Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 340Archive 341Archive 342Archive 343Archive 344Archive 345→Archive 350

Falk & Tilley (ECSWA), Israel Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Can this report, republished in the The Palestine Yearbook of International Law Online via Brill, be used for the following sentence at Demographic engineering, despite the fact that the report was removed from the UNESCWA website after political pressure[1]?

A 2017 report by Richard A. Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, and Virginia Tilley, a political scientist from Southern Illinois University Carbondale, originally published by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (UNESCWA) wrote that "The first general policy of Israel has been one of demographic engineering, in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority."

User Free1Soul claims that the report by these two eminent academics is "disgraced" due to the UNESCWA retraction, but I have not seen any reliable source making such a claim.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but as opinions of these two scholars (not UNESCWA). While UN subsequently retracted the report (EDIT: indeed under pressure of Mr Guterres, because initially it was accepted), the authors (who are both Middle East scholars) stood by it and it still constitutes valid research (political pressure is not something that renders the work unreliable/untrustworthy, only other researchers' conclusions about poor quality). Also, please shorten the sentence, so that it could harmonically merge into the paragraph. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact of its "unendorsement" by the UN has even made it into scholarly sources Eric Walberg (7 November 2017). The Canada-Israel Nexus. SCB Distributors. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-0-9986947-0-2. "commissioned and approved by the UN but has not obtained an official endorsement from the Secretary General of the UN. Hence, it does not represent the views of the UN." In another, Seada Hussein Adem, refers the reader to pages 14 to 17 of the report.Seada Hussein Adem (5 April 2019). Palestine and the International Criminal Court. Springer. pp. 157–. ISBN 978-94-6265-291-0. so the report is out in the wild, endorsed or not.Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats a BLP violation, one that should have either evidence or be met with sanctions. nableezy - 23:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, apartheid accusations against Israel are not that uncommon, particularly among the American left, and they even came to organisations like B'Tselem (Israel) and Human Rights Watch, so I wouldn't call it WP:FRINGE. Exactly the same source (when reported by Reuters) has been inserted into this Wikipedia article, and that despite the article being extended protected and under active arbitrage coverage.
Also, I'd probably like some better sources than Israeli publications, because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive to the critique of Israel, exactly dismissing it as "anti-Semitism". It goes both ways - some critique of Israel is legitimately anti-Semitic, some critique of something being called anti-Semitic isn't anti-Semitic (which I believe is the case here), so if other RS report on it as being part of an anti-Semitic attack, I have no objections; but since Jews are party here, even Haaretz, which is known to be probably the most lenient major Israeli publication to Palestinians, doesn't help to establish claims of anti-Semitism. The case is even weaker given that the story was broken by UN Watch, which is known to have a strong pro-Israeli bias and seems to have been targeting Richard Falk specifically, see here. It is contextually unreliable for such claims (though otherwise a very respectable outlet). PS. The scandal has received no coverage of which I'm aware from non-Israeli sources and was just a short flash of interest, therefore not WP:SUSTAINED.
I also don't agree with the assertion that the work was not published, as the definition says "made available to the public in some form", and it was - it has even racked up 25 citations from Google Scholar (rather unusual, let's agree for unpublished documents); nor can it be reasonably argued it's WP:SPS, so it must be reputably published.
See also these discussions for reference.
Your statement of "Jews are very sensitive" is discriminatory and has no place here. JTA is not Israeli, nor is this 2017 source.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
If the only sources you have are the Jewish Chronicle and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, apart from mentioned above, I rest my case.
As for possible 9/11 conspiratorial thinking, it can't be denied he is sympathetic to the conspiracy's main points, but neither can it be denied that his belief in some 9/11 conspiracies strips him from qualifications he has as a political scientist. It's like saying a scientist stops being trustworthy because he was convicted of sexual assault.
Finally, whatever happened to Virginia Tilley? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
You're gonna have a little problem with your "No Jews Allowed" rule, buddy: Richard Falk is Jewish. JBchrch talk 23:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably undue, regardless of reliability. Falk's work is not about demographic engineering, it just happens to mention it. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    Buidhe, the idea that a source needs to be “about” the topic of an article for it to be usage is not policy based. But I don’t mind following it, so long as we apply it consistent across the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe, I just reviewed the FA Greek case, an excellent article which you wrote. Many of the sources you used in that article were not “about” the Greek case. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The removal does not make a report unreliable automatically but the cartoons published by Falk indicate his strong bias. For such a topic, I'm sure that there are dozens of other books, articles and reports which can be used, do we truly need this specific one? Alaexis¿question? 05:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable and WP:UNDUE As showed by Freesoul its not a report but one sided propaganda piece.And per Buidhe even if it was reliable it shouldn't be used --Shrike (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • undue/unreliable. The report was retracted by the publisher (UN), so it is just the personal views of Falk and Tilley. Considering Falk is known for posting antisemitic cartoons (already above) and for conspiracy theories: "in his off-hours Mr. Falk moonlights as a prolific purveyor of conspiracy theories" (Sohrab Ahmari, WSJ), this isn't reliable nor due. Falk isn't even a reliable source for what he himself said, as in the past he has denied posting 9/11 conspiracy theories, yet Reuters states: "But Falk’s Jan. 11 blog post unequivocally refers to a cover-up regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001. “What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials,” Falk wrote. Falk is very far outside mainstream, though he does have a following in Iran (Teharan Times recently quoted as " Iran as an Islamic system is the only country that is “genuinely” fighting terrorist groups such as Daesh and state terrorism exercised by Israel and the United States.").--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Attribute experts Falk and Tilley, biased or not, are experts in their areas so the report (which has been published) is usable if attributed to them. Although the report was controversial at the time for being the first to allege Israeli apartheid inclusive of Israel as well as in the occupied territories, recent reports by blue chip human rights organizations B'Tselem (Israeli) and Human Rights Watch (international) have produced similar conclusions and so it is no longer considered controversial.Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • comment I have stricken User:Szmenderowiecki comments in this discussion as he didn't reach 500 edits --Shrike (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    Where is it written that such users cannot opine here??? Alaexis¿question? 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    It's based on an ARCA ie if this discussion is considered as being within Arbpia guideline, Israel-Palestine related, "broadly construed". It's somewhat debatable since the underlying article, Demographic engineering, is not carrying the Arbpia warnings and might only be considered incidental to IP area. I think the strikeout is not really justifed, tbh.Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    I see, thanks. Alaexis¿question? 13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Selfstudier and Alaexis: the section on Israel is obviously part of the conflict (definitely not incidentally) and User:Nableezy has added the notices. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    Right, Nableezy has added the Israel material and notices in view of the objection to Falk and after I wrote my comments; it's trivial to get the same information elsewhere which just tends to support my view that not only is the Falk material uncontroversial in and of itself, subsequent unquestioned rs has relied on his material for their material.Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable with attribution as a source of two subject matter experts. Due weight is another question. Also most probably better to remove the clause that mentions being originally published by UNESCWA. The organization appears to want to distance itself from the report, although they have not retracted the report or stated it has errors. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable as the attributed view of established experts in the field. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear on this, and the ad hominem attacks by some editors above notwithstanding, both authors clearly meet the requirements here. nableezy - 16:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable. The two scholars are area experts, and the quote for which they are cited ( "The first general policy of Israel has been one of demographic engineering, in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority.") is a commonplace. Detailed documentation of it is all over numerous relevant wiki articles, and, for example, in Jerusalem planning has long sought to ensure a 70/30 (later adjusted to 60/40 ration between Jews and Arabs. Between 1967 and 2016, 14,595 Palestinians were stripped of their right to live in East Jerusalem, and the reason was to create a Jewish majority even there. The objection appears to be dislike of the authors, particularly Falk, not for the point both authors make. The view therefore cannot even be treated as an exceptional claim.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Falk's report has pretty much been discredited and this fails WP:REDFLAG. And as others have pointed out, Falk is quite fringe. As per the ADL: "It is outrageous that the U.N. Human Rights Council continues to support such a wildly conspiratorial and highly biased extremist as a reliable ‘expert,’...Richard Falk has given the Human Right’s Council yet another black eye and his continued affiliation with the international body only serves to undermine its credibility. His outrageous assertion that the Boston terror attack can be traced to U.S. and Israeli policy is not surprising, given his notorious record of anti-Israel and anti-American propaganda.”[4] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, by red flag, are you suggesting that it is an exceptional claim to state that Israel's government is focused on demographic engineering?! John McEnroe wrote a book relevant to that suggestion. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes. And I have no idea why you're bringing up some tennis player's book. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Given your incomprehensible perplexity at the allusion, I guess one will have to spell it out, that it was a gentle way of suggesting your remark cannot be taken seriously.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Red flag has nothing to do with the issue. There has been no evidence given that the report was discredited. The passage in question is not controversial. The authors are experts. A scholarly report commissioned by the UN but subsequently not endorsed as reflecting the views of that body (which in any case are mostly based on political compromises), then published in another venue, retains its validity, its status is not defined by the UN but by the expertise of its authors and the venue of its subsequent publication. Were it otherwise the UN would be recognized as exercising an authority over what can or cannot be said of the conflict.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable; the UNESCWA retraction has no significance because the paper derives its weight and reliability from its academic publishing, which remains in good standing. But I would avoid making them the only source. Partially this is because other sources exist saying the same thing (so citing it to just their opinion gives the impression that it has less support than it does.) Beyond that, I do not personally think it is an exceptional statement at all; it seems completely uncontroversial to say that Israel's policies are heavily driven by a need to engage in demographic engineering in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel if they want to be a Jewish state. But since so many other sources exist saying this, there is no reason to drag our heels on providing them or to get excessively caught up in a dispute over just one. Some other sources:
  • [5] Bookman, Milica Z. "The Demographic Struggle for Power: The Political Economy of Demographic Engineering in the Modern World". Israel is cited as one of the main examples throughout the book.
  • [6] Tzfadia, Erez, and Haim Yacobi. "Identity, migration, and the City: Russian immigrants in contested urban space in Israel." Urban Geography 28.5 (2007): 436-455.: "Settling Jewish immigrants in frontier cities and regions was part of a governmental scheme termed by McGarry (1998) “demographic engineering.” The massive expropriation of Palestinian land and houses and their transformation into Jewish state property through legislation (Forman and Kedar, 2004) was one of the most effective means of implementing this program. In Lod, for instance..."
  • [7] Molavi, Shourideh C. "Contemporary Israel/Palestine." The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Middle Eastern and North African History.: Has an entire section about demographic engineering in Israel that is too long to easily quote here, but which goes into extensive detail, but the key conclusion Taken together, the Jewish state begets practices of demographic engineering to ensure a Jewish majority,and simultaneously, the Jewish majority is then made a prerequisite for the consummation of the Jewish state.
There are many more sources. I would collect them, read them, and rewrite the bit in question a bit to reflect what they say. There is some room to debate how to phrase it, but I do not think that the fact that Israel practices demographic engineering is contested - in particular the bit in the lead that says In addition, numerous policies of the Israeli government have been characterized as demographic engineering is inappropriate in that it describes an established fact as an opinion; unless someone can find a source disagreeing with the ones above, it should simply say that Israel practices demographic engineering (and go into a bit more detail as to why, which the sources are fairly clear on - demographic engineering is necessary for Israel to exist as a Jewish state - it should say something like Israel practices demographic engineering in order to maintain a Jewish majority and its identity as a Jewish state or words to that effect.) I'm honestly a bit baffled that people are treating this as controversial - the controversial part is not that Israel practices demographic engineering, the controversial bit is whether it has a right to exist as a Jewish state, which (while it doesn't use the exact terms McGarry did) it effectively says justifies demographic engineering towards that end. So rather than present a well-established fact as mere opinion, I would be careful to include Israel's reasons for its policies. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable - I was indeed on the fence for a long time with this one, it's a complex matter, but Aquillion's comment (thank you Aquillion) pushed me towards a "reliable" side. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. The publisher (the UN), withdrew its support for this. It was then reprinted in Electronic Intifada and an on-line yearbook of law, but with them reprinting the UN disclaimers etc. The result is a self-published work by Falk and Tilley. Falk is known for self-publishing 9/11 conspiracy theories[8][9] and other junk and his unvetted self published writings can not be considered reliable. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The “conspiracy theories” stuff looks like a smear job without substance. Per [10] he explicitly denied any belief in the position that his ideological opponents claimed he had. And your analysis of the publication history is incorrect and has been explained in more detail in comments above. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
This Reuters piece, already quoted above, analyzed the Falk's denial of the denial and rejected it, stating that "Falk’s Jan. 11 blog post unequivocally refers to a cover-up regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001". This is a reliable source on Falk. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
All government investigations include some form of cover-up. All of them. Why? Because government bureaucracies are consistently incompetent and mistake-prone, and it is not politically expedient to highlight these mistakes when people have been killed in a national tragedy. Falk’s political opponents extrapolated and speculated about the kind of cover-up Falk was referring to, but I am not aware of any substance behind the claim that he was pushing a conspiracy theory. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
You might have a point if this were about 9/11. Falk however is an established expert on international law and on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and no when Brill publishes something in the Palestine Yearbook of International Law it is not a "self-published" work, and even if it were, as the work product of two established experts, this would still be a fine source per WP:SPS. People disliking what a reliable source says is not, and has never been, a reason to remove it from a supposed encyclopedia article. Which is what every single "not reliable" vote here is aiming to do. Maybe stop with the obvious logical fallacies and focus on what our policies say, which is that this is an obviously reliable source as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. nableezy - 15:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Falk is thoroughly discredited, reliable sources note his conspiracy theories. As for the copy hosted at The Palestine Yearbook of International Law Online, it is classified as "other", has the heading of "UN DOCUMENTS", and is a one to one copy of the retracted UN report including copyright notices and acknowledgements. There is no indication of peer review or any scientific process. The yearbook reprinting a retracted report due to relevance to the yearbook does not make the report reliable. Furthermore, the same yearbook in the same issue reprinted hundreds of pages of UN documents in the same back portion of the yearbook, such as:
  1. Draft United Nations Security Council Resolution S/2017/1060 (Dec. 17, 2017)
  2. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/ES-10/19 (Dec. 21, 2017)
  3. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/72/13 (Dec. 6, 2017)
  4. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/72/15 (Dec. 7, 2017)
After 300 pages or so of UN documents, it also reprinted:
  1. Law for the Regularization of Settlement in Judea and Samaria, 5777–2017 (Israel)
  2. Statement Issued by the Central Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
  3. Statement by (United States) President Trump on Jerusalem
This portion of the yearbook (the back portion), is merely a dumping ground for primary documents relating to the topic of the yearbook. These primary documents are published as-is, without any peer review or any process. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
You can keep saying he is discredited, but he isnt, and no reliable source has questioned his expertise on this topic. You can keep talking about irrelevant things like 9/11 but this isnt about 9/11 so I dont quite see the point in arguing about this. You can keep saying things about primary documents, but a report by third party academics is not a primary source. nableezy - 16:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable. The Palestine Yearbook of International Law is a well-respected publication. 11Fox11 should learn what "self-published" means before trying to apply an irrelevant policy. Like others here, I'm amazed at the attempt to remove "in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority" which anyone who knows anything about the subject knows to be a primary objective of Israel and Zionism before it. Zerotalk 06:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that part of the issue is that few people disagree that Israel makes maintaining a Jewish majority a central policy goal (Israeli officials are often very unambiguous about this); but people who support what Israel is doing generally object to any specific academic term for it. Partially this is because those words tend to also apply to a lot of really unequivocally awful stuff; eg. this source (while discussing the term's use in another context) mentions that demographic engineering, as an all-encompassing package of demographic policies, comprises ‘ethnic cleansing’ as one of its measures and then immediately notes that the use of the term in that conflict is predominant in the non-apologetic historiographical literature on violence against minorities, which I read as a scholarly way of saying people don't tend to describe something as demographic engineering if they think it's a good thing. Rather than trying to omit the sources that do use the term in relation to Israel, it might be worth looking for similar sources describing who uses it and who doesn't in relation to Israel - such sources probably exist. But this is probably a better discussion for the article talk page. --Aquillion (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Parts of the yearbook may be peer reviewed papers. The back portion of the yearbook, including this document, is a dumping ground of primary material namely hundreds of pages of UN documents, court decisions, Israeli laws, PLO statements. Look at the Table of contents of the issue and this is what is there from page 201 (after the actual articles and one book review). 11Fox11 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
You have a very serious misunderstanding of what primary means. Falk and Tilley are not primary sources on this topic. nableezy - 15:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion in the primary document dump of the yearbook lends this discredited report the same weight as the Statement by (United States) President Trump on Jerusalem reprinted in the same portion of the yearbook. The original publisher, the UN, unendorsed this. So this is the same as material posted on Falk's website. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
You seem to think that just repeating things like discredited makes it true. The work product of two established experts in the field is reliable even if it were on Falk's website. And you also seem to be ignoring that Virginia Tilley is likewise an established expert in the field. But good luck with the attempt at proof by repetition, maybe itll work. Doubt it, but who knows nableezy - 16:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The situation (per scholarly source at the top of this discussion) is "commissioned and approved by the UN but has not obtained an official endorsement from the Secretary General of the UN. Hence, it does not represent the views of the UN." That does not mean discredited, not even close. Try some other argument.Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Obviously not reliable A retracted report, written by a known conspiracy theorist (not intended as a smear, but Falk's activities as a 9/11 truther are well known). Surprised we're even discussing this. For what it's worth, I believe the claim is accurate, it seems rather uncontroversial to say Israel has attempted to engineer a Jewish majority. So no problem with stating that, but this particular source is not suitable. Jeppiz (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Jeppiz, please substantiate the claim but Falk's activities as a 9/11 truther are well known. Per above, my reading is that these are distorted claims made by his ideological enemies but I can't see much evidence for them. Your statement is making him sound like he is actively pushing a conspiracy, but I believe his "activities" were a blog post suggesting that the government might not be sharing everything it knew, which he later clarified that he did not mean in a conspiracy theory way. That is not the behaviour of a "9/11 truther". Onceinawhile (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Sure. First, it was not just blog posts. Falk wrote the preface to the book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 which claims that the Bush administration was involved in the 9/11 attacks.[1]. Second, the Secretary General of the UN condemned Falk's pushing of conspiracy theories Reuters, That is much more substantial than just ideological enemies (who??) distorted his claims in a blog. Jeppiz (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Entirely irrelevant, nobody is using Falk as a source on 9/11. nableezy - 20:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, IMO anyone who has pushed conspiracy theories (if that's true) in one topic is probably unreliable for any topic. The point is certainly relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
No, a set of users bringing up unrelated topics to dismiss an expert in this field is not something that is found in WP:RS. Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton. He is a former Special Rapporteur and has been published in a huge number of peer-reviewed journal articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict and international law. Tilley is a professor at Southern Illinois University who has likewise been published in peer-reviewed works on this topic. What, exactly, in WP:SCHOLARSHIP allows for the dismissal of these scholars because of one of their views on another topic? Quote from policy please, dont just hand wave to some belief that you have that is not found anywhere in our policies. nableezy - 16:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It's a pretty well recognised principle that if a source spreads some conspiracy theories or other similar types of nonsense, then it is considered unreliable in general. See, for example, the Daily Mail: over 95% of the material it publishes are probably uncontroversial and factually correct, the concern is that it repeatedly pushes unfounded rubbish. The principle is documented at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources. Now see the definition of a source at WP:SOURCEDEF; it is not limited to publishing organisations but also includes The creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and as the policy says: Any of the three can affect reliability. So yes, if an author has spread conspiracy theories in any topic, they are generally unreliable as a source for all topics. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
An academic expert in this specific field who is freaking professor emeritus at Princeton cannot under any reading of WP:RS be considered unreliable in general. If Falk were writing on his blog on this topic he would meet WP:SPS which says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. And thanks for WP:DEPRECATED, that requires an RFC to deprecate a source, not one editor making assertions that when the policy they claim supports it does not back them up. Yes, any of the three can affect the reliability. And if you continue reading WP:RS youll see where it discusses WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Falk is a widely cited expert in the fields of international law and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If youd like to try to deprecate a person with some 26000 citations to his work (a fifth of those just in the last five years) you are welcome to try. But itll take an RFC to do that. Not you making assertions not actually based on policy, and in fact directly contradicted by it. Even if he were writing on his blog Falk would be reliable on this topic per Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. His work in the relevant field is what is at issue here, and in that relevant field he was professor at Ohio State, Harvard and Princeton. His work has been published by some of the most respected publishers on the planet. You want to make an RFC to deprecate that type of source feel free. Oh, and please tell me why Virginia Tilley is being ignored here? She is likewise the author of peer-reviewed works on this topic. Why are you ignoring her entirely? This specific article has been cited by 26 times itself. And youre going to say Wikipedia should deprecate the author? Let me know when the Daily Mail is racking up citations to its work in Political Studies. nableezy - 17:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Should also maybe read what this effort to discredit Falk was actually about, and not just accept as gospel what people trying to disqualify an actual expert on the topic has to say because they dislike his views. He hasnt spread any conspiracy theories anyway, but his views on 9/11 are entirely irrelevant to his area of academic expertise, which this article firmly falls under. nableezy - 19:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Unreliable, fringe'. Astounding this is even discussed. As User:Jeppiz shows, Falk, the first named author, is known for 9/11 conspiracies. As User:Adoring nanny says, Falk also had an antisemitic cartoons issue. Whatever his pre-emeritus credentials, his reputation is shot in the emeritus phase. He was even condemned by his emeritus employer, the UN. As User:11Fox11 shows, the Brill yearbook reproduction is brought up here disingenuously as it appears there not as a research article but as a reproduction of a multitude of UN documents that the yearbook reproduced from the period. It is not peer reviewed. The actual publisher here, the UN, withdrew the publication. 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not reliable sources.--Hippeus (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It is a BLP violation to call a living person a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. The number of users making such derogatory claims on a living person when no reliable source does so is obscene. And every single person making that claim had better start putting up rock solid sources that directly back up that contention. The Reuters source says no such thing. UN Watch is not a reliable source to disparage a living person. And calling a a journal article that already has 26 citations to it fringe is what is astounding. nableezy - 19:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Not a journal article. Not peer reviewed. Reproduction in a yearbook of a document the UN unpublished, alongside other UN documents from the period. As for 9/11, he was condemned by the UN chief: U.N. chief condemns rights expert's 9/11 comments, and from the discussion above there are plenty of other sources on 9/11 conspiracy theories here.--Hippeus (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The introduction to the article says Appreciation is extended to the blind reviewers for their valuable input. The UN chief condemned one part of one blog post he made. He did not call him a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Unless you provide reliable sources that substantiate what you said about a living person you should withdraw it. nableezy - 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
More than enough reliable sources have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist,a promoter of conspiracy theories, and he has praised conspiracy theorists like David Ray Griffin. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
.
  • ADL: "“It is outrageous that the U.N. Human Rights Council continues to support such a wildly conspiratorial and highly biased extremist as a reliable ‘expert,’”[11]
  • NY Times: "The authors included a former United Nations human rights investigator, Richard Falk, which particularly galled many Israel supporters who regard him as an anti-Semite and a discredited conspiracy theorist."[12]
  • NY Times: "He has compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi atrocities and has called for more serious examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks."[13]
  • SF Gate (written by Joel Brinkley, Pulitizer-prize-winning journalist): "9/11 conspiracy theorist should leave U.N. job"[14]
  • Jewish Chronicle: "Richard Falk, a former UN special envoy who has supported 9/11 conspiracy theories and praised the work of notorious antisemite Gilad Atzmon."[15]
  • The Atlantic: "It turns out that "Palestine expert" on the UN Human Rights Council, the law professor Richard Falk, is something of a 9/11 Truther" [16]
  • The New Republic: "Richard Falk, Conspiracy Theorist" [17]
  • JTA: "Richard Falk, a former U.N. rapporteur on Palestinian rights, has earned opprobrium for likening Israel to Nazi Germany and for amplifying baseless conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States."[18]
  • Tablet Magazine: "...Richard Falk, a known 9/11 truther and promoter of anti-Semitism...Falk is an equal opportunity advocate of conspiracy theories, not just about America, but about Jews"[19]
  • New York Magazine Intelligencer: "The Conspiracist’s Guide to Osama bin Laden’s Bookshelf...and New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin and Richard Falk. One thing these titles have in common is they all cast doubt on the so-called “official story” of bin Laden’s signature claim to fame"[20]
  • Wall Street Journal: "His political lunacy has left Mr. Falk with few friends in respectable circles, but it has also helped him find a professional niche at the U.N. Human Rights Council. U.S. diplomats, time and again, have failed to remove him from his post—even after he came out as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist on his blog in January 2011."[21]
  • The Telegraph: "Richard Falk, a retired professor from Princeton University, wrote on his blog that there had been an "apparent cover up" by American authorities...And he described David Ray Griffin, a conspiracy theorist highly regarded in the so-called "9/11 truth" movement, as a "scholar of high integrity" whose book on the subject was "authoritative".[22]
  • Reuters: "But Falk’s Jan. 11 blog post unequivocally refers to a cover-up regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001."[23]
Since two blue chip human rights organizations have since not only confirmed but have expanded upon the findings of Falk and Tilley, then as far as I am concerned that fact by itself is sufficient confirmation that the report is an acceptable document.Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
What utter bs. A selection of sources saying that Israel supporters claim he is something and a set of opinion pieces from Israel supporters saying he is something is not anywhere close to the level of sourcing that WP:BLP requires for such a claim. Im going to open an RFC on this, it is insane that users can commit BLP violating edits to wipe away actual scholars on the level of Richard Falk in the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Insane. nableezy - 23:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per the convincing rationale by Jeppiz; and per my above general comments on source reliability, combined with the arguments and evidence later presented by Hippeus and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. ProcSock (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Obviously unreliable, fringe and undue. per Jeppiz and Hippeus. - Daveout(talk) 03:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable per Aquillon, whether it is due weight is another matter but this is clearly a well-regarded academic opinion that I see no reason to consider unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment For those arguing that the document is unpublished, it is published here as well:-
1) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mepo.12265
2) https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=ps_pubs
3) https://www.proquest.com/openview/fbf5c248e3ad13eb65ee4a8a19a11294/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=26627
it is also available for download in multiple locations all over the net and the position that this report is discredited or of no value has absolutely no merit.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thats actually an opinion piece by the Sohrab Ahmari. I leave it to the reader to judge if Sohrab Ahmari is more of a reliable source than Richard A. Falk and Virginia Tilley. nableezy - 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing deference and COVID-19 misinfo by San Diego news station

