't reviewed the literature for the other European groups (and I'm focusing strictly on the Europeans here), sources that call the whole thesis into question are easy to find [24].

I've raised these issues on both talk pages and the results were generally the same. On the 'white people' page an editor engaged with me until I published sources, and then disappeared. On the 'white Americans' page the reaction was far more emotional and swift: an editor tried getting me permanently banned from Wikipedia, but managed only to have me temporarily edit blocked from article spaces (the consequences of which I've fully accepted). He then pretended as if he was interested in having an editorial discussion over this, only to disappear when I began to cite sources (he then archived the talk page).

I understand that there's a much greater degree of subjectivity in historical editing than in, say for example, some topics of science. But just because editors can take certain liberties doesn't mean anything goes. These edits are obvious violations of the encyclopedia's NPOV standards, which require us either to exclude controversial information or publish it alongside all the necessary scholarly caveats. On both pages neither of these criterions had been met.

I apologize for the length of this section but I could think of no shorter way to articulate an accurate understanding of the experience and why this content is problematic. I had initially assumed that these editors merely lacked a firm understanding of academic history, but I now have good reason to believe this content is a longstanding NPOV violation that's being jealously and inappropriately guarded by partisan editors, who are preventing other editors from improving these sections. When I cite objections and sources on the talk pages, they ignore me; if I try to edit the sections without editorial consensus, they attempt to get me blocked from editing.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the statement is a small drop in a much bigger ocean of thoughts on racial identity and history, have you tried simply adding a caveat in the section that states that other people in the field have disagreed about that specific point? Seems worth mentioning to me, but I only skimmed this discussion and sources. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that it's not "other scholars in the field", as "whiteness studies" is actually not a field more than it's an umbrella term for a uniquely postmodern school of thought (and methodology) within the Academy. Most of the scholars who publish whiteness tracts disproportionately specialize in labor history (ie, not experts in any particular field of ethnic history), with sprinklings of legal scholars and sociologists. Once you venture into more serious areas of mainstream ethnic and social history, where scholars are more empirically minded and enforce higher standards of evidence, you don't find any significant support for this thesis at all, while in some cases entire fields of specialists have denounced it altogether. What encyclopedic purpose does this serve?

It's for exactly the reason that it's only one sentence in a much larger article that calls its inclusion into question. The articles that deal with 'whiteness studies' as a general topic include very large criticism sections. The Eric Foner piece I cited was a review of Nell Painter's The History of White People[25], which is a far more serious, mainstream and neutral source that would be far more informative for readers interested in learning about the evolution of racial identity in the US.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave you with this:

1. Identify a specific change you want to see.

2. Find a way to state your case in concise, summarized way (your arguments will likely not be read if they are as long as they are here and in your other comments. You can be thorough without being long. It will get you much farther here.

3. Take your suggested change through the dispute resolution process and seek consensus by including independent editors starting with a Third Opinion. If you are not satisfied with the result of that, try to build consensus with a Request for Comment. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a lot of work to get one line removed. I've discussed this at some length citing page and line in many cases, but if you know of a more succinct way to explain this issue to editors who most likely don't read this scholarship and won't fully understand the problem or what side to come down on, I'll take it into consideration.

