Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

RfC: Joshua Project

Is the demographic data published by the Joshua Project reliable? Alaexis_¿question? 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been discussed many times in the past Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Joshuaproject.net,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226#Duane Alexander Miller, Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Joshuaproject.net,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Reliability of the Joshua Project as source,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 74#Joshua_Project,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Is Joshua Project reliable?,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Joshua Project. As far as I can gauge it, the consensus has been that it's unreliable. It's still being used so I'd like to add it to the WP:RSP list. Alaexis_¿question? 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

From the above I agree that an RSP entry is a good idea. A potential summary may include: Religious advocacy group, cites unreliable data sources. Often the RSP talk page is enough to agree on what to write... —PaleoNeonate – 03:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. You cannot trust any of that website's claimed population numbers for ethnic groups even to an order of magnitude. The real population might be 0 because there is literally no such ethnic group: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawa Pesisir Lor. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of theaerodrome.com

Which of the following best describes the reliability of theaerodrome.com?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

The website theaerodrome.com is currently referenced in over 500 1500 articles chiefly related to World War I aviation ([1] search), including articles assessed as GA-class (e.g. Friedrich Ritter von Röth). It has been previously discussed on WP:RSN twice, first here and later (very briefly) here. A recent attempt to establish local consensus at WT:MILHIST was closed with instructions to discuss the topic here. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC); upd. reference count 07:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

NB: I'm new to both RfCs and WP:RSN, so please let me know if I have made any procedural mistakes, if this is not the proper format/forum, or you have a suggestion on how to better phrase the options above. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note that 80 of the cites are actually to the website's forum (see theaerodrome.com/forum  ) which should be removed regardless of whether the main website is deemed reliable. The forum cites are on my list of sites to remove. FDW777 (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The website appears to be a WP:SELFPUBLISHed resource, with an anonymous editorial team (i.e. the contact email is simply webmaster@... and there is no page listing the editorial staff). The website's main content consists of pages for individual aviators and aircraft models. Notably, the pages for individual aviators and airplanes do not contain by-lines (e.g. [2] and [3]). As such, this main content is effectively anonymously authored. In addition to the general anonymity of the editorial team, there is no indication of what the editorial or fact-checking processes related to the published content are. Some of the website's subpages list more general articles, which are hosted on the website's forums (see e.g. section "Articles" on this page). This publishing method blurs the line between user-generated content and staff-authored editorial content. While these articles contain by-lines, at least some of them appear to be copies of content published originally by 3rd parties in unrelated venues, e.g. this article being this report also available at Project Gutenberg and these articles being scanned copies of books/booklets. I have not investigated whether any of these constitute WP:LINKVIO. Some general articles appear to be original content and are published with by-lines (e.g. [4]), but there is no indication that the same authors are behind the unattributed pages related to the individual aviators, aircraft or medals listings -Ljleppan (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that of the two scanned books/magazines, one is a US book published in 1919 and so is OK to link to as it's public domain (how useful it is as a reference is a different matter), while the final one is a copy of a 1990 magazine and so most definitely isn't ok.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: Not a reliable source -- a self-published resource by a non-expert; no indications of a reliable publishing process or fact checking. The site appears to be someone's personal project. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• I followed a few links, and what we have here is another hobbyist site, with authors like "Dan San Abbot" and "John". No evidence of an editorial board that offers oversight, etc. Option 3: not to be used. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. This is a non-professional self-publishing exercise, AKA a fansite. So, generally unreliable. It could be primary-source reliable for certain things, e.g. an interview they publish with an aviator might contain some WP:ABOUTSELF statement, and the interview would likely be good enough for that. But it's not a reliable source for general claims about the world, like airplane specs or someone's achievements.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. Tweaked version from my contribution to the Milhist discussion. I don't think that this website meets the requirements of WP:RS. All three (author, publisher and source) need to be reliable. If one argues they are rarely wrong about a detail, if that is accurate, that only meets the third requirement. We still need to know about the author and the publisher, and I can't see anything above that says that the authors (obviously they vary, but only a couple of them are published aviation authors) and the website as publisher (reputation for quality copy-editing, fact-checking etc) are reliable. I recommend that it is considered unreliable and deprecated. If the website has list of sources used for a given article on a pilot (which it does in some cases), then examine those listed secondary sources (assuming they themselves are reliable) and use them to source the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. The main criticisms aired above stack up. Also, there are idiosyncracies in the Glossary, such as; "Barrage balloon: A small spherical captive balloon raised as a protection against aeroplanes." where aerodynamically-shaped kite balloons were also used, "Airship: A motor-driven balloon of elongated form; should not be applied to "heavier-than-air" craft." where the use of "airship" to describe a large aeroplane was common enough up until the WWI period, or "Fin: A fixed vertical plane generally fitted in front of the rudder..." where (when fitted, often not the case in WWI) it is more usual to put it the other way round and say that the (fixed) fin provides a mounting point or hinge for the rudder. So even if the claims of respectable oversight are true, their peer review process leaves much to be desired. Nevertheless, it is a useful site and should be acceptable to support and expand on content cited from other, more reliable sources. In other words, it is a source where any given citation must be taken on its individual merits; does a byline identify the author, is the context for the cited factoid appropriate, etc. The forum, of course, is off-limits, and so too should the Glossary be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, Steelpillow. Just to clarify your position, does your statement the forum, of course, is off-limits extend to the articles linked from the "Articles" box of e.g. this page? Note the addresses of the individual articles are .../forum/.... -Ljleppan (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

    In general, just because a url includes a certain file path, or a certain piece of authoring software is used, this does not define the status of the destination page. These articles are locked out of the forum discussion and logically form part of the static site, which indicates at least a degree of sanity checking by an admin. But a trustworthy author's byline is still necessary. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Of the authors listed in the "articles section, Frank Olynyk is a published author in aviation history, who is a co-author with Chris Shores et al on the multi-part History of the Mediterranean Air War 1940–1945 and would count as a trustworthy author, while the contemporary personal accounts are just being hosted by theaerodrome.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 - I see the site as "generally unreliable", per the comments above. While the site may be useful for finding some information, as well as citations to the same, those citations (when reliable themselves) should be examined and used for in-line verification of content instead of using this site.--John Cline (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - I have visited the site, no author, no "about" sections, it makes me feel that the site is n't build by experts. Cinadon36 05:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, there is no indication that this website is reliable. There is no listed author or team of editors.RCatesby (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Blocked sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source?

Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source?

1. Source: Peakbagger.com (description page here, terms of service here)
2. Article: Crypt Peak (as a test-case, and maybe 5,104 other EN Wikipedia articles)
3. Content: Primarily the prominence and elevation of various mountain peaks, also appears to be relied on in some articles to substantiate a WP:GNG pass.

FOARP (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Background (Peakbagger.com)

Peakbagger.com is used on a large number of articles regarding various peaks, primarily to substantiate the height of them above sea level and their prominence relative to the surrounding terrain, but also in at least some cases it appears to be only source that actually talks about the feature specifically (other sources being about the climate or geology of the area in which the peak is, but not about the peak specifically).

I have discussed the reliability of this source with Ron Clausen, who has created a number of articles using this source, in a discussion that can be seen here, and we both agree that it would be useful to get some feedback from the RSN community about it's reliability. FOARP (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Peakbagger.com)

• Unreliable under any circumstance - Based on the contact page appears to be a self-published hobby project, a lot of the data is apparently simply copied from GNIS with all that entails but other data has no clear origin and may have been submitted by individual climbers or comes from the author themselves. The terms of service page tells us that "Information uploaded to Peakbagger.com by site users, including ascent information, trip reports, provisional peaks, GPS tracks, and photographs, all becomes part of the master integrated Peakbagger.com database" meaning that the database is to an extent crowd-sourced. It also literally tells us that "The master Peakbagger.com database of peaks and associated content has thousands of errors in it, and text content, trip reports, and GPS tracks from the site's administrators and users are subjective and not necessarily authoritative" (my emphasis) - it straight up tells us that it is not a reliable source. Even if it were a reliable source for the height/prominence data, simple statistical entries in a database don't amount to significant coverage of the subject such as is needed to pass WP:GNG, and it would amount to a WP:PRIMARY source. For GNIS or other gazetteer data, the original gazetteer should be referred to directly.

I'd like to highlight that I think that most of Ron's work is OK and I like these articles about peaks, this is just about the sourcing in a lot of articles about peaks (not just his). FOARP (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Instead of making assumptions by using the word "appears", why don't you contact the webmaster to get the facts on the sources. Assumptions = unreliable, which is worse than the argument you are making. Interesting that you now encourage using GNIS data, but on my talk page you didn't.Ron Clausen (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