I have some concerns generally about the political slant, editorial independence and reliability of KUSI-TV, a television station in San Diego. In January 2019, the station said CNN had refused to have on one of their reporters for political reasons, but had no evidence for the claim. When U.S. Congressman Duncan D. Hunter did an interview with KUSI-TV in December 2019, while he was in the middle of a federal indictment, the station stuck to questions provided by his team. And in August 2020, they ran a highly flattering "exclusive" with notorious anti-vaccine activist (and later Capitol stormer) Simone Gold, framing her as "censored" and writing about "why the medical community, and Democrat legislators won’t embrace the drug as a valid treatment option for those infected with coronavirus" and "the success they have had using Hydroxychloroquine to treat patients infected with coronavirus." Needless to say, this recent track record of imbalance to the U.S. Republican Party and political right is concerning for what is supposed to be an independent station. Reposting as this was initially archived before any discussion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Any evidence they make stuff up?Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Did you read the part about CNN and the part where they said hydroxychloroquine helped cure COVID? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I read the article you linked... and I don’t see where they say hydrocychloroqine cures Covid. What they report is that some doctors said it helps treat Covid. This is fact... there were doctors saying this. (And please note that there is a difference between a treatment and a cure). Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
My mistake. And yes, there were some people with medical degrees saying this (Gold and Stella Immanuel, the alien sex demon lady, come to mind) but it doesn't mean a newsroom should run a glowing, completely uncritical puff piece on them. That has to knock this station's credibility, or at very least their editorial judgment. And calling it "censorship" as they do is in fact untrue. This sentence from the article, "Since President Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine as a beneficial treatment, the media, big tech, and Democrat officials have been adamant about not allowing anyone to speak in favor of the drug", is indistinguishable to me from a Breitbart piece. That wasn't a Gold quote – that was their reporter. Any local media outlet warning about someone being "smeared by the mainstream media" is clearly thus distinguishing themselves from the mainstream media (the bulk of WP:RSP). To be clear, the vast majority of local news stations are not like this. The linked piece is thoroughly problematic by itself, and with a documented history of related pandering as provided by the other sources, I think this source's reliability needs to be thoroughly considered. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Bias and reliability can overlap, but they are not the same thing. I certainly would not give this source much WEIGHT (due to its bias), but I would place it on the reliability scale I would place it on the “reliable” side of the line. It does retract when it gets facts wrong. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I looked at it but honestly as far as reliability is concerned, its weak. You can look for corroboration from a second source. Also the news makes updates and correction periodically which is the similar case with most local TV channels. Just my two cents. HaughtonBrit (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Not for noting, but the San Diego Tribune piece making the allegations was written by an opinion columnist and it looks like the piece is subject to WP:RSOPINION. The particular piece regarding Hydroxychloroquine isn't a great look, but this is why we have WP:MEDRS (reputable national stations seem to have been similarly bad in their coverage of the vaccine-autism debacle, including at least one listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable(!) that stated in the voice of the magazine that there was a conspiracy to cover up alleged autism-causing effects of chemicals in vaccines). If there's a pattern of this sort of stuff, then I'd be a bit more concerned. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MEDRS goes into play. The popular press in general is considered an un reliable source for medical claims. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think enough attention is being given presently to the Hunter article, which shows non-independence, and the CNN article, showing deliberate publication of lies. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The article in the San Diego Tribune was written by Charles T. Clark, a columnist. It appears to be an opinion piece, and I'd hesitate to label a source based upon that. The AP article about CNN doesn't appear to be a good look for the source. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Here is another in-depth article reporting on their interview with Congressman Hunter, including quotes from experts on journalism ethics: "This … only proves my point that this was not really journalism — it was a free ad. Had it been real journalism, the reporter would have asked follow-ups, challenged contradictions, and brought in additional points of view." I personally do not think that the Union-Tribune piece is a column; it is not labeled as such and does not read like a column (though I will admit it is strange to see a columnist do traditional news). This is a random example I just found on their website of what a column from that newspaper looks like: labeled "Opinion", description of the author below the byline, and "Commentary" and "Opinion" tags at the bottom. Here is another write-up of the CNN debacle, this time from The Hill. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It is certainly reliable (as a primary source) for a statement about what Congressman Hunter said in the interview (it is unlikely that they misrepresented his views). The fact that they threw him softballs or did not ask follow up questions is irrelevant to that. Again, I am not seeing deliberate misrepresentation, here... this seems more like a NPOV issue than a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of "The Appeal"?