The rules say that controversial content should either be left out or balanced with reliable sources. In cases where we are dealing with one questionable line out of an entire article, exclusion is usually preferred.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem though, is that when it comes to highly controversial subject matter e.g. race, even seemingly minor edits are not minor, as you've now seen, facing so much resistance. If you decide to do a 3O or RfC, you're 100% welcome to ask me to help you trim and edit for length (I know it can be hard when you're close to the subject), and I'm sure others would be happy to help, too. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of opening an RfC with the title "whiteness studies", citing the line in question, explaining that it's controversial with one or two sources, and then briefly mentioning the dispute.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I think that's the way to go. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Point of order, AFAICT no editor archived any sections you started at Talk:White Americans. The sections were all automatically archived by a bot after no one, including you, had commented on them for 75 days [26] [27]. Automatic archiving with various intervals had been set up on that page for nearly 10 years when that archiving happened [28]. Assuming you're referring to User:Struthious Bandersnatch you disappeared for over a month [29] [30] which is more a likely reason you received no further replies and not because you "began to cite sources". I'd note that the discussion you're referring to is something like 17 months old now. While you aren't required to spend all your time on Wikipedia, if you disappear for a month or many months, you're going to find it very hard have a meaningful discussion over some proposed change. For example, 30 days is the standard maximum time period for an RfC. After 30 days it's generally just waiting closure. If you start an RfC then disappear for 30 days, you're going to find any discussion to be had is over and if you have anything too add, it's probably too late. While the Talk:White people discussion is newer, it's still over 3 months old now. I don't really understand why you needed to "began" to cite sources anyway. If you wanted to effect some change you should have been citing sources from the get-go. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is a WP:NPOV issue rather than a WP:RS issue. But generally speaking I think you are going to have a hard time convincing people that something cited to Yale University Journal is fringe, especially since the statement made here seems, to me, to be unexceptional. I'm also extremely skeptical of the argument that the entire field of whiteness studies is so fringey that anything that anyone affiliated with it says should be disregarded or have an asterisk affiliated to it, even if nobody disagrees. If someone disagrees with Tehranian's point or says something specifically different, we could possibly include that as well, but something along the lines of "disregard Tehranian entirely, he is a kook" seems hard to support. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again.

It really doesn't matter who specifically archived the thread (the fact that an NPOV violation has persisted for so long on two articles should concern you more than my absence from Wikipedia - if I'm not raising this objection, nobody else is). The point was that editors on both articles are unwilling to engage with any sources that contradict the statement in question (and there are many), and I have no other recourse. The attitude is that the statement is "unexceptional", that it's something like a historical fact (it's not), and that the Yale University (Law) Journal is an unmovable object. This is not how we're supposed to be editing historical content. If something appears in a reliable source, but is contradicted or outright disputed in other reliable sources, the decision on whether or not to include the information is more complicated.

If you're immersed in "whiteness" literature, it may seem unexceptional to claim that some of the whitest people in Europe were only ambiguously "white" in the 1800s (ie, the Irish). But if you read what mainstream ethnic historians have written a very different picture emerges. Tim Meagher, for example, wrote a whole chapter in his textbook The Columbia Guide to Irish-American History (Columbia University Press) that poked holes in the arguments of whiteness scholars (starting on p. 214 [31]).

In a review of 2 decades of Irish-American historical scholarship (midway through link 96 in my first post), Kevin Kenny writes, "In 2001 and 2002 Eric Arnensen, Peter Kolchin, and Barbara J. Fields took stock of the debate and called for a moratorium. Since then, historians have been more skeptical, though [whiteness studies] continues to proliferate in disciplines where it arrived later."

In terms of the legitimacy of the entire body of 'whiteness' theory, on p. 405 of link 95,

"These problems [with whiteness studies] cut two different and distinct ways. On the one hand, the lack of concrete supporting evidence and analysis allows whiteness scholarship to be dismissed by skeptics and remain marginalized from mainstream scholars of race and ethnic relations who expect a certain amount and type of empirical evidence to support and advance theories." [32] Note that this was published in the Journal of Social Problems by Oxford University Press nearly a decade after Tehranian published his paper in a Yale law journal (the source for the statement in question).

So how many reliable sources calling this theory into question do I need to cite before editors realize the statement in question is in fact controversial rather than an unexceptional thing to say? A dozen? Two dozen? I can do this, but it has to be worth my time. I've tried doing this in the past and it gets me nowhere. I haven't challenged this content in some months because one, I've been busy offline; two, I've been calling attention to other issues with other Wikipedia articles; and three, the issue with this one statement creates a massive headache for me and I'm very rarely in the mood for that. It is obvious that the editors who wrote this content have not fully engaged with the historical scholarship outside the whiteness genre, and thus reasonable discussion is all but impossible. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin had an opinion on whiteness in the 18th century: "The Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted.” Maybe this should be added to the article to bolster Tehranian's view. Smallchief (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The cherry-picking of sources is one of the core issues here, and does not need to be added to by cherry-picking quotes out of context and performing original research (one of the methodological problems in whiteness studies is that these authors will often cherry-pick quotes like this without demonstrating their representativeness and influence). The statement in dispute is even worse than the Franklin quote, as it groups European immigrants in with non-Europeans (eg, Iranians) in a very sloppy and ahistorical way. I have no opinion on the race of Iranians (or Afghans) - they weren't counted as white 200 years ago, and it's questionable if any significant number of people view them as white today (other than the US Census Bureau).