We have the website managers own words telling us not to use it, seems enough, no? And it's worth remembering that once a source is challenged the burden is on those who want to use the source to prove it's reliable, not the other way round - if you want to email them, please feel free to do so. As for GNIS, we have a consensus on here that certain pieces of data on it are unreliable (i.e., the feature classes) and it should anyway not be relied on to support a WP:GNG pass because it is not significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Where does the webmaster state not to use it (whatever you mean by "it")? Ron Clausen (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable By their own statements, this is a crowd-sourced, unchecked, and admits to having numerous unfixed factual errors. This source, as useful in general as it might be to hikers, is not an appropriate source for any information at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 14:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Peakbagger.com is frequently referenced by reliable books and magazines: [5] The data which I use from the site is not crowdsourced. Ron Clausen (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable for factual information - Appears to be the classic hobbyist/WP:SPS website with no sourcing on the few pages I randomly sampled and no indicia of a reliability-establishing editorial policy. That, alone, seems sufficient for "unreliable" even if we interpret the "thousands of errors" statement as a generic "we take no responsibility if you hurt yourself because of our info" disclaimer. Seems to also contain trip reports, which might theoretically be used per WP:RSOPINION/WP:SELFSOURCE with the usual disclaimers, but I'm not familiar enough with either the site or the general topic to say whether that's a realistic prospect. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Peakbagger.com is frequently referenced by reliable books and magazines: [6] But thanks for declaring it unreliable when you state that you are not familiar with this subject. Ron Clausen (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable when framed as "according to" etc.. it often receives notice in other reliable sources as being a significant source:
  • "Greg Slayden, founder of www.peakbagger.com, a national climbing registry where baggers can record their conquests." The Mercury News
  • "A website called Peakbagger.com, a major arbiter for the country’s “high pointers,” made the change to its database. As far as Peakbagger was concerned, Jackie Jones Mountain was now supreme."The Daily Beast
  • "He had read about Baker Mountain on peakbagger.com, a storehouse for people looking to summit prominent mountains. " The New York Times
  • "Before the advent of peakbagger.com, climber.org, and summitpost.com, climbers sought information about routes up peaks in guidebooks, in newsletter reports, and by word of mouth, still all good sources. "Sierra Club
  • "If you want more information and maps of these peaks, a good source is peakbagger.com." Elko Daily News

• Peakbgger.com is frequently referenced by reliable books and magazines: [7]

-- GreenC 17:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

These point to it being a useful source for Peak-bagging hobbyists, in a similar way to how Wookieepedia is a useful source for Star Wars fans and Memory Alpha is a useful source for Trekkers. It does not make it a reliable source for an encyclopaedia article. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You failed to take note of the last bullet: Peakbagger.com is frequently referenced by reliable books and magazines: [8] which is a Google search result showing all the reliable published books that reference Peakbagger.Ron Clausen (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Just because a book appears in a Google Books search does not mean it's a reliable source. For example the very first search result for me is "Stargate SG1 Compendium" published by PediaPress. If you actually search for "peakbagger.com" with quotation marks, you'll see a significantly reduced amount of hits, less than 50 based on my quick count. Some of the hits, e.g. The Mountain Encyclopedia, appear to simply list it in a large list of general websites related to the topic, rather than using it as a source or even making any explicit claim about its reliability. Others, such as 'The Making of Modern Baseball, Sports Nation: Contemporary American Professional Organizations, Indiana Courthouses - Southeast Edition and Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities are in so wildly different domains that they really can't be used to establish reliability here. To establish that multiple highly reliable sources view peakbagger.com as a reliable source, you'd need to provide clear examples rather than just linking to a Google Books search. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, at best its a group blog edited by Greg Slayden but you have to squint really really hard to see that... Its a high quality hobbyist site but even the best of those are generally not WP:RS, especially for obscure hobbies like peak bagging. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable There are no errors in the data for peaks. The peak data comes from USGS data. Anything related to user contributed climbing information is not used on Wikipedia.Ron Clausen (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • How did you determine that the peak data comes from USGS? I can't find any indication of that on the website. Does that source also extend to peaks not in US? If the data comes from USGS, why not cite the original source of the data? -Ljleppan (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    • The webmaster states "I added peaks by hand, or from large public-domain databases like the GNIS and BGN gazetters." GNIS and BGN = USGS. https://www.peakbagger.com/Contact.aspx As for why? Convenience, and parameters such as Prominence and Isolation data are not provided directly by from USGS, but derivations thereof. Prominence and Isolation are not something found in "published" sources, but can be obtained at these websites. I don't use Peakbagger or LOJ for peaks outside the US.Ron Clausen (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• That does say "by hand", though... not particularly reliable if you ask me. Surely there are reputable sources that would compile this information. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 00:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Again with the assumptions. Please tell us your reputable sources that compile Prominence and Isolation. Ron Clausen (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• The GNIS database is public domain and freely accessible. It also isn’t clear which data on Peakbagger comes from there and which doesn’t and instead comes from another source. And just to emphasise this: the website itself says not to trust it. If data cannot be reliably sourced, the answer is not to use an unreliable source, the answer is just not to include that data at all. FOARP (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't say "not to trust it". It says there are thousands of errors in the site, a site which he says has millions of data points. Every data base and reliable source is going to have errors. If Peakbagger's elevation value for a given peak matches what's on the USGS topographic map, we know where the information came from.Ron Clausen (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry Ron, but it literally says right in the terms of service "The master Peakbagger.com database of peaks and associated content has thousands of errors in it ... there is no guarantee of accuracy". That's them right there telling you not to rely on their data, for the very good reason that it is not an authoritative source and is transcribed from other sources and/or provided by users (and it is not clear which is which). Now you're saying "don't worry, it's only thousands of error amongst millions", but how many thousands? This is a very useful source for hobbyists, but that doesn't make it a reliable source for an encyclopaedia article. As for it matching USGS data, if that's so then why don't you just refer to the USGS data directly? And if you can't access the USGS data then how do you know this?

Let me take the opportunity again to say that I like your articles on peaks, especially the photos, and I think they're a net value-add for Wiki. I just think this specific source (and LoJ, though that's much-less-used) shouldn't be used. FOARP (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you sliding down a slippery slope if you expect "guarantees of accuracy" from all reliable sources. Please provide a link to that Wikipedia policy requiring sources to guarantee their accuracy, and also a list of sources that you are aware of which do meet such a requirement. I can't recall ever seeing a publication which did. Ron Clausen (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not requiring that they give such a guarantee, I'm requiring that they don't literally tell us that they can't give such a guarantee because of all the errors they have. FOARP (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Can you provide a link to the Wikipedia policy that requires that? Ron Clausen (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• See WP:RS#Overview and WP:SOURCE: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (emph. added). Are you claiming that a source that literally states it contains thousands of mistakes has a "reputation for accuracy"? -11:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Ljleppan (talk)

• Thousands of errors in millions of data points. We don't know exact numbers, but for the sake of simplicity let's say 1000 errors for every one million data points. That works out to 99.9 percent accuracy. In my book, that's pretty accurate, reliable information. And that site is aware of the errors and fixes them (according Peakbagger, and my personal dealings with them when I pointed out an error. Ron Clausen (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• So what you're telling us is that you've found errors on there (more than once?) and they corrected them when you told them. Which sounds an awful lot like user-generated content. "Thousands" can mean many more than 1,000, they clearly don't know how many errors there, just that there are a lot. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• You're missing the context. Thousands of errors in millions of data points. He doesn't say tens of thousands of errors, nor tens of millions of data points, so the numbers must be between two and ten. Let's take the worst case example that favors your side: 9,999 errors in two million data points. That's 99.5 percent accuracy. On the other hand the math for the flip side has 2,000 errors in nine million data points. That's 99.98 percent accuracy. Ron Clausen (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, over the last five years I found an error there. Coordinates for a peak were wrong, only because USGS had within the past year corrected a USGS error, and Peakbagger originally used that erroneous data from USGS, and the change was not caught by Peakbagger. All websites that I checked were still using the erroneous USGS data. Case in point: Pectols Pyramid. A quick search now and I found mapcarta.com and topozone.com and peakvisor.com all still using the erroneous location. Ron Clausen (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand: if USGS has more accurate data, and updates it more frequently, why aren't you just referring to USGS directly? Moreover you only know about this error because USGS is there as a reliable source. It seems that whilst the maths needed to calculate prominence/isolation are simple, determining what data to use is non-trivial and we shouldn't be relying on Peakbagger.com for it. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Who claims USGS has more accurate data and updates it more frequently? If you don't understand, it's because you haven't paid attention. As I stated in my Talk page to you: "I have found plenty of stuff in "published" material that is flat out incorrect, and would not use. And stuff can be found in communities such as Summitpost that is excellent and correct (but I don't use). So the balancing act is to be accurate, which means using best data where it's found. GNIS is good for coordinates, but terrible at elevations, so that's where Peakbagger comes in." Ron Clausen (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It's probably fine for an external link but I don't see how we can use a source that is at least partially user-generated, otherwise curated by someone whose subject matter expertise has not been established (WP:SPS), and that by its own admission contains errors. I sympathize with Ron Clausen's position that 99.9 is pretty great accuracy, but the difference between this source and a reliable source is that we have no way to verify the reliability--we have no idea which data is accurate. I do have a question about "Prominence" and "Isolation"; I'm unfamiliar with those terms and their importance. Ron notes above that these are "derived", are they derived from the USGS data, and is this a mechanical calculation, or is something more involved? Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Topographic isolation and Topographic prominence simple calculation, based on USGS data. Ron Clausen (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I would beg to differ about prominence: one has to identify the key col to compute the prominence. That is a calculation, but involving a graph of elevations. For a description of the algorithm, see [9]. I would not characterize it as simple. Wikipedia editors cannot perform prominence calculations under WP:CALC: it would be a violation of WP:NOR. We have to rely on Peakbagger for prominence and isolation, or use an alternative site. There are not that many of them. — hike395 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable as the person is an expert in his field so can be used in Wikipedia as per the guidelines on SPS and blogs. No significant problems with using this source have been put forward and carrying out simple calculations is fine for such an expert on the subject, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Could you expand a bit on how you determined that the editor behind the website is "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", given that others below seem to have reached different conclusions? -Ljleppan (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for quantitative information: elevation, coordinates, location, prominence, isolation. Not reliable for ascent and travel accounts. To my mind, Peakbagger is the authoritative source for some of the quantitative information about mountains, and a secondary reliable source for other quantitative data. That doesn't mean there aren't errors on Peakbagger, but all "reliable sources" have errors and discrepancies.Smallchief (talk)
• Reliable per Smallchief and others for hard data such as prominence, isolation, elevation, coordinates and location. Likely to be more accurate and up to date than some official sources e.g. Ordnance Survey. Bermicourt (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable While FOARP, Ljleppan, Jayron32, and A. C. Santacruz are correct that Peakbagger does not pass WP:RS under the usual criteria for self-published primary sources, there is another way to establish reliability: via usage by other sources. In the small field of publications on orometry (e.g., elevation, topographic prominence and topographic isolation), the following papers treat the data in Peakbagger as "gold standard" data to incorporate or compare against:

  Arundel, Samantha T; Sinha, Gaurav (2020). "Automated location correction and spot height generation for named summits in the coterminous United States" (PDF). International Journal of Digital Earth. 13 (12): 1570–1584.