There is an interview with a birth parent of children in the Hart family murders which I want to use as a source. The Appeal (magazine) is by Tides Advocacy and the about page is https://theappeal.org/about/ . It seems like a legitimate source to me but I would like some feedback as using the interview of the birth parent is a BLP dimension (the adoptive parents and the children have been dead for more than two years and no other people were involved in the murders, so the Hart family case itself is not a BLP case) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks legit and reliable source to me especially since they work with public officials, advocates, academics, and other journalists. And if you have secondary source to corroborate, that helps too. I consider TheAppeal reliable.HaughtonBrit (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I think what also helps is that the interview was conducted by Roxana Asgarian, who (based on her name being the same) also wrote articles sent to The Washington Post and The Oregonian about that case. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Interviews are tricky. Reliability depends on a) the publication, b) the journalist conducting the interview... and c) the person being interviewed (are they an expert, do they have an agenda, etc). In this case, I would say that the interview is reliable for an attributed statement as to what was said in the interview, but not necessarily for a factual claim written in WP’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The article itself is mostly the journalist writing but Asgarian includes some excerpts stated by the interviewee. I want to use Asgarian's statement that a woman is the birth mother of three of the children and that she's white, and use the birth mother's interview statement on how she felt about government agencies not contacting her. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Are we asking for a reliable source that the person in question said the things they said in the interview or that what they said in the interview is itself true? Those are two different questions and exactly what we are citing will determine whether or not the source should or should not be used as it is being used. Even if it is the first and not the second, WP:UNDUE comes in to play as well. --Jayron32 17:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

American Community Survey

I am being told that the American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census is not a reliable source and its inclusion is misleading (so my additions were removed to Portland, Oregon and Tacoma, Washington). I think the American Community Survey is a highly reliable source and should be included.The diffs are:

The References are:

Patapsco913 (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally reliable and primary.The American Community Survey is a generally reliable source that is widely used and is perfectly usable for what you are trying to do; sources even consider it to be a principal source of high-resolution geographic information about the U.S. population (though errors may be greater in certain communities than others). The margins of error tend to be a bit larger than the census data, which may be why the other editor seems to want to wait until the Census results are released, though since Wikipedia is constantly a work-in-progress. while the links you are providing are also primary source links, though they seem to be used appropriately in that context, and I think inclusion improves the articles. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree fully with Mikehawk10. When full results of the 2020 Census appear (early December 2021), just don't forget to update the info. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Consistency between articles is important. Giving undue weight to the ACS without an adequate prose disclaimer (which was not provided) would be misleading to readers and imply that there was a census conducted in 2019. There's a long-held consensus for U.S. city articles to not update racial/ethnic data until the official census. SounderBruce 07:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Could you please provide the link that states the consensus? I can't find it. Besides, if the only issue is with the lack of disclaimer, what is only needed is to add the clarification that this is ACS, and not census data. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I could add some prose to differentiate it from the Census apart from the heading such as: "According to 2019 US Census Bureau American Community Survey one-year estimates (which is conducted annually for cities over 65,000 via sampling), Portland's population was 77.3% White (70.5% Non-Hispanic White and 6.8% Hispanic White), 5.6% Black or African American, 0.8% Native American and Alaskan Native, 8.2% Asian, 0.3% Pacific Islander, 2.2% Some Other Race, and 5.7% from two or more races." see full my commentary on Talk:Portland, Oregon#Use of 2019 United States Census Bureau American Community Survey. Patapsco913 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The source is scrupulously reliable, but as a primary source, should be prefaced with the "According to the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey, in year X, yada yada yada" is probably the way you want to attribute it. I wouldn't use the data to present anything in Wikipedia's voice except raw statistics, and I would always attribute it directly in text so the source is known. --Jayron32 17:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Mental Floss

What is the reliability of Mental Floss for their "historical trivia"?

In the talk page discussion for Ball (association football), a Mental Floss source was removed for incorrectly claiming that the ball used in association football was invented by Buckminster Fuller.

And in the talk page discussion for Henry Woodward (inventor), Mental Floss again seemed to make a questionable claim.

In Milunka Savić, an editor tagged a claim from Mental Floss as potentially unreliable.

Banana peel cites Mental Floss to claim an origin for the use of banana peels as comical gags, but the Mental Floss article itself doesn't contain any references. Glieze (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to say that it's not a reliable source. There are too many issues, and the lack of sourcing for a lot of surprising claims is also a bad sign. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Mental Floss is a listicle website/youtube channel, and it should never be cited for anything. Most of it is probably true, but it's an infotainment site not a scholarly source. We should expect more scrupulously professional and scholarly sources than the Mental Floss, Watch Mojo, etc. etc. type of sources. --Jayron32 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There has been some question raised over whether this editorial on the website Bukharian Jewish Link counts as a reliable enough source for This text at the BLP article Yitzhak Israeli. I think I know what the answer is, but there's someone who doesn't agree, and I'm seeking additional input on the matter so that there is a clear weight of consensus behind it. One editor removed the text, I protected the article in question (I've never edited the article myself, never once heard of the person before I protected the article, and have no strong opinion about the subject matter other than enforcing Wikipedia BLP policy), and now there is an editor who insists that the source is reliable and that the text must be returned. Can we get some consensus on this so we can put the matter to rest. --Jayron32 16:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am no expert on this matter, but I would say you should almost certainly check whether you linked the right editorial here. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the exact source in the diff of the removed text. --Jayron32 01:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
You linked to something about weight fluxuation. It's not the same source in the diff, which is this. In any case (going by the source in the diff), no, that source definitely cannot be used in the manner that diff is using it - it is plainly opinion content, so it would be WP:RSOPINION at most and would require attribution. The diff you linked makes numerous bald, unattributed statements of fact in the article voice, eg. in a direct move to undermine the current Bukharian Chief Rabbi, which would require a non-opinion source. My inclination is that it is not a great opinion source (the website doesn't seem significant and the author doesn't seem to have any particular expertise - though it's hard to tell because unless I'm missing something they don't state the author's full name) so I wouldn't be eager to use it at all, but it definitely can't be used in that fashion, which is plainly presenting the author's opinions as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC) --Aquillion (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry. This was the link I meant to use. I have corrected it. --Jayron32 12:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Pop history source that disagrees with its own cited (specialist) source?

[24]

Basically, Kaneko Hiraku is a Japanese historian with a PhD in the relevant field, from a prestigious university, who now works (or at least worked at the time of publication in 2009) as an assistant curator of the historical resources collection at the most prestigious university in Japan.[25] He quotes, and then briefly analyses, a long passage from the Sonkei-kaku Text of the primary source, the Shinchō-ki. He presents this passage as a possible late (fanciful) addition based on an imaginative expansion of another older source, while recognizing that, since other additions made to the same text are generally seen as important historical resources, the passage in question can't be rejected outright.

Thomas Lockley is an English lecturer in a prestigious Japanese university who sometimes teaches classes on topics he is interested in,[26] through English, with English immersion apparently being the primary goal of the courses. In the last few years he has apparently written a few popular history books (and one non-specialist article for the semi-annual organ of his faculty[27]) in English (and one book for Japanese readers with the title Read in English: The Japanese History and Culture That Foreigners Really Want to Know[28]). His "About the Author" sections and the like almost never mention either (a) where and in what field he got his degrees, (b) his work résumé (which includes at least two decades of TEFL and other seemingly-general pedagogical work,[29] including at Kanda Foreign Language University[30]), or (c) the fact that seemingly all of his peer-reviewed publications are on language education rather than history.[31] Lockley's books and that one article generally cite the Kaneko passage described above, but where Kaneko's description ignores the fact that Yasuke was apparently given a "さや巻之のし付" (i.e., a dagger with a scabbard and a decorative sheet of gold/silver attached to the scabbard), perhaps because Kaneko saw it as unimportant, Lockley takes it to be "a short, ceremonial katana". In at least one later Zoom/YouTube lecture, where he doesn't cite either primary or secondary sources (but is clearly still referring to same passage), Lockley places even greater emphasis on his interpretation of this passage.[32]

Lockley (self-disclosure here and here) actually added this text to Wikipedia before his own writings on the subject were published,[33][34] so at the time, as far as Wikipedia was concerned, the text was unsourced OR, but now that his books and that one article have been published it's a little greyer. We could just replace the citation, but we also know that his cited sources (both primary and secondary) don't agree with his conclusions, and since he doesn't seem to have any qualifications in the relevant field, I wonder if it would be better to rewrite the text to be more in accordance with what Kaneko wrote. Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove the pop source and use the expert-in-the-field work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems a little confusing what you are describing. It would appear that that part that Lockley is being used to cite is specifically "a short, ceremonial katana". You say that this is in disagreement with Kaneko Hiraku, but you also say "Kaneko's description ignores the fact that Yasuke was apparently given a "さや巻之のし付" (i.e., a dagger with a scabbard and a decorative sheet of gold/silver attached to the scabbard), perhaps because Kaneko saw it as unimportant". That leads me to two questions. First, Kaneko ignored it, then where is "a dagger with a scabbard and a decorative sheet of gold/silver attached to the scabbard" coming from? Is that your own translation? And second, where is the disagreement? It would be a disagreement if Kaneko said that it was "a dagger with a scabbard and a decorative sheet of gold/silver attached to the scabbard" and Lockley said "No, it was a short, ceremonial katana". But if Kaneko simply didn't mention it "perhaps because Kaneko saw it as unimportant", then Lockley isn't so much disagreeing with him as including something that he did not include, correct? Kaneko not saying that it is "short, ceremonial katana" is not the same thing as Kaneko saying that it is not "short, ceremonial katana". NonReproBlue (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Igromania as a reliable Gaming Source

Would Igromania be be considered a reliable source on video games per Wikipedia_talk:VG/S/A8#Russian_print_magazines? I'm considering adding it as reliable to WikiProject Video games/Sources. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It cannot be considered reliable because it's in Russian and only those who can read Russian can get benefit from it but for the majority of English or non-Russian speakers, it won't be of any help. Also its hard to verify and validate the content that the source references to and to make sure that the reference actually provides proof about what the content states. If there is an English translation of Igromania site, then surely it can be reliable but since its all in Russian, it cannot be reliable. HaughtonBrit (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This is totally wrong. There is nothing wrong with citing foreign language sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources and indeed it would be difficult to cover many foreign language topics without using them. I have no opinion on the reliability of Igromania, but the fact that it is written in Russian is irrelevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
no not totally wrong. Problem is how do you verify the foreign language reference with the English content on the article to make sure they both match? This is the main concern because anyone can make a false statement on the article and reference the foreign language source with it possibly causing vandal. HaughtonBrit (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes its totally wrong. Go read WP:V and come back when you have. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, you are misrepresenting Wikipedia policy (WP:NONENG), which clearly says Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. Just as we allow paywalled and offline sources, we allow sources written in languages other than English. Continuing to quote from this policy, As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.) Umimmak (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually (WP:NONENG) clears my concerns. Thank you for sharing this.