We are instructed to parrot mindlessly what reliable sources say, but this stipulation is not without caveats concerning the dating of a source (information in old sources may not be reliable) and his/her academic background. John Tehranian is a law professor with no expertise in ethnic, racial or social history. He had a lot to write about the 'race' of European immigrants, most of which is disputed by historians who specialize in immigrant histories.

That Tehranian was elevated to an authority on racial/ethnic history is a reflection of the fact that the editors who write this content are historically uninformed. If editors can't even admit that some of the content in this statement (particularly as it relates to European immigrants) is controversial even when reliable sources describe it as a scholarly controversy[33], they are not neutral editors and shouldn't be involved with these articles.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the source you cited supports your point. The fact that 200 academics and students came together to discuss the subject is a validation that "whiteness" is indeed a subject worthy of study -- and a wikipedia article. That scholars debate the importance of "whiteness" is hardly surprising. Scholars debate the importance of everything. The point of the quote you so vehemently disagree with is that the concept of "whiteness" and the ethnic groups to which it applies have differed and changed over the past 300 or so years. That's a fact verified by a multitude of scholars -- plus by Ben Franklin whose opinions are, shall we say, not without importance in American history. Frankly, I can't figure out what your problem is. Are you trying to suppress opinions on "whiteness" that you don't agree with?

As to the race of Iranians and Afghans, well, the word "Iran" is the same word as "Aryan." And the national airline of Afghanistan is "Ariana." I think we might agree that the word "Aryan" has come to have racial connotations.Smallchief (talk)

@Jonathan f1: actually it does matter who archived that thread because you've made a false accusation at the beginning of this thread. You've claimed that an editor refused to discuss something with you on an article talk page then archived the thread. This would potentially be a significant policy violation if it happened. But it's not what happened. The thread was automatically archived because no one said anything for 75 days. If you wanted to keep that thread open, you should have posted on it again or otherwise done something to try and attract other editors, like for example opened a noticeboard thread to draw attention to it when no one responded.

And the timing here is another key point since as I said you cannot expect editors engage in long discussion when you take over a month to response. By that time editors previously engaged with you may have moved on to other things or for whatever reason no longer be particularly interested. It's fairly ironic in a bad way that you'll complain an editor didn't respond when you've just been leaving highly sporadic comments. If you're busy with other things, fine but then why expect editors to be still free to discuss with you when you re-appear after a month? Ultimately of course a single editor is largely irrelevant anyway. If you want to get a contentious change through you need to seek the consensus, by an RfC or opening noticeboards discussions or whatever to draw attention to the issue. Although since you seem to be the only editor so far who feels this way, it's unlikely you'll get anywhere if you're just going to drop in every few months with a few new comments then disappear. Again you don't have to spend all your time on Wikipedia or on this issue, but when trying to get such a contentious response throw it may require persistent engagement on your part.

I'd note having looked at your last comment before you abandoned the issue for 75 days resulting in automatic archiving [34] is that beyond your discussion of sources, you made a bunch if claims about an editor's behaviour without evidence such as "I also suspect that you're using this page (and probably similar pages) as a vehicle to fight racism (an otherwise noble endeavor)". Behavioural issues should be discussed on an editor's talk page or one of the administrative noticeboards not on article talk pages. While it's sometimes acceptable to make some brief commentary, your posts are already very long and you're adding to them when you add such nonsense.