  Kirmse, Andrew; de Ferranti, Jonathan (2017). "Calculating the prominence and isolation of every mountain in the world". Progress in Physical Geography. 41 (6): 788–802.

  Kelso, Nathaniel Vaughn; Patterson, Tom (2010). "Introducing natural earth data-naturalearthdata.com" (PDF). Geographia Technica. 5 (82–89): 25.

  Wiens, John J; et al. (2019). "Climate change, extinction, and Sky Island biogeography in a montane lizard [sic]". Molecular ecology. 28 (10): 2610–2624.

Aside from WP:UBO, the 10+ years of WP usage of quantitative data from Peakbagger has uncovered no systematic biases or serious accuracy problems. — hike395 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for these references, I only had time to check the first this morning, but made some quick observations. Notably, the study clearly acknowledges that peakbagger.com is not a provider of high-quality data: "Ideally, results would be compared to a higher-accuracy dataset. Unfortunately, such reference data are unavailable. As a result, for a reality check, results were compared to the following: nearby National Geodetic Survey (NGS) control points, where they exist, spot elevations manually collected from historical 7.5-minute USGS topographic maps, values published by Peakbagger (peakbagger.com), a mountain climbing website, and values by Topozone (topozone.com), which offers value-added USGS topographic data." It later notes that "Many tested summits were missing from the Peakbagger lists" and "Topozone values corresponded more closely to snapped summits than did Peakbagger values, but the difference is unclear because both products use basically the same source data, although Peakbagger contains some values derived from amateur Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) devices." I'll check the other references later today. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Continuing to check the references, Kimse and de Ferranti refer to peakbagger.com in a few ways. First, on page 790, they simply state that it exists as part of their description of previous works. Second, on pages 792-793, they refer to it for peak height data. They go on to note that the peakbagger.com height data seems to disagree with their other data in some cases, discussing in detail how their analysis/computation is affected by this disagreement. They present no argument why they hold the peakbagger.com data to be more accurate, only making a vague gesture at "accurate surveys". The third mention on page 798 is, in my view, the most notable a it suggest a conflict of interest between the authors and peakbagger.com, as the authors describe their own contributions to the database. Tangentially related, I found the following sentence on page 791 interesting: "Many voids were filled with samples from the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer global DEM (ASTER GDEM), although a review of its properties showed that it has too many artifacts near water bodies, clouds, and high mountains to make it suitable as the primary database for our analysis." This appears to be a tacit admission that they are not confident in their underlying data for the whole globe. It's not completely clear to me from the paper whether this statement applies only to "norther parts of Scandinavia and Russia" or to a wider area.

The third reference (Kelso & Patterson, 2010) simply states they use peak name and height data from peakbagger.com in a single sentence. I believe it's notable that despite stating their website is intended for a mountain cartographer audience, they do not use any other data from peakbagger.com.

The fourth reference (Wiens et al., 2019) similarly only uses peak height data from the peakbagger.com.

In total, the references appear to contain one that acknowledges that peakbagger.com is not of very high quality, and three that only employ peak heights. Of the three height-only papers, Kimse and de Ferranti have a potential conflict of interest and also acknowledges that the peakbagger.com data disagrees with other data available to them. Based on this analysis, I don't think the references support a WP:UBO argument outside of peak heights, and even for peak heights it seems somewhat iffy. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

If the four articles cited above use Peakbagger data to one extent on another, then that is a recognition that the data is either reliable, the best available, or not available elsewhere, isn't it? If, in the four cited articles, only some Peakbagger data is used and some is not that is not an indication that the unused Peakbagger data is bad. It just means that Peakbagger data about, for example, prominence wasn't relevant to the author of the article.

Peakbagger is cited as a source on Wikipedia thousands of times. Let's look at just one article: List of the most prominent summits of the United States. Peakbagger is the source most cited for information about all 200 mountains on the list. Dozens of other articles about mountains use Peakbagger as their main source. Are we going to delete these articles not because they are inaccurate but because we have declared that Peakbagger -- often the only source or the best source -- is not up to Wikipedia's bureaucratic standards? Instead see: "Wikipedia has guidelines and policies -- not firm rules." To delete articles from Wikipedia sourced from Peakbagger would be counter-productive and destructive -- and would not make the encyclopedia one whit more authoritative. Our task is to compile and improve the encyclopedia not impose a rule that would do the opposite.Smallchief (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of peakbagger.com has been questioned, and the comment I replied to acknowledged that it does not pass the usual criteria for self-published primary sources. It was then suggested that it might be considered reliable through another criteria, and evidence for this position was presented. I argue above why I believe this evidence fails to establish reliability for all factual information, and at best establishes reliability for a minor subset of the data on the website. If you believe I have misread or mischaracterized the proposed evidence above, please let me know how and I'll happily reconsider my position and correct any mistakes I might have made. The fact that the source is currently referenced a lot in Wikipedia is immaterial for this discussion. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So, what is your remedy? Shall we delete all the articles that use Peakbagger as a principal source? This is not just an intellectual discussion. A problem should be in search of a solution.Smallchief (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This is neither the time nor the place for those hypothetical discussions, the need for which is dependent on both the result of this still ongoing discussion and the content of each individual article. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: I believe your summary does not accurately reflect Peakbagger nor my UBO argument:

• Kirmse explains the details of his prominence analysis here. Kirmse clearly uses Peakbagger as a ground truth source of data to compare his output to. It is the best alternative.
• Kirmse uses DEM data which is contaminated with trees (DEMs find the height of object at scan time, rather than true ground level, a well-known problem in remote sensing). This causes Kirmse's height data to be less reliable than Peakbagger. Again, see Kirmse's explanation here.
• Quoting "many tested summits are missing from Peakbagger" is not a strike against Peakbagger. Because Peakbagger is curated, it cannot have as many summits as Kirme's system. The simple fact that Kirmse (a reliable source) used Peakbagger as gold-standard data should count in favor of Peakbagger.
• I cannot find any guidance in WP:UBO that specifies that specific data (e.g., prominence) be used, as far as I can tell. It just asks us to analyze whether the source is used by other reliable sources.
• I also cannot find any guidance about "conflict of interest" in WP:UBO. If Kirmse donated data back to Peakbagger, why is that a negative? Instead, wouldn't that show that Kirmse thought Peakbagger was a worthwhile source? If it were truly unreliable (e.g., like The Daily Mail), Kirmse would be less likely to give it data, not more. — hike395 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hike395: Thanks for the link to Krimse's personal website/blog, I didn't see it linked from the peer-reviewed article. I'm afraid I'm still not too convinced by the way it's discussed on the page, see e.g. "In some areas, especially in Indonesia and Africa, Peakbagger's peak locations were very far off, enough to generate incorrect values even for ultra prominent peaks". In general, looking at all the various sources, I'm getting the impression that its data tends to be fairly accurate for the areas highly frequented by climbing enthusiast, but less so for elsewhere. Such data quality uniformity issues would be expected for a hobbyist source, and are one of the main reasons why I'm extremely wary of using these kinds references: it's going to appear accurate based on the things people will naturally check, but that deduction is not necessarily extensible to all data, nor is it possible to know for certain where that "uncertainty horizon" lies in the data.

Regarding the specific data aspect, I do concede might be reading the "for similar facts" part of WP:UBO rather closely (also, I'm not too familiar with how this has been interpreted historically), but I don't think my reading is unreasonable. I do find it notable that of the linked articles, the one that would have most expected to use e.g. the prominence data (the one providing a mapping service aimed at a mountain cartographer audience) does not do so. This might be simply resulting from the limited amount of prominence data available on the site prior to Krimse's contribution. Did the site contain prominence data in 2010s?

Regarding the conflict of interest, my point is that since the argument is about [[WP:UBO|use by others], does Krimse count as an other? In my understanding, the underlying UBO argument is essentially "there are verifiable reliable independent sources that hold peakbagger.com as a reliable independent source". I'm not convinced Krimse is "independent". -Ljleppan (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ljleppan: I believe some of the assumptions you're making are incorrect:

• Wikipedia has been using Peakbagger as a source of prominence data at least since 2005, possibly before. See this diff, and the corresponding archive link. It has been a stable and durable source.
• The main editors of Peakbagger were Edward Earl (until 2015) and Greg Slayden (after). If you look at the history, Kirmse wanted to adapt their code to run at Google in 2014, and started to share his data back in 2015. Peakbagger had prominence data for at least 10 years before that.
• It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. If Kirmse was a major participant in Peakbagger, then it would pass WP:RSSELF due to Kirmse's domain expertise. Instead, by his own web page, he was only tangentially involved starting in 2014. Hence the need for a WP:UBO argument, which I believe still stands.
• It's well-known that the published topographic data for mountains in the Global South tends to be imprecise. See, e.g., the uncertainty expressed at Cordillera Paine, which took a fair amount of investigation by WP editors. Or this discussion about the highest point in Indonesia. The accuracy of Peakbagger is limited by the accuracy and precision of the topographic data that they use. Claiming that they are a hobbyist site based on this is not warranted.