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.  I haven't misrepresented Wikipedia policy as no policy was mentioned in my statement earlier. It clearly states that If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." So editors can use a reliable non-English source as long as the quote from it is translated by reliable source. This was my only concern which is clear now. So if Igromamia can be considered reliable then quotes will have to be translated by reliable source before sharing. Igromania seems to be valid registered domain but the credibility of its reliability is doubtful. Other opinions are welcomed to help the questionnaire which except one, no one has shared their thoughts yet about reliability of Igromania.HaughtonBrit (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@HaughtonBrit: The point is that it's preferred to use English material but non-English material is welcome, especially if the cited info doesn't appear in English language sources. Also Russian is not a secret code: there are Russian speaking editors who can read the material and translate it WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: Yes you have point but as long as the non-English material is translated by reliable source for verification of the cited info, non-English source can be reliable in that case and then can be added to the cited info on the article.HaughtonBrit (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@HaughtonBrit: Indeed the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources states that "official" translations (ones done by reliable sources) are generally preferable to ones done by Wikipedians themselves. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, "quoting" in the policy refers to actual quoting, as in taking a chunk of text from a source and adding it to an article. There is no general requirement to translate cited sources. Alaexis¿question? 18:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
If you are going to use this source as a citation for something that is possibly contentious (which, for this type of content, could be something like "so-and-so was the best-selling game in Russia in YYYY"), then we would expect that a translation should be done by a human hand rather than a machine translation to make sure we're not missing any subtlies on the language. If it is for basic non-contentious info ("so-and-so was released in Russia on (date)" that would not require a quality translation since that should be obvious from a machine one. --Masem (t) 20:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Igromania is/was generally reliable (the print magazine is no longer published), I am not aware of issues with it and wasn't able to find anything. Given the nature of the area they are working in, I think most of the time it should be possible to find English-language sources. Alaexis¿question? 06:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sportskeeda generally unreliable?

sportskeeda.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

sportskeeda.com is currently used as a source in ~2000 articles, heavily focussed on Indian sport and popular culture. Concern about this source has been expressed before here by Hipal and here by Fishhead2100. A look at the website shows their editorial oversight seems pretty lax. Their list of content editors doesn't even include anyone for pop culture topics. I'm wondering if they need to be considered generally unreliable except in the case of pieces from professional journalists. —valereee (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add from before. They don't clearly distinguish their own content from submitted content that I can see. It would be useful to find some of their corrections, or their articles that clearly need corrections. --Hipal (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of citations from sportskeeda be removed for being unreliable. Here are some interesting links of theirs: becoming a writer, becoming an editor, and their affiliate program, which from what I can tell is that they will pay you to link to their articles. From their writer's page: Writing at Sportskeeda is a great way to make your content reach thousands (sometimes millions) of readers. It also helps promote your personal brand, and even earn you some money!. Hmm... they even promote the conflicts of interest there!
Their only requirements for writers are that you have samples of previous work, a CV, and be proficient in English, but not a proper journalist (however they recommend 'freshers' to not apply). To be an editor would understandably be more strict, but it's even less detailed and all it really says they want is an exceptional command over English and extensive knowledge of sports. They do not mention journalistic experience in either page.
I would recommend that the source be deprecated. It in every way appears to be a content farm. SWinxy (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I would support deprecation as well. I've in the past seen Sportskeeda publish inaccurate information and they don't appear to have any process for corrections. From the above, they are quite obviously a content farm and the encouragement of COI publishing is a nail in the coffin for me. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I've come across Sportskeeda in YouTuber BLP articles and I have to say I think that it's a low quality source that appears to have very little editorial oversight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Very little? That's gracious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
"...heavily focused on Indian sport and culture." That's not quite accurate. They have have non-Indians writers. They cover WWE/AEW (pro wrestling), tennis, NFL, UFC, basketball (NBA, college basketball), and other non-Indian leagues/sports. They have a pop culture section where it's has a lot of non-Indian content. Just because they have a good number of Indian writers and sections for Indian sports articles doesn't mean the site is 100 percent Indian focused. Just because Sportskeeda has been used as a source doesn't equate to reliability. WP:UNRELIABLESOURCE has been outlined as you can see. When it comes to it being removed, the WP:PW has Sportskeeda on that project's list of unreliable sources. So it's never used to source pro wrestling articles. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Based on comments from @SWinxy, @Tayi Arajakate and @Fishhead2100, I would also support deprecating it and/or marking it unreliable. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I am in agreement with the majority here and support the unreliability of Sportskeeda. Editorial oversight, personal gain for financial reason leads it to being deprecated.HaughtonBrit (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to mention is that their fact checking process is not known. In the realm of pro wrestling, it's mostly linking to previous in-house articles while at times regurgitating (that's what dirt sheets usually do) what Dave Meltzer (long time wrestling "journalist") says whether true or not. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
From this discussion, I'll downgrade the source from 'depends on contributor' to 'general unreliable' on WP:UPSD, but I'll update again if consensus is to deprecated/blacklist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

CBN - Christian Broadcasting Network

I see this source pop up from time to time. We have an article about it, Christian Broadcasting Network: a "conservative evangelical Christian religious television network and production company [f]ounded by televangelist Pat Robertson". Based just on that description, it should be obvious that we shouldn't be using this for any kind of remotely controversial statement of fact, and that it should be treated as a WP:BIASEDSOURCE.

But I see that we cite it on an awful lot of pages.

The place I noticed it being added today was at Ark Encounter, using it to back up a claim that "Ark Encounter opened a new $3 million virtual reality experience". It's actually cited to Faithwire (which is why it caught my attention -- "wire" in the name is always suspicious for its association with press releases) but the story originated at CBN... sort of. CBN published an almost sentence-for-sentence close slight reword of the official press release. Unambiguous churnalism.

I'm opening this section not to ask whether it should be used to back up this particular claim, but to ask whether this churnalism is normal for CBN? If it regularly publishes reheated press releases, we should be reevaluating this much-used source. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen virtually this exact same question asked at a talk page for something creationism-related, where CBN republished a press release from the Discovery Institute which made opinionated statements and wanted to repeat those statements in wikivoice because CBN published it. My advice would be to follow your first suggestion, and only use it for the most uncontroversial claims of fact, or to source notable opinions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a tough one because in the area in which they’re most used (Christian music) they’re actually very reliable. The problem is that real potential for damage exist in other topic spaces like politics, history, science, and society. Balancing those two isn’t going to be easy and I don’t envy the closer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, they may be useful for topics directly related to Evangelical Christianity, where we need a source that documents an Evangelical perspective reliably in the context of that perspective. If CBN does an interview with a leader or spokesperson from an Evangelical group like the Southern Baptist Convention, it may be the best source available, especially since one might assume that they would be the most likely to accurately reflect those views (and that such a leader or spokesperson could be more likely to be honest with such a source). Same for music. A Creationist museum like that Ark is a difficult one, they are likely to be one of the few sources covering it, but they obviously have a clear and admitted bias. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: Regarding the topic area of society specifically, what are you seeing that makes you predict damage to the project? I'm not super familiar with the source, but I'm wondering what you've seen (and also the scope of what you mean by "society"). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Depends on context. Having a bias does not automatically make a source unreliable. Having a FRINGE viewpoint can make it UNDUE in a given topic, but that is a separate issue from reliability (and one that also dependent on context).
I am increasingly thinking that we need to hive WP:BIASED off from WP:RS, and expand it... so we can more fully explain how bias interacts with both WP:V and WP:NPOV (and to better explain how to appropriately discuss and cite what biased sources say.) Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn’t presenting a fact from a fringe viewpoint without acknowledging the fringe status of that viewpoint inherently be a reliability issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
No... How best to accurately describe a viewpoint is actually a Neutrality issue, not a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Why is that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Because to describe the nature of a viewpoint (accurately), we need to put our own opinions about the viewpoint to one side. If we are going to describe a viewpoint, our description needs to be based on how sources describe it (and not just one source... it should be a summary of a majority of sources). That is the core of our NPOV policy. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • As WP:BIASEDSOURCES says, when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. In light of this, the reliability looks like it would depend on context. It's probably reliable for the fact that Ken Ham became a science teacher in Australia and for other non-extraordinary biographical information described in the article. I wouldn't use it for facts on evolution, seeing as its particular bias will affect its reliability (with respect to fact-checking) regarding that topic. The question is more on which topics its bias affects; it seems to be mostly reliable (even its written coverage on China-issued sanctions against Johnnie Moore Jr. seems to be unobjectionable and its coverage of a story on dwindling bipartisanship doesn't appear to have any obvious factual errors or things that scream "this is a politically biased source to the extent it impacts reliability"). It seems to be politically and theologically conservative (and more or less self-describes as so), and I wouldn't generally use it as a sole for extraordinary facts (especially for BLPs and/or pre-history/history), but it seems fine when the topic doesn't really come into the crosshairs of its religious affiliation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with points made by @Mikehawk10

based on WP:BIASEDSOURCES.HaughtonBrit (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hm. Thus far everyone seems to be talking about WP:BIASEDSOURCES. I'll reiterate the initial question: whether this churnalism is normal for CBN. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, As I said above, I've seen this exact situation before. As to it's frequency: I can't say, but I suspect it's as common as press releases from Christian groups big enough to catch CBN's eye. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@MPants at work: Sorry, I shouldn't have said "everyone". It's been a few days and I forgot that your first reply was relevant. The rest seem to be about the thing I was taking for granted above. It is, of course, uncontroversial that being biased doesn't disqualify a source. It's when a bias leads a source to sacrifice accuracy, fact-checking, etc. ... or, say, be so interested in promoting a particular perspective that it just publishes press releases which align with its interests, that they're called into question. So, yeah, I'm more interested in the quality of the source than its bias here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, I'd personally treat it as a fine source for anything uncontroversial, like Christian bands, or the dates/organizers of events. For anything controversial, I'd avoid it at all costs.
And no worries about "everyone", as I was tempted to dive into the furious melee of agreement myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: I've added it to WP:UPSD, categorized as 'depends on topic' (yellow). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No Consensus on Platforms - Need Assistance

Hello. Here is a list of platforms that I need to know are usable as references when there are articles published on it offering significant coverage by independent authors. Need assistance with it. Please help as I am acquiring knowledge to become a better wikipedia editor. Was unable to find them on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#. Here is the list.

Daily Payoneer (https://www.dailypioneer.com/),Female First (https://www.femalefirst.co.uk/), NYK Daily (https://nykdaily.com/),Entrepreneur India (https://www.entrepreneur.com/), Haute Living (https://hauteliving.com/), JPost (https://www.jpost.com/), Ocean Drive (https://oceandrive.com/), V-Magazine (https://vmagazine.com/), Android Headlines (https://www.androidheadlines.com/), This is 50 (https://thisis50.com/), The Source (https://thesource.com/), Hype Magazine (https://www.thehypemagazine.com/), Hype Fresh (https://www.hypefresh.co/).

I think discussion on this can really help the community of Wikipedia editors. --Skybluepants24 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Skybluepants24, that's a very diverse group of sources for which there is not going to be a singular answer. One of them, Entrepreneur (RSP entry) is on the perennial list but the list is not supposed to be an exhaustive one, you should check if there has been any previous discussions on the others in the archives of this noticeboard, there is a search bar for it at the top. It would also be helpful if you could elaborate on what context you want to use them in. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Most of these are sniped sites or black hat SEO and I would remove them from any article I saw them in. The Source's web content is no longer reliable as tehy allow pay-for-publishing without identifying it as such. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Tayi Arajakate, i did search in the archives but could not find anything useful. I don't wish to use these platforms, I am just trying to build a database that will help me edit pages and create new ones. Is there any way i can get help with this? Appreciate your response.--Skybluepants24 (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Skybluepants24, I don't think this noticeboard can help you built an exhaustive database if that's even possible, regarding using particular sources for articles I would suggest opening sections on specific sources on this noticeboard in the more doubtful cases and otherwise use your own judgement, the page on independent sources will likely be the most helpful in how to do this in your case. Bringing up sources on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects could be helpful as well.
Regarding the sources, I would agree with Praxidicae that a lot of these are sniped sites or black hat SEOs which do not care about accuracy or attribution. In particular, femalefirst.co.uk and NYK Daily are a clear case of this, the others aren't as clear to me. Android Headlines is an obvious content farm. I know some of these are actual newspapers such as The Pioneer and The Jerusalem Post, of which the former is quite tabloidish and don't know the latter. There are also some American local magazines in there on whose quality I can't comment either. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of publisher