And I call it nonsense because you've made serious claims about an editor's behaviour without really any good evidence to back up such claims which can be considered personal attacks i.e. something that would lead to your block. You started this discussion doing that and are continuing it with you latest response. It's no wonder you're not getting anywhere when instead of focusing on the content dispute like you should, you keep accusing editors of stuff without evidence sometimes even when the evidence is against it. Then when called out on it you say it doesn't matter that you accused an editor of doing something they didn't do.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I would add if you want to explain why you are on RSN rather than article talk pages it's fine to say you tried to discuss on them but weren't satisfied with the responses. Probably also mention it was many months ago so editors don't get confused if they go looking for these discussions, or perhaps link to the archives. There's no need to malign other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I truly wasn't aware that archiving like that is a serious violation. And I shouldn't have assumed it was him regardless, given that I had no evidence.

On the other hand, this was an editor who tried to get me permanently banned from the encyclopedia, even from talk pages. He had a history of activism on here and was also frequently in heated arguments with other editors.

From what I gather, I should probably open another talk page section on the white people article, succinctly explain why the statement (as is) is problematic and cite the sources, and then wait maybe a week or two before pursuing Rfc or some other avenue.Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Acacia decurrens

Source at stake: https://dharawalstories.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/bookerrikin-text.pdf

Discussion is here: Talk:Acacia decurrens#Acacia decurrens. An uncomplicated case of no RS. An IP editor wants to use the self published source to establish its own reliability. I have provided the only thing even a hair more reliable – a Council has mentioned these stories as good for children. We remain without any RS to establish that these are appropriate "Cultural references" examples. See also WP:SELFSOURCE. Have these stories been retold #1 by anyone other than the author #2 about Acacia decurrens? We don't know. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I also provided evidence of the authors expertise as academically published authors on the broader topic of Aboriginal storytelling. The story has also been published by the authors in a book which is held in 32 libraries Australia wide, and the story has been reproduced in university coursework. It would be easier to assume good faith if Invasive Spices had bothered to present my position and additional information. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Interfax

I see hits in the archives but none specifically about this so. I could use feedback please on the Ukrainian and Russian Interfax? I understand that they are separate organizations. Are they reliable? Context is Ukraine, specifically in this case National Corps. I have also encountered the Russian version and have wondered about that too, but I want to get back to the tags I put on the Ukrainian version. Thanks for any brainpower Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Both sites seem like acceptable sources in my opinion; based on this previous discussion, they're newswires like the AP, and seem to just report what people say. For example with the article you linked, kthis instance is just reporting what this guy said without commentary, while this instance is reporting what the party's platform says with some facts to contextualize; both contain no opinion or slant. Seem more-or-less fine, in my opinion. Curbon7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Its probably usable, but there is certainly a slant and its pretty blatantly obvious in the first example there... For example in "The party also favors restoring Ukraine's nuclear power status and nationalizing enterprises which were government owned when Ukraine became independent in 1991." the key is "restoring" as Ukraine *never had nuclear power status* they've gone beyond the factual and into the political, not disqualifying though... no different than a Chinese news wire using "reunification" vs "unification" when talking about Taiwan, yes its false but its not really the sort of false that we care about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ed-Tech Press

I got a note on my talk page that prompted me to see if this had already been discussed and I haven't seen that after a quick set of searches. The message I received:

" "Ed-Tech Press" books are straight-up copies of various Wikipedia articles as they were in 2019. In every instance I've dug into I've yet to find original material in one of those "books", and the authors are always falsified. The company's address is an accounting proxy as well."

If this is the case, would be useful to call out this "press" via the perennial sources list. Thanks for discussing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Denial of high quality (scientific) sources

• Ethnicities in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

MAP IN QUESTION: Turcophone populated villages by Iranian counties and districts (1986-2012)