Thanks for being so thorough! — hike395 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hike395: And thanks to you for being so patient, especially considering that I lack much of the background knowledge etc. that others more familiar with the domain possess. I've thought about this for a few days now and have essentially two points I'd like to bring up. First, I don't believe Wikipedia's historical use of peakbagger.com is of significance for this discussion. Second, regarding "having it both ways", my position is essentially thus: Kirmse themself appears to be a reputable author, and if they were in editorial control over peakbagger.com, I'd be open to considering it an expert-produced WP:SPS. However, they are not in (sole) editorial control, and I'm not convinced the "editor-in-chief" fulfills the requirements in the same way as Kirmse does. At the same time, Kirmse is clearly affiliated with peakbagger.com. While this does not wholly invalidate their judgement w/r/t it's reliability, it does cause me concern regarding their impartiality in assessing the situation. Working in a rather niche field of academia myself, I'm sympathetic that this is made more difficult by the nicheness (is that a word?) of the topic: it's hard to make a very solid WP:UBO argument if the field of relevant "others" is very small. Its clear that you and others who are well-versed in the topic truly hold peakbagger.com to be a reputable site. But demonstrating that reputability is clearly an issue in this case. In general, given that the indicia of reliablity overall is so low, I'm still hesitant about any kind of blanket statement along the lines of "all factual data on peakbagger.com is reliable". On the other hand, I'm not sure what a suitable more limited statement would be. Frankly, I'm rather annoyed by the lack of citing sources on the site; if they attributed clearly where each peace of information came from, I would find this significantly easier. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable per Smallchief. That is to say, "for quantitative information: elevation, coordinates, location, prominence, isolation. Not reliable for ascent and travel accounts." The disclaimer for inaccuracy is very likely referring to ascent and travel accounts, and if not, it's a disclaimer highlighting the very very few errors in a very large dataset. Any dataset is prone to having a small percentage of errors, that doesn't make it unreliable. Being made by one person does not make it unreliable, it appears to be an authoritative resource, and wikipedia should treat it as such... except for the travel accounts, which are user provided and not reliable any more than some web forum post somewhere would be (that is to say, possibly useful as a primary source if the user commenting has some claim to notability). Fieari (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @Smallchief, Fieari, Bermicourt, and Hike395: - I understand your position regarding the accuracy of statistics on this website. How do you see it's listings in terms of WP:GNG, does a listing on Peakbagger count as significant coverage in your view? FOARP (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's a reliable source in terms of data, but obviously the blogs/comments are not. So it counts towards general notability. But we could also, by consensus, agree notability for mountains and hills based on a set of criteria such as height, prominence, etc, and only those that fall outside of that would need to pass the GNG test. Bermicourt (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the relevant notability guideline is WP:GEOLAND, which states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." Peakbagger can only reliably provide statistics and coordinates: nothing else. Therefore Peakbagger cannot be used to establish notability of mountains, ranges, etc. — hike395 (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Peakbagger does not establish notability (nor, in my opinion, does a single source ever establish notability). However, Peakbagger, as stated many times here, is a reliable source for elevation, prominence, and other statistical information.Smallchief (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically this. I have nothing to add, Hike395 said it right. Fieari (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Different kinds of data in Peakbagger

FOARP is saying that Peakbagger is not reliable, because the terms of service says so. But peakbagger has multiple kinds of information in it. It has subjective trip reports, and it has quantitative data about the prominence and isolation. AFAICT, the terms of service are warning users that the subjective trip reports are filled with errors: people who climb mountains should take care not to overly rely on other climbing reports, because climbing is a risky activity. But Wikipedia editors are not using peakbagger for the subjective trip reports (which are clearly unreliable).

The main question, I think, is whether the quantitative data is reliable and accurate. There are very few sources for mountain prominence and isolation. Members of WP:WikiProject Mountains have been using Peakbagger's prominence and isolation data for many years, and have not found serious systematic errors (unlike GNIS feature data, where I was aware of the errors back in 2010, but got shut down). That's not a guarantee of accuracy by the website, but an empirical validation.

I also think there are two different issues being mixed together here:

• Should peakbagger be the basis of creating new articles, and used to check WP:GNG?
• Should peakbagger be considered a reliable source of prominence and isolation?

For the first question, we've had serious problems in creating articles based on geographic databases (FOARP has been extremely helpful in a major cleanup involving thousands of articles based on incorrect data in GNIS). I would be skeptical about creating new articles purely based on Peakbagger + ListsOfJohn + GNIS.

I would suggest that the discussion here analyze the reliability of Peakbagger for prominence and isolation. Either:

• Peakbagger is considered a reliable source of prominence and isolation, or
• We have to consider removing many of the prominence and isolation data points from WP.

Given this restricted question of reliability about prominence and isolation, what do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

We are still fundamentally discussing a WP:SPS. Where does the data, for, say this page come from? What is the editorial policy that ensures it is correct? How about this page which states "this peak was submitted to the Peakbagger.com database by <name>"? I've seen nothing in this discussion that would have made me reconsider my original assessment of unreliable for factual information. If the result is that that Wikipedia needs to re-reference a lot of stuff, that is unfortunate, but that amount of potential work is completely immaterial for the reliability question. -Ljleppan (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• "this peak was submitted to the Peakbagger.com database by <name>" was merely a suggestion/request by a user that the peak be added to the database, not that the user added the data. The webmaster is always the only one to add the data. The user generally wants the peak added to they can add it to their list of personal ascents.Ron Clausen (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Ron is correct: there is an editorial process from turning a user-submitted "provisional" peak into a peak in the full database, see here.

My issue here is: checked how? Checked against USGS information? And if that's the case, again, why don't we refer to the USGS directly? I'm not sure prominence and isolation really are so trivial to calculate that we can safely leave this in the hands of what appears to be an amateur website: the maths involved are relatively simple, but the choice of input data to use does not appear to be. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@FOARP: USGS does not provide prominence or isolation, so we cannot refer to USGS. As I've said below, there's no governmental source for prominence or isolation anywhere.

You're right, the computation is not trivial. I've found a peer-reviewed paper about running the computation at scale, by Andrew Kirmse, previously a Distinguished Engineer at Google who managed Google Earth. The results from the paper are provided in a website. Kirmse provides more details about the computation here. That detailed web page is worth reading. A few things to note:

• Kirmse refers back to both Peakbagger and ListsOfJohn as tests for his computation
• Kirmse's computation matches Peakbagger within 5% error 90% of the time. Kirmse seems to attribute the errors to problems in his own data.
• Kirmse based his algorithm on WinProm code by Edward Earl, published in Helman's book. Earl ran Peakbagger until 2015, when he died in a mountaineering accident. Peakbagger has the original (although less scalable) WinProm code. Because Earl came up with the prominence algorithm, I would not characterize Peakbagger as a "amateur website", but as a primary source for prominence and isolation data.
• Kirme's data is innately less accurate than Peakbagger. Kirmse (like GNIS) bases his computation on digital elevation maps, which are less accurate than Peakbagger, which bases the computation on the best point elevations provided by governments. In mountains where there are high spatial gradients, DEMs are definitely inferior.

Here's my conclusion. Peakbagger is a self-published primary source. The editors of Peakbagger do not appear to pass the bar of published subject-matter experts. Kirmse's paper appears to be a reliable peer-reviewed publication by a subject-matter expert. Kirmse is a secondary source for Peakbagger.

I don't want to propose any major changes to 5,000+ mountain articles without having other mountain editors participate in the discussion. @Droll, RedWolf, Volcanoguy, Buaidh, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: The reliability of Peakbagger has been called into question (see above). What is the best way to reliably source prominence and isolation data? — hike395 (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I entirely sympathise with not wanting to make changes to lots of articles. Indeed, I'm OK with leaving these articles generally as-is and filling them out slowly with information from e.g., newspapers to make them full notability passes. What I will say is we have a general problem with many thousands of GEO articles being written solely on not-very-reliable database data (primarily GNIS and GNS) and it is more important to make sure that we don't generate thousands more problematic articles and make the problem worse. FOARP (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It strikes me as a bizarre thought that once a prominence figure has been published in a newspaper (a reliable one, I hope) we can give it a full notability pass[es]. First, surely we are not discussing notability (are we?) but verifiability. Second, where do we suppose the newspaper reporter obtained their data? Is our increased reliance because we believe that if what they publish is wrong they may be criticised, sued or forced to a retraction? Thincat (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

FOARP If your goal was to prevent non-notable articles being made from geographic databases (which I heartily agree with), we didn't need to have this discussion. WP:GNG says that notability should be established by secondary sources. Geographic databases are primary sources: there is no analysis, just data. WP:GEOLAND says that if only basic statistics about a natural feature are known (as in a database), then the subject is not notable. We should not start articles purely based on Peakbagger and/or ListsOfJohn and/or GNIS.

By determining that Peakbagger is not a reliable source, we have to either throw out prominences and isolation on 5,000+ articles, or figure out an alternative reliable source. It's frustrating that Kirmse's prominence data is more "reliable" (according to WP:RS), but less accurate than the curated data in Peakbagger (according to Kirmse himself). I realize that WP:IAR shouldn't apply to this large number of articles, but I believe deprecating Peakbagger will make Wikipedia worse. I predict other editors at WikiProject Mountains will agree with that. — hike395 (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

From where does Peakbagger get its information? --Jayron32 13:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Kirmse: Greg Slayden (the editor at Peakbagger) uses the WinProm program to determine the key col and nearest higher point based on a digital elevation map. He then uses USGS benchmark data (if available) or topo map data (if not) to compute the prominence, verifying that any benchmark corresponds to the named feature. Slayden does not appear to be a published subject-matter expert (by WP's definition). — hike395 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case, then his information is not reliable under WP:RS definitions. He is not an expert, his work is not checked by experts, and there's no review or editorial process for the information he posts. The information from the website should not be used at Wikipedia, and should not have been used at all. The "5000+ articles" issue is a problem caused by using an obviously unreliable source to begin with; if someone had been following the rules years ago those 5000+ articles would already be in compliance. --Jayron32 13:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

hike395 - I agree with you that it should be possible to address the problem of the creation of large numbers of GEO articles based on dubious sourcing at AFD. This is, however, not my experience at AFD. AFD is always far too late (often by a decade+ given how many articles were created circa 2008) to actually address the problem of article-creation based on purely statistical data. The many thousands of GEO articles sourced purely to GNIS/GNS, and created at a rate of 2-3 a minute in article creation campaigns, being the most obvious example.