Earlier, I was assessing the FA Bobby Eaton for WP:URFA/2020 and decided to check out the publisher Archeus Communications, which is cited in said article, as well as in a number of other wrestling articles. The books by that publisher are a few works by two authors (Gary Wills and Royal Duncan) about wrestling. When searching for this publisher online, I'm finding very little, Google books is only bringing up mentions to those said wrestling books, and searching on worldcat is only bringing up the wrestling books and two books by Will about job interviews and resumes. I find it a little concerning that this publisher is so obscure and only seems to publish books written by Will; can it be assumed that there's any sort of oversight going into works through this publisher, or should they be treated as self-published by Will? Hog Farm Talk 21:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  • "The bible of the sport." - The New York Times
  • "The best pro wrestling reference book I've ever seen. A phenomenal publication and a great job of research." - Dave Meltzer, founder and editor of Wrestling Observer Newsletter
  • "A fabulous book. Great reading for the diehard fan." - Bill Apter, longtime editor of Pro Wrestling Illustrated
  • "My copy is dog-eared from daily use. A terrific resource." - Vince Russo, editor of WWF Magazine and World Championship Wrestling executive
  • "A superlative reference tool." - 1997 Pro Wrestling Illustrated Almanac
The worst case scenario is that Gary Will's book would meet the criteria for WP:SPS if Archeus isn't a major publisher. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Here are a couple other stories from a reputable journalist that speak about the book and the diligent research behind it: Wrestling Title Histories an Essential Resource and Collecting Title Histories a Struggle of Will. Will's research is also lauded in the article Will Finds a Way for Toronto History Site, which includes the information that Dave Meltzer, perhaps the biggest name in wrestling reporting, contacted Will to ask for his help with research. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Solie.org and Wrestling-Titles.com credit Royal Duncan and Gary Will with a lot of information for title histories on those sites. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Kootenai Valley Times

The website, Kootenai Valley Times, is being used in the article Owen Benjamin about a zoning dispute between the article subject and his neighbors to make claims about "Benjamin's supposed use of his 10 acre property to form as a potential cult or 'Aryan Style' compound". The diff for the content being added to the Wikipedia page is here and a link to the source article is here. There is also a discussion at BLPN, where Morbidthoughts suggested I bring the source reliability issue here (WP:BLPN#Owen Benjamin). The website for the source is owned, edited, and managed by Mike Weland (see "Kootenai Valley Times" about page) with no evidence of editorial oversight or other processes for fact-checking, and the article about the zoning dispute is also written by Mike Weland, who lives in the same small community. Most of the article is quoting various aspects of the complaints against Benjamin, and the website in general has little content and many days have no more than one new posting, with most of the content looking like press releases from local schools, police, and community organizations. I believe this is a self-published source that should not generally be used on a BLP per WP:BLPSPS, especially not for this type of labeling. Any additional input is appreciated. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  • And I'll say again, and I invoke User:MjolnirPants, that this looks like a small, local newspaper whose reporting we do not need to disparage just because it's small, and that it can be used with caution. In this case, what it reports on are things said in city or council meetings, on what various people said about this one thing, and there really is no reason to suppose that they are lying. Content should be handled with care, and opinions should clearly be phrased as such, of course. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is a case of the people lying at city council meetings or the website lying about what they said, but rather whether the source is reliable enough for including those types of labels and allegations on a BLP article. The reliability standards are meant to make the information in Wikipedia's articles better, not about disparaging sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yea, this looks self-published. Weland seems to be the only writer for the site and he is the owner. There are two other employees, but it looks like they only deal with sales/advertising and not with editorial content. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  • It is an online newspaper/radio station serving a small town of 2500 people, supported by advertising from many local businesses. It was published on newsprint paper in the past. Weland is not the only writer. The paper recently published a detailed summary of the last Idaho legislative session written by Jim Woodward (politician), the local state senator. The content may seem banal to big city folks but after reading about ten articles, I see no signs of crank or kook content. They clearly have an interest in investigating the scourge of fentanyl addiction in their community, for example. I consider it a reliable source for news of Bonners Ferry, Idaho and surrounding Boundary County, Idaho. In the spirit of full disclosure, my great-grandparents settled in Northern Idaho around 1880, and I still have many relatives there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The articles by Jim Woodward read like editorials or guest posts rather than news articles [35], similar to this April article by Creston Mayor Ron Toyota [36] or this March article by the Boundary Community Hospital Marketing Director [37], which are all listed under the "News" category on the site. While there is a separate "Letters" category, the site does not seem to identify which articles are submitted editorials or whether those articles have any editorial oversight or fact-checking. Aside from a few articles by Bruce McClure and Deborah Byrd from another website, EarthSky.org (such as [38]), the other articles that had an author byline (going back to January in the "News" category) similarly look like submitted content rather than news content written by staff writers, such as [39] [40] [41] [42]. Being from a small town, there are many good sources for local community information, but that does not mean those sources are reliable enough for contentious labels in a BLP, especially when they are the only source using terms like "cult" (and not even in their own voice). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The other source is stronger and uses less value laden terminology, but the existence of two separate media outlets covering the issue in this lightly populated area indicates that it is worthy of inclusion. In my view, both references should stay in the article for the benefit of readers trying to learn more. I think the word "cult" should be removed. Boundary County, though, is the location of Ruby Ridge and that greatly influences the local discourse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I did not know that, and so thank you for that additional bit of information, which is very helpful to understanding the context. I think that is actually a good argument for directly mentioning the alleged "'Ruby Ridge style' compound" in the way the stronger source does rather than the "'Aryan Nations' style compound" from the Kootenai Valley Times source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Here is some WP:USEBYOTHERS: [43][44][45][46] It is enough, for a small local paper, that I at least don't feel it's reasonable to keep calling it "self-published". Is there any other reason to be skeptical of them? --Aquillion (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I am a regular reader of the site, owing to some time I've spent in the region. It's a small-town newspaper, full stop. It has three employees (all stories are written by the majority owner, Mike Weland and the other two employees handle sales), is widely accepted locally, has been cited by other, larger outlets, and I challenge anyone disputing this to find an example of fake news on the site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I would oppose the specific edit in dispute. A 3 person paper is hardly more than a self published blog in terms of editorial oversite. The issue in this case is the description is both subjective and loaded. Consider the difference between describing something as "a large home with a security fence" vs an "aryne style compound". One simply implies the size of the home and that the owner is concerned about security. The other suggests the owner may be racist. The use of this description suggests the editor/author may be biased with respect to the issue at hand and thus we should be careful about subjective comments/opinions within what might otherwise be a fact based article. Another question that could be raised here is if this content is DUE in the BLP article. Springee (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • From what I've read so far, this would qualify as a self-published source. From WP: V "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos" (emphasis mine). So in context of BLP's the source is unusable. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Springee raises an important question by asking about DUE WEIGHT. Even if we were to deem a 3 person “local news” site marginally reliable, I would question the appropriateness of using it in a BLP unless larger more reliable sources also report on the same information (and in which case, we can cite those sources). Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    Blueboar, I had a discussion with Masem about that, and both of us agreed and laid out reasons why coverage this sparse should be appropriate, given Benjamin's diminished celebrity. You can read it at WP:BLPN#Owen Benjamin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I would agree with Masem’s reasoning in that thread. I think any mention of the spat between Benjamin and his neighbors is basically UNDUE ... at this point. That could change in the future (if the story grows beyond being a local spat and gets reported on in more regional news sites), but right now it just does not rise to the level of being the sort of encyclopedic information that is suitable for a BLP. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
      I disagree, but I certainly find that to be a very reasonable position, and won't try to litigate it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The onus of proving it is rs lies with the editor who wants to use it. It probably does, because Weland was a reporter at KBFI and the site looks professional. But just because someone is qualified, does not necessarily mean the news service is. More importantly, as other editors have mentioned, weight requires more coverage than just a local newspaper. Presumably if it is important, national news sources will pick up on the story. TFD (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

[48] How reliable is it? I'd like to have some feedback before I can use it as a source for a potential translation for this article. Thanks in advance for every answer. Nacaru 20:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Previously discussed in 2012 and February and May of 2019. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this question, but Free1Soul's comment seems to be greatly exaggerated. MEMO has been smeared by its ideological opponents, which is presumably the basis for this user's comment, but we should look into it carefully. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Could you give examples citing sources to justify your comments?     ←   ZScarpia   13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Here[49], for example, we have a borderline anti-semitic cartoon, together with a quote from someone who calls the Israeli strikes in Gaza "war crimes". There is no mention of why Israel made airstrikes in Gaza. Although some degree of bias is acceptable, this strays too far. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
That is an inadequate description of the article, which is about ex-IAF pilot Yonatan Shapira. You wrote: '... together with a quote from someone who calls the Israeli strikes in Gaza "war crimes".' The phrase you included in quotation marks, "war crimes", doesn't appear in the article. The closest that anything comes to that, is not some extraneous "someone", but the subject of the article himself: 'A former Israeli Air Force pilot, Yonatan Shapira, has described the Israeli government and army as "terrorist organisations" run by "war criminals."' You describe the attached cartoon by Mohammad Saba'aneh as "borderline anti-semitic", using that as a justification for describing MEMO as unreliable. Could you provide a justification for your description? Would you describe any source which publishes a cartoon of a soldier acting oppressively as unreliable, or only when the soldier in question is acting in a "good cause"?     ←   ZScarpia   13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment. The skeptical views above appear to be all reflex lockstep 'judgments' (see Falk discussed below, vigorously opposed by the same group) against MEM, some in part based on the fact that the MEM page lines up several quotes from pro-Israeli spokesmen dismissing it as a Hamas/terrorist linked conspiracy site. Adoring nanny takes exception for example to MEM citing a quote from an Israeli pilot stating his view that bombing Gaza is a war crime. Well, the article registers that fact. The pilot in question did express that view. Stating a view that an editor dislikes cannot be used to discredit the source. If so the London Review of Books would be unreliable because the other day it noted that Gilad Sharon, Ariel Sharon's son, suggested the following as a 'solution' to the conflict with Gaza: ‘You strangle them. No water, no electricity, no food, no gas, no medical treatments. Nothing.' Likewise Il Giornale (a pro-Israel right wing newspaper) would be deemed not RS because the same Sharon is reported as saying the solution for Gaza is to raze it to the ground, as the Americans did with Hiroshima because the Japanese dragged their feet over surrendering. I don't use MEM much at all. But it runs a lot of reportage and carries translations from Middle Eastern agencies like Anadolou (Turkish) that the mainstream ignore.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Should only be used with attribution, the MEM is most certainly not an official arm of Hamas or anything along those lines, but they are very explicitly a biased organisation with regards to anything to do with politics or the Israel-Palestine conflict to a far greater degree than most organisations, so anything they say on those matters should be attributed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Attribution in some circumstances. The suggestion that the website is "Hamas's official channel in English" is baseless and unsupported by any evidence. The idea that it is a "fringe conspiracy site" had not been supported by any evidence here. Both these statements carry no weight, as they seem simply to be statements of political position and dislike of the political stance of the website. I would suggest that the site is biased on the question of Palestine, as are all Israeli and Arab news organisations (perhaps all news organisations full stop) and that on questions relating to Palestine it should be attributed in cases where there is the possibility that the claim made might be disputed in any way. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The Daily Telegraph: "Other organisations at Crown House are Middle East Monitor (Memo), a news site which promotes a strongly pro-Brotherhood and pro-Hamas view of the region. Memo’s director, Daud Abdullah, is also a leader of the Brotherhood-linked British Muslim Initiative, set up and run by the Brotherhood activist Anas al-Tikriti and two senior figures in Hamas. Memo’s “senior editor”, Ibrahim Hewitt, is chairman of Interpal, the Hamas and Brotherhood-linked charity."[50]
    • The Times of Israel: "MEMO, Rich added, had repeatedly peddled conspiracy theories and myths “about Jews, Zionists, money and power. This has included questioning the suitability of Matthew Gould for the post of UK ambassador to Israel simply because he was Jewish.”[51]
    • BBC News: "One of his UK hosts, the London-based Middle East Monitor - a pro-Hamas publication" [52]
    • Haartez: " Corbyn is also scheduled to appear soon at a conference of the conspiracy-theory peddling anti-Israel organization Middle East Monitor, along with the anti-Semitic and Holocaust denier cartoonist Carlos Latuff."[53]
    • Jewish News: "The piece was originally written by an anti-Israel activist and posted on Middle East Monitor (MEMO), a self-ascribed news site that has links to the Muslim Brotherhood...directed by Daoud Abdullah, a senior researcher at the London-based Palestinian Return Centre – an organisation outlawed in Israel for its connections with Hamas and acting as the terror group’s de-facto arm across Europe...The material produced by MEMO and MEE is heavily shared on the official Hamas website and social media accounts. It is not merely copied but proudly displayed with the name of the UK site. In 2016 Hamas posted material from these two sources 51 times, making for an astounding 42% of all external tweets...And so, the next time you read an article on MEMO or MEE, written by a “senior editor”, “journalist ” or “Middle East expert”, don’t forget that you’re reading an article edited by the head of a charity with documented links to funding terror, including festivals of hatred showcasing children encouraged to murder."[54]
    • i24 News: "MEMO is a UK-based Islamist pressure group, which the UK Jewish community’s antisemitism watchdog accuses of crossing the line into antisemitism. The CST told i24NEWS: “MEMO’s work includes supposed anti-Zionism that is actually strikingly familiar from older forms of antisemitism, but with Jews removed and so-called Zionists used instead.”[55]
    Is this enough evidence for you? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Not really, no. Being pro-Hamas does not disqualify a source, as I said above. Nor does being pro-Likud, pro-Tory, pro-Democrat or pro-Sinn Fein. If it were "Hamas's unofficial channel in English", suggesting direct Hamas control, as the user said above, that, for me, would mean it is not a valid source. Just as the pro-Israeli sites you link above which are linked to the state of Israel and support its position should not be discounted merely for that fact. Accusations of antisemitism are a slight concern, but there are accusations of racism against many publications, the existence of such accusations does not disqualify those sources. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that pretty much every notable source or organisation that expresses a pro-Palestinian or especially pro-Hamas viewpoint will be accused of antisemitism by somebody at some point. In some cases those claims will be correct, in others they will have no connection with reality. The simple existence of such claims is therefore insufficient to impact reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have links to articles by MEMO that have peddled these "conspiracy theories and myths"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with this, the nature of these alleged conspiracy theories is important. It is very common for people to use the term "conspiracy theory" completely inaccurately. And publishing conspiracy theories on occasion evidently does not make a source unreliable. The Telegraph and other reliable sources have been accused of this, and with some justification tbh. And if we disregarded any American media organisation that had dabbled in Russiagate conspiracy theories, we wouldn't have much left...Boynamedsue (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the BBC article cited, editors might like to note that its author was John Ware, perhaps not the most impartial person to have contributed material touching on Israel and politics to it.[56][57] Ware is, of course, part of the consortium now running The Jewish Chronicle, not an ally of MEMO. Regarding claims attributed to Dave Rich, that MEMO objected to the appointment of Matthew Gould as UK ambassador to Israel solely on the grounds that he is Jewish, the truth of that can be judged by reading the relevant MEMO article itself. Gould was, of course, involved in the meetings of himself, Liam Fox, Adam Werritty and Israeli officials which led to the resignation of Fox.[58][59]     ←   ZScarpia   22:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem here is the use of the word "alleged" to qualify "temple" in a headline. You see, if this is the kind of thing that is being argued as "antisemitism" sufficient to disqualify a source it is somewhat unsurprising that allegations of antisemitism in this type of source fail to convince so many users here. The Jerusalem Post frequently engages in Nakba denialism and denials of the Deir Yassin massacre, and the racist myth that Palestinians were immigrants to Palestine, and yet this is considered fine, apparently. Yes, there may be areas where any media organisation might have blindspots and biases, and this organisation is not an authority on the history of Palestine, but nobody is seeking to use it as such. This is, unfortunately, another case in which Israeli sources are held to different standards than Palestinian ones for political reasons. A kind of wikipedia apartheid, if you will. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Reading through this, it ain't just the headline, the body of the article writes that Israeli Culture Minister Miri Regev has suggested the government allocate 250 million shekels ($50 million) for excavation works to explore the foundations of the alleged Jewish Temple beneath Islam's sacred Al-Aqsa Mosque, Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth revealed yesterday (emphasis added). With respect to The Jerusalem Post, the first link that you've presented is a 2008 publication from Friends of Al-Aqsa that doesn't accuse J-Post of Nakba denialism. The second and third sources (from J-Post itself) are labeled newspaper blogs. This is in sharp contrast to the MEM piece, which is labeled as "news" on the website and would reflect upon the editorial standards of Middle East Monitor as it applies to news. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
To comment further, the piece from The Washington Post is also an opinion piece, so tread carefully. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