Reason: Denying all sources. See HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)'s edits. He claims map is not based on a official government data, but it is: Jahād-e Sāzandegī 1986 (later (after 2001) merged with the Ministry of Agriculture Jihad). So he is in denial with his own countries institutions. He further denies the University of Tehran as a source joined by an academic 2012 liaison with the French National Centre for Scientific Research (which is specialized in Cartographic Studies on Iran and the Iranian world). One can‘t get enough quality in just 1 map. I tried to communicate a solution at his talk page but the user insists in his own position by reverting and giving no care to the fact that the map is based upon official 1986 government sources including two modern academic sources of the highest possible degree.--2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems like there is a lack of WP:COMPETENCE (and perhaps WP:JDLI) here. So let me repeat myself for the third time; What you're linking is a revolutionary organization (which the map apparently is largely based on), not anything government related. Even if it was a reliable source, it is from 1986, thus heavily outdated. Also, what country I belong to is none of your business. Last but not least, this is not a place for reporting other users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Your statement is based on assumptions, personal insults and claims that you cannot prove. You are also denying obvious facts. There is nothing more to add.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

“lack“ is a personal insult. Thank you and be civil.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SANCTIONGAME. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is irrelevant as even if it is a government document, that does not mean it is "scientific". Plenty of government bodies has produced the most appealing racist cobblers in the past. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn‘t make such a claim. The matter is that governmental data is scientifically used by an University and the largest fundamental science agency in Europe (CNRS). I hope this is clearer now.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

To make this easier, can someone link to the original of the map? Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ofc, http://www.irancarto.cnrs.fr/record.php?q=AR-040516&f=local&l=en —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to the map's source. My first thought is that HistoryofIran is correct to raise objections to this map. My first question is: why is the map captioned with 1986–2012? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Because 2012 is written in the original map file (bottom right: University of Tehran and CNRS).-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm interpreting that as the year of authorship. Do you think that's intended to signify that the data goes from 1986-2012? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because the source also says “… and others“.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

But its main source is formk 1986, and the only one they name. Also who are irancarto? Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It also seems like the year of authorship/publication to me. Also, I find “and others“ pretty vague and unconvincing, especially when the main “source“ is pretty questionable. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

General question: why should the University of Tehran including the largest fundametal science agency in Europe use non-reliable data. Makes no sense at all to me.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The source is irancarto. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, irancarto is part of CNRS and makes [Cartographic Studies on Iran and the Iranian world].-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It also no longer seems to be active. http://www.irancarto.cnrs.fr/, which causes me some conceranrn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Active until 27. dec. 2019.. So, shouldn't effect the credibility of the source. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Well it might, as we do not know why it is no longer active. The fact the map seems to be mainly based on a dodge course (from before it was part of any ministry) from a source that is no longer active makes me wonder about this maps purpose and accuracy. I am not saying it is wrong, I am saying I can see why another user might question its veracity. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I admit, Iran is politically a difficult country. But the final question still remains: why should the University of Tehran including the largest fundametal science agency in Europe use non-reliable data? As the question itself give the answer, there shouldn’t be any concerns at all. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the first question still remains; Why cite a revolutionary organization as a source? How is it reliable? That was the first question which was made, and you still haven't answered it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

And my point is they are not, as they have ditched this. It may be for many reasons but one might be they decided the data they were being supplied with was flawed. so dropped it, like some have dropped dodgy research papers after publication. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It‘s like saying Iran had no official institutions at those times. This would contradict the facts. Also the University of Tehran is not only seen as the “mother of all Universities in Iran“ but has also been ranked as one of the best universities in the Middle Esst and is among the top universities of the world. No offense but hat’s the official branding.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Page 348: I think you are dazzled by the wikipedia entry for the Ministry of Jihad of Construction: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cognitive_Linguistics_and_Translation/sP3oBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Jihad+of+Construction+government+of+iran&pg=PA348&printsec=frontcover --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC) You act as if this ministry was not an official organ of the Iranian government.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

{{subst:DNAU|HistoryofIran}}, Is this the reason why the Ministry of Jihad of Construction was later (in 2001) merged with the Ministry of Agriculture Jihad? —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

{{subst:DNAU|Firefangledfeathers}}

{{subst:DNAU|Slatersteven}} In this aspect the argumention of HistoryofIran is flawed by a simple fact.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You can't even answer a simple question, yet you call my argumentation flawed? So far no one has agreed with you here. More reliability is not possible.--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)