Nobody said that these 5,000 articles would have to edited at once. We already have so much more dubiously sourced information, in such a large quantity on Wikipedia, that those 5,000 articles will not be a priority. What we need to stop is adding any more dubiously-sourced information. Ultimately, we do not have to have such data - hobbyists (who are the ones that this data is of interest to) can always just refer to Peakbagger directly. We can instead have more encyclopaedic information about the topic (e.g., it's history).

As a final point, if Kirmse's calculations don't match Slayden's, that points to these calculations being non-trivial to do given that if Slayden is a subject-matter expert then so surely is Kirmse. (EDIT: also entirely second what Jayron32 says - the 5,000 articles thing is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument) FOARP (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with FOARP and Jayron32 above, especially the point about hobbyists. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 13:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Subsection questions

I am going to add subsection questions below. It would be helpful, I think if those 'in the know' answer them with cites or links if possible Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC) : Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Why does prominence matter?

Topographic prominence is an objective measure of the "peakiness" of a peak. Many mountains are massifs, with many subpeaks. Prominence is a measure of how far down you need to walk from a subpeak before you go back up to the next main peak. Subpeaks with low prominence (e.g., 100 feet (30 m) are not considered significant peaks, and don't make it onto peak lists. See USGS link — hike395 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Topographic prominence is related to how much climbing is required to reach a peak from a point that is higher, specifically from its line parent. In Colorado, 4352 meter Grays Peak has prominence of about 844 meters from its line parent Mount Lincoln. On the other hand, the only slightly lower 4349 meter Torreys Peak has a prominence of only about 171 meters from its line parent which is nearby Grays Peak.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Who does prominence matter to?

Readers of mountain articles may wish to know prominence, in order to tell whether the peak is a true peak, or simply a bump on a larger mountain. — hike395 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Since prominence is somewhat related to the difficulty of a climb, it often matters more than elevation itself to climbers and mountain nerds like myself.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Are there national or international organizations, who deal with it?

I've been editing mountain articles for >18 years now, and I know of no governmental or international or standards bodies that compute either prominence or isolation. — hike395 (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Government agencies are not concerned with topographic prominence, although they provide the elevation and topographic data required to calculate topographic prominence. Most mountain climbing organizations rely on other sources (e.g, peakbagger.com and Wikipedia) to calculate topographic prominence for them. The Sierra Club and the Colorado Mountain Club have historically only been concerned with summit elevation, although topographic prominence has more recently become a concern. If a climber or organization finds a discrepancy with a calculated topographic prominence, hopefully they will let us know.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Why does isolation matter?

@Buaidh: you have added isolation data and lists to many articles, do you wish to answer this? — hike395 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Topographic isolation is also known as radius of dominance, an apt description. Isolation is the minimum distance you would need to travel to reach a point of equal or greater elevation. In mountainous regions, isolation may be short for any but the highest summit. In relatively flat regions, the highest summit may have a very long isolation.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Who does isolation matter to?

High isolation summits present a wonderful challenge to climbers in regions that are not overrun with folks who try to collect as many high peaks as they can in as short a period of time as possible (e.g., the Southern Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada.)  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Are there national or international organizations, who deal with it?

Government agencies are not concerned with topographic isolation, although they provide the elevation and horizontal position data required to calculate topographic isolation. Most mountain climbing organizations rely on other sources (e.g, peakbagger.com and Wikipedia) to calculate topographic isolation for them. If a climber or organization finds a discrepancy with a calculated topographic isolation, hopefully they will let us know.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there documented custom in the relevant off wiki community for reliance on educated amateurs for this?

I think "educated amateurs" may be a biased way of describing it. As far as I can tell, there is a small community of GIS people who compute prominence. A history of the term is described here: [10] The USGS acknowledges the term, but does not offer its own computation. Mathworks (the company that makes Matlab) offers a library to compute prominence (and isolation, too).

One of the main people in the community is Alan Dawson, who published, and participated in creating Peaklist.com. An important book on the topic is by Adam Helman About the community, Helman states, "The community of prominence theoreticians, list builders, and climbers have reached a critical mass --- one that finally suggested the elaboration and publication of a book dedicated exclusively to the subject."

As far as I can tell, here is a list of websites that actually use the software and publish the results:

• Peakbagger.com
• Peaklist.com
• The Database of British and Irish Hills (http://www.hills-database.co.uk/)
• ListsOfJohn
• County Highpointers Association (www.cohp.com)

Trafford Publishing (Helman's publisher) is a well-known self/vanity-publishing imprint. I can't find any information that would substantiate TACit Press (Dawson's publisher) as an established imprint or not (EDIT: based on this, it looks to have been an amateur operation EDIT2: though based on this they were able at least to give ISBNs and the sourcing/editing/checking doesn't appear bad, though the book is essentially just a pamphlet for hobbyists). FOARP (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC: tghat.com

Question: Which of the following best describes the reliability of tghat.com?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Less than generally reliable
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Reliable for their own opinion only
• Option 5: Other, please specify

— Platonk (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Option 4 added by Mathglot (talk) at 19:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Background (tghat.com)

The tghat.com website is being increasingly used throughout Wikipedia and is currently used in 143 articles since it was created just one year ago. Its use has engendered edit wars with several editors removing content sourced by it (as non-RS), and a few editors reverting the removals. There was a two-day discussion on RSN in July about tghat.com that discussed, though didn't resolve, the issue. As recently as five days ago, tghat.com has been added as an external link and asserted as a reliable source for a citation. The website's earliest Wayback Machine copy on December 10, 2020 shows it as a blog titled "Chronicling the War on Tigray". The website shows no sense of who is publishing the content. There is a Wikipedia article for Tghat which seems constructed with name-dropping rather than indications of notability. Other news media frame the website in terms of advocacy, not a news organization with an editorial staff, such as:

• "Tghat, a group of anonymous Tigrayans reporting on the damage done within Tigray during the current conflict"
• "Pro-Tigray Tghat"
• "Tghat was founded ... by concerned Tigrayans to chronicle and document the war"
• "News site Tghat, which is run by a group of Tigrayan activists living abroad"
• "Tghat, a news site run by pro-TPLF activists"

Examples of how tghat.com is being used in Wikipedia:

• 143 articles contain "tghat.com".

• 117 articles contain "A compilation of the verified list of civilian victims from different sources", a database/table which has a "source" column predominantly linking to Facebook or Twitter posts, other tghat content, and personal accounts. According to AP News the database is compiled by a single man and only contains deaths of ethnic Tigrayans, but not ethnic Amhara victims.

• 2 articles contain a blog post which is a google translation from an article published by Norway newspaper Bergens Tidende. This is probably a copyright violation.

• 9 articles contain "A Leaked Document: Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia" (a blog post). This doesn't appear to have a "document" in it, and it was used as a citation in order to insert Tigray War information into the articles of 9 "places/locations".

• 6 articles contain A graphic footage of the Debre Abay massacre: What do we know about it? a blog post. This was added to two "location" articles where it doesn't really belong.

• 3 articles contain What happened in Aksum? My personal account (blog post). This was added to one "location" article where it was used to insert information about the Tigray conflict.

The above is not intended to be a comprehensive list of uses in Wikipedia, but is a subset showing the various ways tghat.com has been used.

(As a side note, though still deserving mention here, according to AP News the compiler of the civilian/non-combatant Amhara casualties is the Amhara Association of America, which doesn't have a Wikipedia article, nor is their website amharaamerica.org mentioned at all in Wikipedia mainspace, and yet the Amhara also have numerous civilian casualties during this conflict. I haven't found any Amhara 'massacre' articles in Wikipedia, while finding over a hundred Tigray 'massacre' articles. ADVOCACY or a NPOV/weight issue?)