To the point of reliability, Middle East Monitor has been cited in the Guardian as a "a thinktank with Palestinian sympathies", the BBC, its interviews cited by the NYTimes. Its not a news organization, its more of a partisan think tank, and in general I would suggest those be avoided, and that is true for all sides including JCPA and other such sites that are cited regularly. The bs above about "Hamas unofficial channel in English" is just that. By the rules, can sometimes be used attributed. But in general if somebody asks for a better source just get a better source. For interviews and such think it is fine on its own. nableezy - 16:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Should only be used with attribution sounds about right. It appears to have a strong lean but quickly searching, I'm not seeing evidence that it gets facts wrong. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent allegations regarding the British tabloid media industry

Obvious sock is obvious. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have been informed that recently Guy Macon, a Wikipedia editor, published the following statement on a Wikimedia Foundation hosted server (i.e., an internal Wikipedia page):

"British tabloids do produce false reports about actual criminal convictions of a serious nature. We have caught them doing it ...... British tabloids do fabricate actual quotes from judges, prosecutors and lawyers. We have caught them doing it."

Approximate daily page views for that page, are in the thousands, although we are awaiting data regarding the number of specific users that represents.

When asked for proof of this claim, putting aside the already mentioned example of Amanda Knox, which Mr Macon was already aware was published for only two minutes, he declined to offer any supporting evidence. That is now the subject of a separate complaint.

My purpose for this posting, is to gauge support from the Wikipedia community for this statement's factual accuracy, given Mr Macon's use of the term "we" was apparently intended to place the Wikipedia community collectively responsible for this statement. And in that regard, he directed any queries regarding it to this noticeboard, rather than his internal Wikipedia "talk" page.

Any comments you wish to make, in support or opposition, will be gratefully received.

Yours, Cheetham Jones Parks (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cheetham Jones Parks, you have never communicated with Guy Macon directly, at least not using this account. Please point to the earlier discussion/s that you're referencing. Thanks. Girth Summit (blether) 19:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion I was shown was on his talk page. It appears he has subsequently deleted it. Cheetham Jones Parks (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: the previous account was Mr Happy Shoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was a sockpuppet of yet another editor. I think we've wasted enough time on this already. FDW777 (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Cheetham Jones Parks, Guy Macon isn't technically capable of deleting anything: it may have been archived though. Please provide dates at the very least, and indicate whether you were a participant in those discussions (whether editing through an IP without logging in, or through a different account).
FDW777 I'm on mobile just now which isn't ideal for sock puppet investigation so I'm going to pass on that for now, but will look at it tomorrow unless another admin gets to this first. Girth Summit (blether) 19:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: someone was ahead of us both and has already filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton. FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Yep! I was hanging out backstage and I saw Mr Happy Shoes slip back and put on Groucho glasses before heading out as a new character. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Jazzdisco.org versus Jazzdiscography.com

The Jazz Discography Project ( jazzdisco.org ) has been cited on Wikipedia for about 12 years, with Dickdock referencing them in a few articles in 2009, including New York Journeyman – Complete Recordings. The website has been cited or listed as an external link in about 500 articles since then.

Nobuaki Togashi, Kohji "Shaolin" Matsubayashi and Masayuki Hatta are listed as the editorial team at jazzdisco.org. The project appears to be attempting to list every appearance of prominent jazz musicians in recording sessions. They don't have a mission statement.

I looked at a handful of musician entries at the website, and none of the sources were cited. It's not clear where jazzdisco.org is getting their information. To me, it looks like they are copying mostly from jazzdiscography.com and other websites. I fear their jazz project will suffer from circular reporting such that a wrong entry published in a blog somewhere will end up repeated by jazzdisco.org.

On the other hand, Brian Rust started organizing jazz session details from the 1940s onward, and he published books documenting jazz sessions. The website JazzDiscography.com is based on Rust's work. The JazzDiscography.com people explain their philosophy and their methods, crediting Rust extensively, but the Jazzdisco.org website does not list any sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that jazzdiscography.com is based on Rust's work, except in some aspects of approach. I believe that Rust didn't have much interest in post-WWII recordings. The accusation that jazzdisco.org is plagiarising from jazzdiscography.com is a serious one. jazzdiscography list 1 and jazzdiscography list 2 present the coverage of artists. Here's jazzdisco's for comparison. The only overlap in the first ten listed at jazzdisco is Tina Brooks (I haven't looked beyond these ten). But jazzdiscography presents only his recordings as a leader, while jazzdisco covers his recordings as a leader and as a sideman. jazzdisco also lists Japanese releases, which jazzdiscography does not. So, based on this very limited check, the accusation isn't substantiated. Maybe jazzdisco is copying from other websites... which ones?
Discographies in the jazz world often cite very few sources; instead, they offer acknowledgements. I'm looking at a discography of Pepper Adams: 1.5 pages in the bibliography versus 3 pages (mostly lists of names) of acknowledgements. And copying (with amendments) from other discographies is common – Tom Lord's is/was notorious for this. EddieHugh (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Searching what I have easy access to, I find jazzdisco used in the following:
  • West & Titlebaum Teaching School Jazz: Perspectives, Principles, and Strategies Oxford University Press ("jazzdisco.org, which provides an extensive chronological discography for most major jazz artists")
  • Gluck The Miles Davis Lost Quintet and Other Revolutionary Ensembles The University of Chicago Press (uses it as a source)
  • Giddins Celebrating Bird: The Triumph of Charlie Parker University of Minnesota Press (uses it as a source)
  • Adlington Sound Commitments: Avant-Garde Music and the Sixties Oxford University Press (uses it as a source)
  • Goodman Mingus Speaks University of California Press (refers readers to it)
  • Petersen & Rehak The Music and Life of Theodore "Fats" Navarro Scarecrow Press (listed in 'discographies' section)
  • Myers Why Jazz Happened University of California Press (uses it as a source) EddieHugh (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

TheCubanHistory.com

Anyone have any thoughts on the reliability of TheCubanHistory.com as a source? An editor at Cuba has been using it recently to add to the article. The source appears to be Wordpress blog. The blogger appears to also Tweet under the same id, i.e., @TheCubanHistory, and link from Twitter to his blog. He's been at it a long time, and he certainly seems knowledgeable, but there's never any sources, and it just looks like a one-man SPS. It could just be a labor of love, but I haven't examined it enough to determine if he might have a particular PoV; sources on Cuba not infrequently do. How are such things usually handled? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The site links to the twitter account of Arnoldo Varona, who appears to have been published relevantly on several occasions in Venezuela. I don't know enough about the journal concerned to say whether it engages in peer-review and fact-checking, but I have found his work cited in revista claseshistoria, a source which I strongly suspect not to be RS. I would say that the fact he is not directly putting his name on this website, and that, although he is possibly published he doesn't seem to be widely cited, means this is not RS. You will always find something better as a source, and if this is the only source, you would have to ask yourself why. --Boynamedsue (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of its reliability, I would avoid it as a source because it is tertiary. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based primarily on secondary sources. Tertiary sources are based on secondary sources, essentially the author(s) of Cuban History have read secondary sources and summarized them. That's something we should do ourselves. It helps to ensure accuracy because we are using the secondary sources first hand. Also, Cuban History like most tertiary sources lacks citations. Citations are helpful to readers who want to research a topic and to editors who try to resolve differences in sources. For example if a birthdate in two sources differ it is helpful to follow the footnotes to see where each got their dates. Then we can see if it supports the date used. TFD (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, The Four Deuces and Boynamedsue; this is good feedback. I'll link this discussion from Talk:Cuba for the benefit of editors there. More opinions always welcome. Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bellanaija.com

Can Bella Naija [60] be considered a reliable source for entertainment news? Thank you. TheSokks(talk) 11:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be described as a blog. I checked the about us and the our team sections, but they both directed to the same list of email addresses to contact. No names, no editorial board. Some articles have named writers, but no idea if they are regular staff writers or not. Looks like scrapings from twitter and instagram. I would say not a R.S. Curdle (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Oogamy inventing the sexes

I found this article, I was thinking about using it as a source for sex and oogamy. Is it reliable in y’all’s opinion?CycoMa (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be published by Cell Press, a part of Elsevier that also publishes the high-impact biology journal Cell. Looking at the source on the website of the publisher [61], the article is labeled as a "dispatch". Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be peer reviewed; the current list of article types doesn't include it as such, but lists it as a portion of the "magazine section" of the journal. I don't think this would qualify as a WP:MEDRS, though I'd say it's probably reliable inasmuch as it is a reliable source of news. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Current Biology appears to be a legitimate academic journal, though the article is marked as a "dispatch" rather than a peer reviewed submission. That being said, it would still have to go through normal journal editorial processes, and the article doesn't seem to be making any patently absurd claims, so I would say reliable. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In Support of Research Into Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria

I’m found [this] on springerlink. I’m haven’t read the whole thing yet but it appears to support the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria thing.

Does it appear to be reliable to y’all?CycoMa (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah sorry if it’s pay walled, it wasn’t pay walled when I stumbled upon it.CycoMa (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a letter to the editor. At best it could be used for the opinions of its authors. --Aquillion (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Game World Navigator as a reliable Gaming Source

Would Game World Navigator (Навигатор игрового мира) be considered a reliable source on video games, per this discussion? I'm considering adding it as reliable to WikiProject Video games/Sources. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Visually confirmed loses in the Syrian war

This blog counts the images of the destroyed tanks to figure what is destroyed. It's the most reliable way to figure casualties if you ask me .........https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2020/02/the-idlib-turkey-shoot-destruction-and.html Operation Spring Shield 85.103.50.211 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OR. We don't know what that is an image of, where it is from, what its provenance is, and what is the reliability of the organization that is presenting the narrative behind the image. If a reliable news organization or other source wants to do that research and stake their reputation on it, then we can follow what they write. We don't do the job of reliable sources for them. We just cite their work. --Jayron32 18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

images are taken by Turkish drones 85.103.50.211 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Says who? Who analyzed the images? Who did the counting? Who verified the story? Etc. --Jayron32 01:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/stijn-mitzer-4a9a9419a/ and https://www.linkedin.com/in/joost-oliemans-1628a091 as it says in the article 85.103.50.211 (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd understand Jakub Janovský doing the analysis, though whether he is an expert is highly dubious. Sure, he has written two reports in Bellingcat about the Syrian War, but his job is network engineering and not military history - we don't just include military history enthusiasts' accounts unless they are recognised in their field (and not that he seems to be particularly so). Google Scholar searches give negative results, so it's a mixed case here.
Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans apparently specialise in the military of North Korea, but, again, no mentions of them having expertise in the Syrian War, so again, a mixed bag. Their scholarly work remains to be seen. The previous discussion said they might be subject matter experts, but you really should look for better info in other sources, which are less of "well, yes and no" and more of "sure". I will be fine if you cite it if this specific blog post is cited in a few books/articles written by other subject experts, but I'd still refrain from using the source if that's the only source of information.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

riiiiiiiiight, yet the article includes a russian imageboard as a source for destroyed turkish equipment for more than a year lmfao, sounds reasonable to me https://lostarmour.info/syria/item.php?id=22513 85.103.50.211 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:rs and wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

please read wp;crusader mindset, oh wait, there isn't such a rule but there should be 85.103.50.211 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Anonymous editor, I suggest you immediately read WP:RGW and especially WP:NPA. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@85.103.50.211: The word you're looking for is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
85: If you believe a source doesn't comply with our sourcing requirements, the correct solution is to discuss removing it and anything sourced solely to it, probably first at the article talk page and then somewhere else maybe here if you cannot get consensus. It isn't to add more unacceptable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I had a quick look and found Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#lostarmour.info and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#lostarmour.info which seem to agree it's not an RS and I checked the page and AFAICT the infobox content of concern lacked and other sources (or mention in the body for that matter) so I removed them. While we thank you for alerting us to the problem, you did not need to start off by trying to add more crappily sourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Very serious crime, but only deprecated sources

There is consensus that the article should be kept but the information relating to the conviction should be omitted due lack of coverage by non-deprecated sources, the main user opposing this has been blocked as a sock of Brian K Horton. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

In 2018, an individual pleaded guilty to holding "several hundred" pornographic pictures of child sexual abuse; but this was only reported in The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6887460/dr-marek-kukula-astronomer-doctor-who-book-child-abuse-images/) and The Daily Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6002381/Greenwich-Observatorys-Public-Astronomer-downloaded-407-child-porn-images.html ), each of which we try to avoid using. I have waited over two years to see if others would emerge; they have not.

The individual's Wikipedia article documents their positive contributions to science, but makes no mention of their crime or the end it effective put to that career.

Should we cite the available sources?

I know the policy says we can, where no others are available, but my experience is that these will be removed anyway, even it removes valuable content, or leaves it not, or badly, cited. Hew can this be prevented? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's not been published other than in the Daily Mail or The Sun, then it's probably undue. Marek Kukula is only borderline notable anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints; I don't know that anyone seriously holds the view that he was not convicted of the crime. It ended his career, so it is a major part of his life. He is either notable or not notable; his notability seems well established to me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, I'm tempted to turn this question around and ask if no other sources covered this event, is he actually notable? The existing article is cursory. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I started looking into this. The first two sentences (his birth year and his position and time period thereof at the Greenwich Observatory) aren't verifiable in the cited source. That source does nothing but document a public talk Kukula participated in. The second and third sources verify the content they're use on, but the fourth (a different page on the same site as the first) does not. There's also unsourced statements in the article. I think you're right; this article needs an AfD to determine if we should keep it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm seeing enough hits in Google News (though mostly as a quoted individual due to his position) pre-2018 as to say there should be a deeper WP:BEFORE analysis before rushing this to AFD, considering that WP:NPROF is applicable here.
But I did investigate for post-2018 sources related to the event and simply can't find anything outside deprecated sources. And it is not like the Sun is magnifying the crime - cops arrested him, a trial happened, and he's been sentenced on non-prison terms (in contrast to when Fox News tends to puff up "crimes" of liberals), just surprising a name that BBC + Guardian had bantered around just not mentioned after a clear trial. That said, even with the DM and Sun sources, there's no much more after this event that we can say "his career was ruined" though it can be read into that. I think in such a situation (assuming we keep the article) we simply can't say anything about it until a non-deprecated source appears that talks to it. We are not required to be up to date, and we're not going to sully our sourcing to achieve up to date information, even if that is "critical" information as I'd agree these charges and impact on career are. --Masem (t) 21:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, an AfD being a discussion is what I was aiming at. I'm not convinced this article needs to be deleted, I'm saying whether it should be deleted should be discussed. I did do a google news search, and found much the same thing as you. Most of those seem to be passing mentions, but two of the sources used on the page are clearly about him, so there's some depth of coverage.
One thing strikes me as odd: His position was as a science communicator. I would have expected a lot more coverage and ghits for a science communicator. I'm left wondering if, perhaps, he'd taken steps to reduce his internet profile after his conviction.
In any case, I just think we should discuss it. I mean, AfD has a way of generating sources, as Blueboar notes below, so it's not as if the deck is stacked against keeping it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
As I recall, some of the people he as associated with have wiped all trace of him from their websites; that'll be their decison, not his, due to the nature of his crime. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, that would certainly help explain the lack of sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
[ec] He wasn't "sentenced on non-prison terms", he was sentenced to prison, and that sentence was (and, AFAICT, remains) suspended. We don't need to say "his career was ruined", but we do need to say he admitted a very serious crime, and was sentenced accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The AfD closed as "keep", so I've restored this section; the original point still requires resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  • A very tricky question. On the one hand, the use of sources known to push falsifications especially for a contentious BLP remark seems to be problematic. British tabloids frequently engage in questionable practices in regards to BLPs. On the other hand, this seems to be significant context for the article. Thing is, if only the DM and The Sun are publishing it, how do we know it's true? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    • For two reasons: logic dictates that the chances of the two rival newspapers, from different publishing houses, inventing an identical claim on the same day is so remote as to be implausible; and because there has been no retraction, complaint to a regulatory body, nor libel case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have the same stance as in the AfD. If the Daily Mail and the Sun are the only sources reporting on this and are recognized as unreliable sources, then we have no actual evidence that the event/crime even happened. So it doesn't really matter one way or the other. SilverserenC 21:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Does there happen to be a public British sex offenders/convictions/arrests database that we could use? It would be a primary source, though we could probably use it under the relevant policy. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    • The relevant policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says not to use public documents and records as sources for statements about living people. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I was unaware of that policy; thank you for letting me know. The only way around I see is the part that says that [w]here primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. But in any case this would require a secondary source reliable for the claim of arrest and/or conviction for the primary source to be used as a bolstering citation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    • No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A claim like this about a living person must be cited to a reliable source per WP:BLP. The Daily Mail and the Sun are not acceptable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this and the fact that we've been unable to find one does call into question this subject's notability. A recent AfD was closed keep. The closer did not explain why but several votes mention his position as "Public Astronomer at the Royal Observatory Greenwich". We do appear to generally lack sources to write a detailed article. My opinion: It is unusual that secondary sources have not seen this as worthy of more coverage but trailblazing ahead is not the task of an encyclopedia. Spudlace (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It does not call into question notability, it calls into question the reliability of the claim from these tabloid articles. If we have no actual evidence that this happened and the only available sources are deprecated ones, then we have no presumption that the claims in said articles even occurred. Until we have evidence to the contrary, we should proceed with the assumption they are wrong. (And I say this thinking that they're right, but that's irrelevant right now) SilverserenC 18:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Evidence to the contrary already exists. His Observatory profile has disappeared without trace, and without explanation. He has also dropped off the map in terms of being cited as an expert in astronomy. All of this is consistent with a serious conviction that would nullify any kind of career involving engaging with children. If nobody has any actual evidence that they are untrue, they should be assumed to be true, on the obvious basis that whatever people think of tabloids, British national newspapers aren't in the habit of producing false reports about actual criminal convictions of a serious nature, not when it concerns someone with enough of a publc profile that someone would have noticed, and certainly not when including actual quotes from judges and prosecutors and lawyers. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I hope that if you are ever accused of a serious crime you get a fairer shake than you have given the person accused above -- you might not like being assumed guilty based upon someone's silence. British tabloids do produce false reports about actual criminal convictions of a serious nature. We have caught them doing it. British tabloids do lie about people with a public profile. We have caught them doing it. British tabloids do fabricate actual quotes from judges, prosecutors and lawyers. We have caught them doing it. If the only evidence you have is British tabloids and silence by colleagues, you have no evidence at all. See Daily Mail censured for fictional story about Amanda Knox verdict for just one example of a British tabloid making up direct quotes. Also see [62]. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Was that a serious comment? That story was online for two minutes, and was acknowledged as mistake, a mistake that actually led to several newspapers running the false information. Is this your idea of substantiation for an extraordinary charge like "British tabloids do fabricate actual quotes from judges, prosecutors and lawyers. We have caught them doing it."? Because if it is, then I fear for anyone who would appear in a court overseen by you. I am even more convinced that nobody on Wikipedia has ever actually seen either the Sun or Mail producing a false story of this nature, where someone has been reported as having been convicted of a serious crime, and the piece contains quotes from a judge, lawyer and prosecutor. It has never been clearer that these objections are based on nothing but nakedly absurd prejudice, and quite deliberately do not take into account the context or circumstances, which is what the Wikipedia policies on Verification and Reliable Sources actuall require. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The council minutes of the Royal Astronomical Society might contain something? In 2016 the minutes (which coincidentally mentions Kukula in a different section; he won a prize) contains dealings with "an alleged contravention to the Society’s Code of Conduct by a Fellow who had been charged and found guilty of multiple offences including: downloading indecent still and moving images of children". The matter was continued for further examination. Now... If these minutes are available, and deal with criminality by a Fellow (the proposal being to expel them from the RAS), then it may well be the case that Kukula's offending is also covered in subsequent minutes. The obvious issue is that the 2016 minutes don't actually name the Fellow concerned, so even if Kukula's 2018 charges are dealt with in subsequent minutes it may be impossible to prove that they refer to him. I'm not sure how useful this is: It may in fact be a wild goose chase, and in any event a primary source (although probably useable in an ABOUTSELF manner if they did expel him, to back up an assertion that they did so). But I thought I'd drop the possibility if anybody can do anything with it. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It would be 100% original research to assume those minutes connect to this person if they do not explicitly name him, and against BLP to make the assumption. --Masem (t) 18:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
      • As I said, yes, the chances of them being useable are a long shot. But first we would need to find them and see if any name them, if any even exist; he may have left voluntarily, have not been sanctioned, or the tabloids could just be plain wrong. Hence, quite possibly a wild goose chase. It's the only vague lead I've found, however. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
        The minutes from the following council meeting name the expelled Fellow, it was not Kukula. Schazjmd (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
        Well, yes, since they predate the reported conviction. The long shot would be to try and track down minutes that postdate it and see if the same process was used for Kukula. Even then, I suggested this before I was aware of WP:BLPPRIMARY linked above which to my (admittedly inexpert) mind means that even if such minutes are out there... They'd still be useless for sourcing purposes. Sorry, but it looks like my idea is a write-off. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Even if the Sun and the Daily Mail were considered reliable sources, unless it was mentioned in the broadsheets it would lack weight for inclusion. UNDUE in fact covers both facts and opinions. Facts are referred to as "aspects" and are written about in the Balancing aspects section of UNDUE. The Sun is in fact "magnifying the crime" in the sense that neither the crime nor the perpetrator were significantly high profile for it to be of any interest to broadsheet readers. Tabloids however cover crime more extensively and include stories that their readers will find titillating. Otherwise respectable person caught doing something naughty provides entertainment for their readers.
If the subject were more notable, then the broadsheets would have covered the story but then they would have covered other aspects of his life in detail as well. The fact that he received a suspended sentence shows that the judge probably decided to take into account other behavior that mitigated this crime. A detailed impartial account of his life would include this. But we can't add that because we lack secondary sources.
TFD (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
As has already been shown, the broadhseets have covered aspects of this man's life in detail, just not as nominal News, only ever as Lifestyle/Culture. There are lots of reason why they might have chosen not to cover the later conviction, but it seems insulting in the extreme to suggest that mere titillation is behind the Sun and Mail's choice to consider it worthy of reporting. This was a man who got a high profile job in a public museum where access to children and schools was a necessary and indeed desirable component. A man who we now know had already been looking at underage pornography of the most serious kind, a fact which could have easily been discovered by the museum if institutions had the legal power to perform background checks of the sort you would perform on a sports coach, the sort of checks that the police can do. There is an obvious public interest angle here, one which perhaps doesn't appeal to the left wing broadsheets, public broadcaster and academic publications that had previously profiled him. And on what basis are you suggesting this was leniency? I don't know what the sentencing guidelines say, but I would certainly be surprised if a prison sentence is mandatory for a first offence of possessing indecent images, even 30+ Category A images. It could be said that is the very fact he got a custodial sentence, albeit suspended, that shows the seriousness with which what he did is viewed by the criminal justice system, both in terms of what he downloaded, and his public profile and access to children for years after the event. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Describing a named individual as a pedophile (or even reporting accusations of it) is obviously one of the most WP:BLP-sensitive things we can cover; it clearly requires high-quality sources, and clearly depreciated sources are insufficient. If no high-quality sources cover it then we can't, either. I would just set up some news alerts and wait to see if higher-quality sources pick it up later. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, this is not a case of reported accusations. This is a case where national newspapers have reported, as fact, with quotes attributed to a named Judge, that this man plead guilty to possession of 30+ Category A indecent images in Crown Court. If Wikipedia thinks that's an aspect of this man's life that it can't risk including because it might be untrue, that's fine, but the record needs to be clear as to precisely what it is rejecting, and why. Accusations, these are not. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Mr Happy Shoes, but are there sources other than the Daily Mail or The Sun? Because those are sources one can not trust, these are (well were) page 3 publications.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know where you get your information from, but the Daily Mail has never been a Page Three publication. But I would of course be open to any argument or scientific proof that shows that the presence of a picture of a topless lady on page three, increases the likelihood of the page 17 story which says an named person working at a public museum has been convicted of a serious crime and includes quotes from a judge, lawyer and prosecutor, cannot be assumed to be accurate, given that there are no other indicators of falsity, except the title of the publication. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not a source that can be trusted. Some of what they report is true. This might be true. But for these very serious crimes a more reliable source, one with public trust, is required.VikingDrummer (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Prejudices aside, this can quite easily be assumed to be true information, unless you can present convincing evidence to the contrary. Nobody has, so far. Not on the specifics, nor in the general use case. Only at the level of pointing to the title. On which, you seem to be ignoring the very pertinent fact that if this story is false, which it isn't, then there must be some reason why a false story has been run by two newspapers, the Sun and the Mail, under different bylines, with the exact same quotes. Have you a likely scenario, one that fits these facts, as opposed to your opinions? This illustrates your prejudice. You are singularly unprepared to consider context and circumstance, which is actually what the Wikipedia policies on Verfiability and Reliable Sources requires. For example, on what grounds are you claiming the public doesn't trust the Mail to perform its journalistic duty when it comes to reports of this nature? Have you any studies? Reports, condemnations, legal findings even? Have you got anything, other than the Amanda Knox story being online for two minutes, that would support this extraordinary claim, to use a term of art I have seen used here. Any reliable source will do. Any source at all, in fact, other than your own opinion. Since nobody knows who you are, and therefore wouldn't know if you were for example, employed by The Mirror, and so had a vested interest in smearing a competitor. It is the very fact that this is a serious matter, the most serious, that people can absolutely trust that the Mail has got it right. Celebrity tittle tattle, this is not. A mere tablid accusation, this is not. This is a factual report whose factual basis can be checked by anyone who has access to the court records, which I presume is quite a lot of people. You are free to even contact the judge to ask if these are her words, if you want to stand by this absurdity. I suspect when it is framed that way, you will decline the invitation to put your money where your with is. On which score, you should of course be mindful that Wikipedia is a publisher, for the purposes of your responsibilities regarding making statements you seem to want to claim are reasonably supported by the evidence, but then might wish to retract later, should that claim be challenged. There is a simple truth here, one that nobody seems to want to acknowledge, despite all their naked prejudices against tabloids. It makes absolutely no sense at all for anyone to try to argue that it would make good economic sense on the sensationalism/tabloid business model, for any newspaper to knowingly print false stories concerning serious convictions of people with a public profile by virtue of being employed in a public facing role at a believed public institution, up to and including quoting judges. The very idea is absurd. A sure fire path to scandal and bankruptcy. Insane. Or at least, inane. I was more convinced when it seemed like you were going to make the scientific case for ther being an actual provable link between printing images of breasts, and the presence of false court reporting. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
When a sordid story on a pedophile appears in a tabloid, two tabloids, I assume it is false until proven otherwise.VikingDrummer (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Good for you. I guess you missed the part where you're obliged to explain how, in this context, that makes for a viable business model. And out of interest, are you also in the habit of calling identifiable people pedophiles, when that word doesn't even appear in the "sordid stories" you apparently based that accusation on? This is your prejudice on full display. Only in your sordid mind, does the addition of an emotive headline and a handful of trigger words like sick and disturbing, turn an otherwise dry and factual report on a court proceeding, with precise legal terminology, quotes and dry background detail, into a "sordid story on a pedophile". It is your own prejudice that makes you think this is what these reports are, and therefore this is what makes them false. I can't otherwise imagine there is any logic or reason behind it. If there was, it would have manifested by now, right? You would have read and responded to my specific points, rather than simply restated your prejudices, as if they weren't already known. You need to properly own that obviously flawed line of argumentation and source classification, because such a mistake is not something any serious journalist would make, not even a tabloid journalist. Not that there is any training involved, but if there was, one of the first things a Wikipedia editor would be taught, would be to how to identify whether a prejudice is interfering with their perceptions, and manifesting in what they write. I will ask you a follow up, and feel free to ignore it because you will undoubtedly find it inconvenient to your deeply held prejudices. When narrowing it down to simply the category of "sordid story on a pedophile", in your experience, direct or third party, how many actually false stories featuring fabricated quotes form a judge, are you personally aware of? I am going to go out on a limb and say your answer would be none, and that this simple fact is entirely immaterial to what you just said above, and in prior comments. If so, if you accept these observations, are you prepared to own them? In other words, can I quote you on it? Can you say, write in your own words, that it doesn't matter to you if you have never ever seen the Sun or Mail fabricate a quote from a judge in a report about a conviction, if the context is a story about a criminal conviction involving sexual imagery of children, you are happy to assume the story is a fabrication, :until proven otherwise." And perhaps an explanation of your desired standard of proof, too. If it is as simple as The Guardian reprinting the story word for word, perhaps crediting the Sun/Mail, minus the emotive language, feel free to admit it. But if for example you need something more, up to and including someone from Wikipedia to contact the judge for conformation, feel free to say that too. Everything will help me convey the decision making attributable to the amorphous blob that is the Wikipedia editors. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Every claim in Wikipedia must be able to be verified in a reliable source, regardless of what the claim is. The Daily Mail and The Sun are not reliable sources so if they are the only places the claim is verifiable it cannot be included in Wikipedia. The Daily Mail and The Sun are unreliable because it has been proven they cannot be trusted to accurately report facts. If you want to challenge this then you need to demonstrate they have changed and now report matters accurately. The way you can demonstrate that is by demonstrating examples where the facts reported by the Daily Mail and/or The Sun across a significant number of stories over a significant period of time match the facts reported in sources that we do know to be reliable with, over the same time period, no counterexamples. By definition a story that is not reported in reliable sources cannot form part of this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
You have simply restated points I have already addressed, and nobody seems able to counter. Policy doesn't say any of this, and I don't know why people think it does. Context is king. No decision is made in a vacuum. And like it or not, there is an established and relevant track record here, to fit the circumstances. I have literally even asked the person who actually claimed that the Sun and Mail have an established track record of fabricating judge's quotes, and Wikipedia has "caught them", for proof that he didn't actually just make this claim up. I have yet to be given an answer. I suspect he has lied. I suspect he will face no consequences for this Wikipedia hosted slur on an entire industry, because it seems like Wikipedia editors are totally fine with the super ironic activity of telling outright lies about people they so obviously hate with a passion, if it sells. Do you have any proof that the Sun/Mail have more complaints against them regarding the simple dry act of reporting convictions than the so called reliable sources? On an identical dataset, story for story, case for case. Don't bother trying, I already know you don't. This is my job. I am paid to know this. I was mildly curious if anyone here would even reach that level of the debate. I have my answer. Masem basically just admitted it. Wikipedia editors genuinely want to treat two identical tabloid reports of a serious conviction, with actual quotes from a judge, as if it were equivalent to the grapevine, in terms of likely accuracy. It is an outrageous and obviously false position. If the Wikipedia editors stand by it, I aim to make them pay for it. Up to and including loss of donations. This decision does not stand in a vacuum. It does directly affect the safety of children. Nobody is EVER going to understand Masen's analogy between the disclaimer warning people to be wary of vandalism, and knowing that not every biography here will be including hyper-pertinent information like this. There is no hiding place. Two wrongs do not make a right. The right call, had you known you would be incapable of getting past your prejudices, would have been to decide not to host a biography at all. And Wikipedia is dreaming if it thinks people will ever accept that The Guardian and the BBC, the people who previously profiled this man, are the ones who get to decide if reporting on this specific career ending conviction is in the public interest. Wikipedia is properly screwed here. I gave you all every single chance to see where this was heading, but for whatever reason, you simply cannot dig yourselves out of this tramline repetition of the same old excuses. It is a prejudice. If not, show me the evidence. Relevant evidence. Show me you all understand the difference between celebrity tittle tattle, and court reporting. Or actually admit, clearly and for the record, that you do not care a damn that the accuracy to be found in one activity really has no bearing in the other. Not even a little bit. For reasons everyone not deeply immersed in Wikipedia and thus indoctrinated in this prejudice, is going to understand. No need to be a journalismm expert, knowing industry details like who does what and why. Only requirement being a working brain. If the Wikipedia editors want to address this issue, on the facts, well, miracles can happen I guess. Time is running out. Or rather, I am getting tired of being taken for an idiot. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
If all you can respond with walls of text filled with personal attacks do not be surprised if the thread gets closed so you don't waste any more time. I will not be responding further unless and until you can demonstrate you have listened to what everybody has told you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Where is your proof that the Mail/Sun would think it wise to print a false story about a court conviction, including fabricated quotes from a judge? Where is your proof they have ever done this, such that I would need to convince you they no longer do it? These are questions that arise from Wikipedia policy when applied to this context, specifically Verification and Reliable Sources. Written policy, not people's wishes or inventions. I am listening. You aren't. Feel free to walk away as if I'm the one with the problem here, but please don't complain later if this tactic comes back to haunt you. You are on the record, as is everyone here who has tried to treat me like I am an absolute idiot. I get paid to know the difference between an evidence backed claim, and something someone just made up, and just want to genuinely believe it. If people here don't understand the meaning of the word prejudice, look it up now. You will be hearing it a lot in future, because it is what you are guilty of here. Bang to rights. Own it. Live with it. Or wise up and address the matter at hand. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The three closers of the 2019 RfC on the Daily Mail wrote: "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case." The RfC on The Sun concluded: "the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article". These are controversial 'facts', so collectively (not everyone, but a consensus), yes, in Mr Happy Shoes' words: "Wikipedia editors genuinely want to treat two identical tabloid reports of a serious conviction, with actual quotes from a judge, as if it were equivalent to the grapevine, in terms of likely accuracy." It could be argued that DM+Sun = more than DM or Sun alone; perhaps that discussion hasn't been had. And there's still IAR as an option (in theory). EddieHugh (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
That discussion definitely hasn't been had. Largley because nobody really wants to hear this issue from a specifics point of view. I have said from the very outset, how important it was that not one, but two tabloids, ran an identical story, with identical quotes, and different bylines, and there's no evidence anywhere that even in isolation, fakery in this area is what they have ever done. Nobody cares. Happy to treat me like I am an absolute twit who knows nothing about nothing. I am dying to tell them my real job. Egg meet faces, and make no mistake. And evidently this is all proof they have heard me, and wisely considered, but rejected, my points. Laughable really. Some haven't even noticed there is more to this than simply delivering the appparently required insult to the Mail, and wandering off, as if not having read up on the scenario makes them look like people whose opinions must count. They all desperately want to live in some magical fantasy world where tabloids are indeed on the same level as gossip, from page one to the back page, and so Wikipedia can happily ignore any and all of their reports, as if there wouldn't be any consequences. Well, meet the admitteldy unintended consequences. The paradox has been exposed. Wikipedia is now in the reputation repair business, like it or not, for not very well known people convicted of serious crimes that were totally pertinent to the one reason (job) that anyone here really used to decide they do indeed warrant a Wikipedia biography. Nobody here can pretend not finding a way to mention this information has no consequences, or worse, only had good outcomes for Wikipedia. It is a pretence. A delusion. Nobody here is willing to admit it, but they have created situation where, contrary to their best intentions I am sure, it is actually mandatory to read emotive tabloid junk alongside Wikipedia biographies. There's nothing else out there on this man. It's Wikipedia, and these two identical reports, that nobody can find any reason to doubt, except by resorting to their prejudice. Things really don't need to be like this. Wikipedia is supposed to be better than this pointless repetition of dogma. Wikipedia doesn't like tabloids, we get it. Just live with the consequences of taking that viewpoint to the absolute, unjustifiable extreme. Beyond all reason. Well into pure unadulterated prejudice. That is all anyone who doesn't want to spend their time here in this delusion, will be expecting. I certainly expected better. Fool me once indeed, as someone said. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
All else aside, see WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we summarize what is generally accepted to be true, or cover significant strands of thoughts and debates when there is notable disagreement. If something negative about someone is notable enough to receive significant coverage from high-quality reliable sources, we will generally reflect that; but we're not a tabloid and are not trying to compete with tabloids, so if you thought that reading Wikipedia could be a substitute for reading The Sun then you were mistaken. If you want to get a sense of what the tabloids are saying about someone, you should have to read both, because an encyclopedia is very different from a tabloid. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Mr Happy Shoes has been blocked as yet another Brian K. Horton sockpuppet - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I have to say, this was a lot less obvious than his antics about the Daily Mail last year were (not that thats saying much), but the long walls of text with a syntax typical of Crows Nest socks is obvious in hindsight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Healthgrades and Courthouse News