— Platonk (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Update: The above counts have changed because 25 articles were recently deleted at AfD, most of which contained a link to tghat.com, and making the counts go down. Platonk (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey (tghat.com)

• Option 4 reliable for their own opinion only. This implies use of WP:INTEXT attribution; e.g., "..and according to a member of Tghat, some-opinion-or-assertion-about-something." Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4: agree with Mathglot's reasoning both above and in the discussion below. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 22:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable and attribute to Tghat when in doubt or Option 2: less than generally reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. The RS guidelines mostly evolved for rich-country sources without tight internet and telephone blockades. Wikipedia has a fundamental problem in working out how to cover knowledge encyclopedically, avoiding demographic bias, while still using good sources. There is no magic solution, but pedantic interpretation of guidelines will not help in evolving reasonable solutions.
  In this particular case, as can be seen by the text and sources in the current version of Tghat, Tghat has been used by multiple Western mainstream media and academic sources, both preprint and fully peer-reviewed. This is not "name dropping"; it's recognition that Tghat has gained a reputation as a sufficiently reliable source.
  Side issues on neutrality (1): while there is an LATimes claim that Tghat is "pro-TPLF", this is not very credible from looking at the site itself, which includes, for example, press releases by anti-TPLF political parties (clearly labelling them as such).
  Side issues on neutrality (2): massacres of Amharas. This is only related in the sense of whether we want to purge Wikipedia of all sources that might help overcome our demographic bias favouring rich-country sources. We do have Benishangul-Gumuz conflict, in which several cases have victims identified as Amharas; in Oromia Region: Gawa Qanqa massacre, Abo church massacre. Having more sources for these would be good, and the AAA site looks (based on an initial quick look) like a good source for articles such as these. In fact, it appears that among the currently known list of Amhara organisations, the articles that exist so far, Amhara Mass Media Agency and National Movement of Amhara, were both created by me, based on the best sources I could find. I wasn't aware of AAA at the time. There are quite likely some sources like these that we should rate "generally unreliable" or "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated", but having a mix of sources that generally seem reliable and come from a mix of the different ethnic groups of Ethiopia is more in the interests of Wikipedia than refusing to use these sources. Boud (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Added 'or Option 2', as per WP:USEBYOTHERS as pointed out by Alaexis below, and keeping in mind that the editorship is reported on other web media rather than on the website itself. Boud (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally unreliable Tghat is not reliable because it has verifibiliaty issues. Thgat claims to be a news site reporting on current events, not on psuedoscience, the proper context should be given, and not all biased opinions belong in Wikipedia. It heavily relies on social media, and is not independent from the subject it reports on. Reliable sources have used language to describe Tghat as being partisan, compromising it as independent source. As a new site it doesn't appear to have editorial oversight. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4/5 and describe as being run pro-TPLF activists when summarizing it; the LA Times describes it as such. It is obviously WP:BIASED and, beyond that, definitely not usable for facts, but it shouldn't really be used for opinion either, since it seems that would be plainly WP:UNDUE. I'm not seeing any evidence of a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (or even any assertion that they do any fact-checking or have any editorial controls); and they appear to be a personal website of no significant notability. Coverage is not WP:USEBYOTHERS - is there any indication that any reliable sources treat this list as reputable or reliable? Without that, the only place where it is like to be due is in an article specifically about the site. I would in particular strenuously object to citing it in any context discussing casualty figures - WP:RSOPINION is meant to be used to establish notable strands of opinion, not to introduce unverified facts to random websites that present them with no fact-checking. Demographic bias is real, but there are actual news sources, academics, and other high-quality sources that can be used for this. Simply creating a website and listing death totals on it doesn't make someone's opinion significant enough to include in an article - when it is included, it ought to be cited via secondary sources rather than cited directly. Also, dismissing the LA Times (a high-quality source) describing it as being run by activists based on "well I looked at the site and it looked neutral to me" is absurd; that is not how we evaluate sources. Unless someone can find an equal or higher-quality source disagreeing with the LA Times description, any WP:RSP entry absolutely needs to mention that specific bias. --Aquillion (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per WP:USEBYOTHERS. The Associated Press checked some of their reporting and found it accurate. France24 were able to verify the video they posted. The information published by Tghat has been used by scholars. Not fully reliable due to concerns regarding bias and the editing processes raised earlier. Alaexis_¿question? 08:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 doesn't seem to be a reliable news or similar organization as much as an advocacy group. That kind of group has their place, but generally not as a reliable source outside of independent confirmation or their own opinions. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - For reasons of being a self-published, anonymously-run, and biased website. The website itself gives no indication of its ownership or editorship. Most of the blog posts are posted by the anonymous user "tghat", who posts no credentials and doesn't use any citations in their articles. Even if a blog post has a seemingly real world name on it, there is no verified-account indicator to ensure it is that person, and that they are a subject matter expert. The victim list is self-published by a single person (whose name we've known only since 10 days ago). Option 4 is worthless as there is nothing an anonymous source is going to say WP:ABOUTSELF, and everything else they would publish falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims and is thus unusable. Ultimately, Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources are there to make verification possible. Anonymous and self-published make verification impossible. Platonk (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (tghat.com)

Starting with WP:USEBYOTHERS, its estimation of the number of victims has been mentioned by the LA times [11]. They describe it as "a news site run by pro-TPLF activists". Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Where do you get that? The LA Times article you cited doesn't mention Tghat's victim database or information. It mentions Tghat in the sentence following a victim count by organization Seb Hidri, but doesn't tie the two together. Neither does the Wikipedia article Tghat, nor does the WP article Seb Hidri, nor even the website Tghat.com. Tghat.com has two articles mentioning Seb Hidri but even those articles don't tie the two together. Platonk (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliability and verifiability are certainly issues. The victim list appears to be a personal victim memorial. I can find no editorial oversight. References to Facebook, Daily Mail, and Twitter as sources are not appropriate. The site appears to be an advocacy for a cause that tilts the balance with a false validity.

Following a link such as UN Commissioner for Human Rights Owes Tigrayan Victims an Explanation I cannot verify who Teklai Gebremichael is, apparently a regular contributor. The link Is it a sin to be a Tigrayan? A graduating Tigrayan university student‘s lamentation contains an unknown editor's note: "The following message is written by a graduating student", identified as K. These are not reliable sources nor acceptable as an "External link". -- Otr500 (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Platonk, you are right about the victim count. The article says "Tghat, a news site run by pro-TPLF activists, reported on the Bora killings Jan. 12, along with another massacre that reportedly took place in an area called Debre Abay." Note that the Bora killings themselves are not in doubt, the same article reports them as facts earlier. So basically they say that Tghat reported on it 4 days after it happened. Alaexis_¿question? 06:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, I think you're really stretching the imagination about what LA Times thinks about Tghat based on this single sentence. Please look again at WP:USEBYOTHERS: "How [they] use a given source ... The more widespread and consistent this use is ... established views of sources..." LA Times' single sentence, in its context, is not an endorsement of Tghat's veracity or accuracy. Platonk (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the use is widespread but it's not zero either. Are there reliable sources which explicitly call them unreliable or found inaccuracies in their reporting? By the way the absence of reporting on Amhara casualties is irrelevant. The sources can be biased or have a limited scope and still be useful. Alaexis_¿question? 09:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Without commenting on Tghat's reliability or lack thereof (I'll do that in a separate comment), asking whether there are reliable sources that call Tghat's reliability into question is backwards logic. There is no "presumption of reliability until disproved". There are thousands of activist groups, opinion writers, and individuals publishing their thoughts on blogs and websites, and The Guardian and The Times don't have departments paid to sit around investigating and writing evaluations of every person with an internet connection and an opinion. Mathglot (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, you're completely right. The reason I'm asking is that if, by any chance, they are described as unreliable by reliable sources it would be a very strong argument for classifying them as unreliable here. The opposite is not true: if they aren't described as unreliable we would still need to establish their reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that clarification. With that understanding, I fully agree with you. Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: & @Mathglot: WP:IS is clear on biased sources, it still needs to be independent from the subject, the reliable sources descriptions of Tghat clearly tells they are not; a news site run by pro-TPLF activists, run by activists living abroad. A site run by activists siding(pro-TPLF) with a party to a conflict is advocacy and clearly show connection to the subject. Being called pro anything by reliable sources, already compromises Tghat as a independent/reliable news source in that context. Another concern is the reliance on social media, and after searching the site they have little or none reporting, that is not in some way related to the conflict in Ethiopia. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You are misreading that. It's true that it needs to independent from the subject in order to be considered WP:INDEPENDENT (one of the attributes of fully reliable sources), but it does not need to be independent from the subject or unbiased in order to be used in citations at Wikipedia in certain contexts. See WP:BIASEDSOURCES: "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context"; and: "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate". If the specific context is "the opinions of Tghat activists", then the WP:BIASED source Tghat *is* reliable for that, and may be cited for their own opinions, per the WP:RS guideline previously cited. Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Nope, not misreading that and it's again mentioned in WP:BIASEDSOURCES: 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. Does Tghat as a source meets the normal requirements? Independence from the topic is very shaky, what about the rest? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Flat-earthers are WP:BIASED sources that are citable at Wikipedia articles on what Flat-earthers believe; Moon hoaxers are reliable for what moon-hoaxers believe, and Tghat is reliable for what Tghat believes, and needs no independence, editorial control, or fact-checking for that. The fact that they may be unreliable for all basic assertions of fact does not negate that, and that's what the rest of the guideline you quoted is about. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Incomparable contexts and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, editorial oversight matters for a news site claiming to report on current events, level of independence matters. There is a long list of opinions from news sites marked as unreliable in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, biased sources can still be invalid through other aspects, such as verifibiliaty, also see WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Tghat is also WP:NOTRELIABLE for it's reliance on WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. There's are serieus reliability issues with this news site, comparison with Psuedoscience does not fit this context. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You continue to misconstrue. Even articles marked "generally unreliable" or even as bad as "deprecated" at Perennial sources may *still* be cited nevertheless, as the guideline supplement you quoted very clearly states, and which agrees with all the others regarding WP:RSOPINION. I have no wish to debate you anymore; !vote your opinion based on your best interpretation of policies and guidelines, and hopefully everyone else will do the same. Have a nice day! Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We disagree and that's fine, have a nice day. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• If the argument is that RS use tghat means tghat is RS, I don't see why one couldn't use forgo including tghat altogether and just cite the reputable sources covering the content. Tghat does not seem to be reliable. Additionally, this conflict is quite recent so we should be patient and remember that if tghat is the only site covering a massacre, it will be covered later in news and even later in academia if it is notable (WP:NODEADLINE). But back to the reliability topic, no I don't believe tghat is reliable based on how their content is created. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 21:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - (Re the argument presented above about a scarcity of "rich country" media coverage and how we must bend our Wikipedia rules in order to allow Tghat as a source to reasonably cover the Tigray conflict.) A brief look in the Reference sections of Tigray War and Timeline of the Tigray War, finds such usual reliable sources as:

• Reuters, Al Jazeera, BBC News, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, The Guardian

There are also numerous Africa-centric and Ethiopia-centric organizations mentioned in the citations, including:

• Europe External Programme with Africa: Belgian-based NGOs "involved in human rights issues particularly in the Horn of Africa and North Africa."
• New Business Ethiopia: "Founded by an award-winning journalist, Andualem Sisay Gessesse" (since 2009)
• Foreign Policy: "American news publication, founded in 1970 and focused on global affairs"
• Fana Broadcasting: "a state-owned mass media company operating in Ethiopia"
• African Arguments: "a pan-African platform for news, investigation and opinion." Editor and deputy editor named. Editor is an experienced journalist and editor.
• Ipi Global Observatory: "provides timely analysis on peace and security issues by experts, journalists, and policymakers. It is published by the International Peace Institute." Personnel are named.
• Addis Standard: "an Ethiopian monthly social, economic and political news magazine." registered, info given

There are also seemingly lesser-reliable websites used for citations, including:

• Ezega News: "the premier Ethiopian portal that provides the Ethiopian community at home and abroad information and data". (no names given)
• Eritrea Hub: Blog format, no about-us page. "Information about Eritrea and the Horn of Africa."
• Ethiopia Insight: "coverage of Ethiopian political and economic issues". No names.