I'm reviewing an article for the mainpage DYK and have come across the use of Healthgrades.com being used to cite information and link to primary sources for a BLP. It's not at all what I would normally consider a reliable secondary source. Normally I would dismiss this out of hand but the page claim is about state licenses (more accurately, whether these have been revoked, suspended or surrendered.) Statements about such licensure (under disciplinary actions) appear to be linked to case numbers and primary documents. For example, the statement that the subject has voluntarily surrendered his medical license in New York is being used to verify the subject was once licensed to practice medicine in New York. A routine calculation perhaps.

Another source I'm seeing is CourthouseNews.com. This is being used to verify assertions of wrongdoing on the part of the subject, sometimes pointing to courthouse documents (primary sources). I have no doubt that members of the legal profession might find such information useful but I have doubts we can use this to make assertions about a BLP. What do others think? BusterD (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Article has been put up for speedy deletion now, but I'm still interested in the sources. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Courthouse news is fine to augment existing legal case info from other assured RSes but I would definitely not use it for backing BLP information if its the only source for it; they are too close to simply repeating the court documents and being just a primary source to be used that way. --Masem (t) 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Heathgrades? Anyone? I think it's slightly more reliable than Glassdoor, but that's not saying much. BusterD (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The criteria for a secondary source is that there has to be some analysis, evaluation, or improvement of primary sources. Just taking court documents and republishing the outcome doesn't count. In the case of Healthgrades, I think it's clear they're not really doing anything with the documents beyond just repeating what the documents have said akin to a background check service (the heading they describe the licensing information under). WP:BLPPRIMARY makes it clear that we don't use court documents to support assertions about a living person, and while medical boards aren't actually courts I believe using documents from a quasi-judicial entity such as a medical board falls under the spirit of the rule at least.
In terms of Courthouse News though, I think it's clear they're a reliable and secondary source. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Courthouse News seems like a reliable source. Its about page spells out that it links directly back to primary source documents, and it appears to be an intentional choice in order to better provide lawyers with the underlying materials so that they can independently verify the veracity of the claim. There appears to be some sort of team in place. They seem like a high-quality reliable source for the topic of civil litigation. I could definitely see an argument that content only reflected on the site may not be WP:DUE, owing to its specialist market focus, though I don't think that impugns the reliability of the site itself. But, owing to that same focus, I would personally feel comfortable using it to support facts in a BLP regarding the occurrence of convictions, the filing of charges, the length of sentences, and the like. Healthgrades seems like a user-generated review site, which would be unreliable and almost always undue for inclusion within an article. At best, the bios might be considered WP:SPS, but that would never be acceptable unless there is evidence that the subject of the Healthgrades page wrote the bio themselves (and then it only be OK for uncontroversial statements about self). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Falk, Richard. "Foreword to "The New Pearl Harbor" written by David Ray Griffin". Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. Archived from the original on January 20, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343&oldid=1142577946"