There are dozens of other sources I didn't recognize and didn't click on. And this list is from just looking at less than 5% of the citations. My point being that we have a plethora of sources available to us that we can denote as reliable sources, and renders moot the argument that we need tghat.com and need to bend the reliable source rules because of alleged "demographic bias".

— Platonk (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of your sources are located in Addis-Abeba and some are government-affiliated so we should expect to get only one side of the story from them ("media coverage has become a “very sensitive” topic for the government, said Befeqadu Hailu, an Ethiopian journalist imprisoned for 18 months by the previous regime."[12]). It is well known that journalists are not welcome in the zone of conflict now ("Within hours, the internet in Tigray was shut down and journalists were blocked from entering the region."). It doesn't follow from this that we need to bend our rules but the argument that there are plenty of RS coverage is spurious. Alaexis_¿question? 06:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: You cannot infer anything based on "Platonk's tiny sample". I did not select a sampling based on their physical location, but on the presence of citations in the references sections of the two main Wikipedia articles for the Tigray conflict. I just scrolled and picked the top few, then grabbed a couple others. When I had looked at enough to make a small list, I quit looking further. Go look at the references section yourself. I'm sure not going to spend hours combing through the over 600 references just to convince you of anything. My original point still stands: we have numerous international, American, European, African, and Ethiopian sources already being cited. I remind you that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we are not journalists, and Wikipedia does not need to cover every little aspect of the Tigray conflict as it unfolds. No one is going to die because we don't use tghat.com here in Wikipedia. Platonk (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You prepared this list as a response to the comment about the scarcity of data sources. My point is that this list in no way proves there is no scarcity, for the reasons listed in the NYT article I linked. Alaexis_¿question? 07:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't its purpose. My point was that with over 500 editors having edited the two main articles [13] [14], that they have already found and cited sufficient RS sources without needing tghat.com. There are 784 citations in the Tigray war article and the timeline articles. Only 13 citations point to tghat-hosted articles and 15 to the tghat victim list. Comparing that to the other 756 citations — yes, I can confidently say there is no shortage of reliable sources such that Wikipedia editors would need to resort to using an anonymously-published website. Scarcity of reporters on the ground in the region is irrelevant to this specific RfC, unless one is trying to make the argument that somehow tghat.com writers are filling that role while no other reliable sources are. Platonk (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Tigrayan diaspora activists do not name themselves on the website itself, but Meron Gebreananaye and Gebrekirstos Gebremeskel are both named publicly on a website that publishes a variety of views by Ethiopian intellectuals. So the adjective "anonymously-published" is inaccurate. The lack of knowledge on how to make a website "look professional" with a "Who we are" page of key people does not make it anonymous.

As for Ethiopian sources of information, the number is small. Looking at two main articles alone does not seriously cover the topic; Template:Syrian Civil War has about 425 articles for a civil conflict in a country of 18 million people. This case risks extending across a country of 110 or so million people, in which federal government control of the international media and national media is getting tighter and tighter in the areas outside of the TDF-OLA controlled regions. The internet/telephone blockade and control of communication devices at border controls makes reporting from inside the Tigray extended region difficult. Reports on the Axum massacre with victim counts ranging from 100 (Ethiopian Human Rights Commission) to "thousands" (Associated Press) took about 40 days to reach the outside world. Adigrat University lecturer Getu Mak's early February testimony, about 70 days after the event, published by Tghat, was one of the first reliable reports that was consistent with later reports (e.g. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch).

So yes, there is a scarcity of sources for this field of knowledge as a whole, and the WP:USEBYOTHERS of Tghat information shows that generally, though not always, Tghat provides reliable information. Saying that the source is not needed because it's confirmed by others is reversing WP:USEBYOTHERS. Boud (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a small comment on the "40 days" issue: there is no rush to add content to this encyclopaedia (WP:NODEADLINE), especially about contentious topics. Yes, it is important to have up-to-date information. But if major news outlets with long histories of reputable reporting are delaying their news items about certain events, it is probable that those events are highly complex and hard to get accurate information for. Therefore, WP should not jump the gun and use less reputable sources just because major reputable ones haven't published yet. Additionally, saying that because Tghat is RS because its report was then consistent with reputable reports is a post hoc fallacy. Finally, the idea that +600 sources is too few sources such that the use of tghat is necessary is almost probatio diabolica as the burden of proof for Platonk to provide even more than that or analyze all those 600 sources just to show tghat isn't absolutely necessary is an inordinate requirement when it is much simpler to prove or disprove whether tghat is RS period. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 00:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to jump the gun and there's no deadline, but we have had en.Wikipedia coverage of recent news become generally accepted since the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami that affected the south-east Asian economic tigers. We do have to make reasonable efforts to balance against our known demographic bias and the dominance of Western rich-country mainstream media. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia about the world, not an encyclopedia about how the West sees the world. Given that we do have generally reliable sources such as Tghat, there's no reason to restrict ourselves to a circular argument about the Western mainstream media being reputable because what they do is reputable. Post hoc fallacy is not an argument against WP:USEBYOTHERS; there's no claim that Tghat had a causal effect on later reports; the question is whether later reports agreed with Tghat's information. See WP:USEBYOTHERS for the details.

The 600+ argument is mostly an apples and oranges argument. Boud (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Boud: Even if Tghat.com incorporated as an NGO, published bios of their main personnel and leadership, and was older than its current one year age, they would still be an advocacy organization and we would be limited in how we could use what they publish. The man who runs the website (Gebrekirstos Gebreselassie or Gebrekirstos Gebremeskel or however he spells his name today) presents himself as the manager of a website, a researcher and an activist — no credentials mentioned of being a reporter or an editor, or even an academic. And he isn't even located in Africa so one can't give him points for "boots on the ground and eyes front". A dozen brief mentions by reputable sources do not make tghat.com a "reliable source by proxy". Platonk (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

References

GEOnet Names Server (GNS)

Unarchived from archive 359 for further feedback/proper close

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the US's GEOnet Names Server (GNS) database?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.
• Option 5: The source is:
  • Generally reliable for Locations/Coordinates
  • Generally unreliable for Feature Classes, particularly "Populated place"
  • Does not satisfy the "Legal recognition" requirement of WP:GEOLAND.
• Option 6: Same as Option 5 but including Toponyms in GNS as generally reliable.

FOARP (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Background (GNS)

Ten or more years ago, thousands of geographic articles have been created on English Wikipedia by importing database entries directly from the GEOnet Names Server (GNS). For example, a search for the phrases "by opening the Advanced Search box, entering" and "can be found at GEOnet Names Server" (i.e., instructions telling the reader to search the GEONet Names server for the ID code for the location the article is about) on Wikipedia returns more than 43,000 results. These largely refer to populated locations. Some of these articles have been expanded using other sources into full articles, others remain as stubs for which GNS is the only source. GNS's location classifications are assembled using substantially the same methodology as the GNIS database which was the subject of a previous RFC. Its classification of locations, especially as "populated places", therefore suffers from the same issues.
Additionally, a 2008 study of 26,500 South Korea toponyms uncovered around 200 Japanese names (see page 199 here), apparently as a result of using 1946 US military maps as a source (the Japanese-pronunciation names had apparently never been used on Japanese maps going back to 1910, so the US military - likely due to use of Japanese assistants in compiling their maps - are ultimately the source of these errors). The same study also noted that "There are many spelling errors and simple mis-understanding of the place names with similar characters" (see page 198), and also uncovered some very random English toponyms still present on the database but never commonly used. Therefore, at the very least, it appears that place names on GNS should ideally be confirmed in other sources, as it may for some countries have imported systematic errors from the old military maps that GNS is typically based on.

I have therefore adapted the previous GNIS survey (GNIS is the corresponding US-operated database for locations within the USA) to exclude toponyms from Option 5, but also added an Option 6 including GNS toponyms as generally reliable. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey (GNS)

• Option 5 as Nom (EDIT: and also Option 2 for locations / coordinates per Aquillion). The classification of locations in GNS is essentially the same as that of GNIS and as such the same analysis applies - it is inaccurate as to whether a place was ever populated and cannot anyway be used to justify claiming that a place has legal recognition, not least because it does not come from an authority in the country concerned because this is a US database for places outside the US. As for topnyms, the reported error-rate (~1% Japanese names in South Korea, and a unknown number of additional erroneous names from misunderstandings etc.) is hard to balance so I'd prefer just to leave it as an open question. At the very least, with toponyms, people should be aware that these were compiled mainly from old US military maps and in some cases systematic errors may have been introduced. As far as I've ever been able to determine the location data on GNS is accurate (EDIT: but is a primary source). FOARP (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm going to say the same thing I said last time for GNIS: "generally reliable for information about place names of any kind, but cannot be used to determine notability for stand-alone articles in any way, even if it calls a place a "populated place"" In determining if a place is a valid topic for a stand-alone article, we need reliable, sufficiently indepth, sources. The fact that a place exists is not sufficiently indepth. We can generally trust the GNS (as much as any source), since it is a simple database of places and names, but we should not be creating articles that cannot be expanded if sufficiently in-depth sources don't exist. --Jayron32 19:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 disagree with the above comment because if a populated place the size of a village or larger can be verified through reliable sources such as an official census then it should be included to fulfill Wikipedia's role as a gazeteer regardless of the lack of indepth sources. This is particularly the case for villages in countries with limited internet coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  If that is the case, from where do you get the information necessary to write a sufficient article about said place? --Jayron32 13:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 - I think it is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and the ultimate goal here is to write encyclopaedia articles. There has never, ever been a consensus that Wikipedia should suddenly become something other than an encyclopaedia when covering geographical features. At most, it has been described as having "features of ... gazetteers" in WP:5P, which is an essay-level document, a phrase that was added as a un-discussed BOLD edit in 2008 and has never been substantially endorsed since as far as I've been able to determine. WP:GEOLAND refers to this section of WP:5P, but this is odd because WP:5P is supposed to be summary of the guidelines/policies, not a basis for them, meaning that this is essentially a circular reference. Having "features...of gazetteers" is anyway met by including the typical infobox information alongside encyclopaedic content - it does not require that we turn WP into a gazetteer. Anyway this is me getting a long way OT so I'll stop here. FOARP (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Having features of a gazetteer can mean "naming a populated place on a list of populated places". I've never said, and I will never say, that information about such populated places needs to be stricken from Wikipedia entirely, but having a stand-alone article should be reserved for topics that can support a stand-alone article. If all we can say about a place is that it exists and nothing more, it is sufficient to mention that it exists elsewhere. We don't have to give it a stand-alone article. --Jayron32 14:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100%. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and one thing I would also add to my response to Atlantic306 is that census's are not generally reliable sources for whether a place is legally recognised unless they plainly state that a place is legally recognised by, e.g., stating that a location is a kind of legally-recognised location (e.g., that it is a type of location with e.g., a town council or mayor). We have had far too many situations in which someone has assumed that every location mentioned in a census was a legally recognised populated place when they were instead e.g., farms, pumps, factories, neighbourhoods, railway sidings, marshalling yards, railway stations, bridges, fords, wells, springs etc. etc. etc.. And even with that evidence, the goal is still to write an encyclopaedia article, because WP is an encyclopaedia and does not suddenly become something else when the topic is geography. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately you ignored the part of my comment that referred to the size and designation of the place as being at least a village. From most government census' there are at least two paragraphs of information available regarding population, education, occupations, number of families, local government and so on. Also, I believe you are out of step with current practice that is to include stubs on villages and towns regardless of depth of coverage providing they are reliably verified however disappointing that might be for deletionists, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I've just read your essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer which is interesting but I don't think that all census' should be dismissed because of some poor ones, rather a case by case evaluation would be more accurate. Also i've seen senior editors and admin making the case that Wikipedia does have a role as a gazeteer, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Atlantic306 - I agree that gazetteers and census data should always be evaluated case-by-case. There's a continuum in both cases from single-line statistical data about a location to 1-200 word or more descriptive coverage, and there's things they're good for and things they're not good for. Most GNIS and GNS data is from the lower end of that spectrum. I think a very basic but passing article can be written based on data from the high end of that spectrum, but that many, many articles on Wikipedia at present are from the lower end of that spectrum. The reason they are kept is because of the idea that Wikipedia is a gazetteer and that any geographic location should get an article, which is something no consensus on here has ever determined. Even mentioning gazetteers in 5P was simply the result of an undiscussed BOLD edit. Anyway, I'm going OT again so I'll stop. FOARP (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 for locations / coordinates, Option 5 otherwise. The most important thing to recognize about this source is that it is essentially always going to be WP:PRIMARY, which is the reason it can't be used for anything that would imply interpretation or analysis. This is also something that needs to be taken into consideration even when using it for locations or coordinates; they can't be used in any way that would carry unsourced implications or which involve interpretation or analysis. It can be used to fill out simple uncontroversial coordinates on articles, of course, but there needs to be caution about using it for anything else. --Aquillion (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• option 6 as its primary purpose is to record toponyms. That said, my experience with it has not been positive. It seems to have a habit of copying from whatever maps might be available, and for instance when we were going through Somali villages, we found numerous cases where there was nothing at all at the spot given. Any use of GNS has to be checked against other sources. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Mangoe - Probably imported from some 1960's or earlier US military map. At least with GNIS the locals are more likely to try to get obviously-wrong information fixed, but who's going to complain in Somalia? FOARP (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am absolutely with Jayron32 here. Geonet should never be a sole source for a standalone article. We recently had a disaster with Iranian localities imported from GeoNet which had in the end to be mass-deleted since there were serious doubts as whether those exist or ever existed. Geonet can be used for coordinate (and to be honest it is not better than Google Maprs, and certainly not better than the OpenStreet Map - yes, sure I am aware of how the OpenStreetMap is organized and that it is not a reliable source by any means). However, there is no way it can justify creation of a standalone article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5, and this is a demonstration of exactly why we should not have permastubs on "populated places" when there is not a substantial quantity of reliable, independent reference material about them. The "gazetteer" function could be fulfilled by lists when all we have is some basic database information about a place (coordinates, population, etc.), such as "List of populated places in Example County, Somestate" in the US, or by similar administrative divisions elsewhere. We can say "Yes, we should include gazetteer information about such places when we have it", and do so, without these masses of permastub pseudo-"articles". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that nowhere presently on Wikipedia is it said that Wikipedia necessarily has a gazetteer function, nor has there ever been any consensus of any kind expressed anywhere that I've been able to identify saying it should. The term "gazetteer" was added to WP:5P in an undiscussed bold edit in 2008 and has recently been replaced with "reference works" after a talk-page discussion there. We include elements of reference works (a term that includes gazetteers) within encyclopaedic articles, and this includes lists of smaller communities within a larger community, but we are an encyclopaedia and do not simply become something else when writing about geographical locations. Even WP:GEOLAND#1 doesn't necessarily require that bare gazetteer listings be included as articles - instead it is assumed that a legally-recognised populated place will have enough sourcing for an encyclopaedic article to be written about it. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, certainly, only the notable ones should be standalone articles, and we've always made a mistake trying to make the non-notable ones into individual permastubs. But I don't have any objection to a list for a particular administrative region, with the non-notable ones being simple list entries—population, coordinates, area, whatever data it is that is always provided in a census or the like. But I think people confuse "We should include this information" and "We should include this information in a standalone article." This is a case where I agree with the first, but not the second. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. The problem is that there are a lot of users trying to inflate their created article count, so the articles get created anyway, and then it is vertually impossible to redirect them to lists, every discussion would at best end up as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, people thought the fiction cleanup was hopeless for ever getting done, too—until it happened. So don't give up just yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 with the caveat that GNS sometimes was pulled from old, problematic sources, such as old war maps made by people not familiar with the area. GNS should be ignored if there are no sources from the area in question actually verifying that the places exist. Hog Farm _Talk 17:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 per all above, and emphasizing that it is a primary source, and should never be the sole source for a stand-alone page. Levivich 19:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 whether it is RS depends on context; or option 5. So it seems official, and reflecting maps... but the map is not the territory (nor notability) and perhaps the United States spelling is Connaught while Britain spells it Connacht. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 - Wikipedia is not a gazetteer. Databases in general are primary sources which can be used as sources for population, coordinates, etc, but significant coverage in secondary sources is needed in order to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 20:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 Would be happy to see any mass-produced articles sourced solely to GNS deleted. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, just a bad database with frequently incorrect coordinates. Users will point to it in disputes as if it was the last word. I wouldn't even mind if Option 4 was the consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 03:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (GNS)

Notified: [[centralized discussion]]. FOARP (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

gotquestions.org and tektonics.org

I seek the deprecation of gotquestions.org and tektonics.org. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#gotquestions.org. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Reason: they're WP:SPS. What we won't do is quote amateur theologians who play hide and seek with their religious affiliations. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Kino-teatr and AlloCine

Hello, I would like to find out if the website https://www.kino-teatr.ru/ is considered a reliable source? As well as https://www.allocine.fr/, Thank you

About La voce Delle Voci, again

This Italian-language news website ([15]), although sells conspiracy theories ([16] (in Chinese)), and I had asked that it be deprecated (cf. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359), no other Wikipedians responded, meaning this website is still not deprecated, despite some articles use it as a "credible" source (e.g. Camouflage passport & International Parliament for Safety and Peace). In here I made the same proposal again. Hope that Wikipedians who are proficient at both Italian and Chinese can verify my claim that it is unreliable thus should be deprecated and discuss whether or not to deprecate it. Thanks!😁--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) fixed capitalization a bit and added the URL of the official website of La voce Delle Voci 15:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor, Electronic Intifada, Palestine Chronicle and Twitter as sources in a BLP

Extra eyes would be helpful in the talk page discussion at David Miller (sociologist), with the above sources being used. If I am reading the archives correctly, we have no consensus on reliability of Middle East Monitor and have not discussed the reliability of Palestine Chronicle. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I read MEMO as "attribute". Jewish Voice for Labour has a download link for the report so there's that as well.Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Re MEMO: This 2021 discussion looks to me more like generally unreliable]; this 2019 discussion is somewhere between attribute and unreliable; and this 2012 discussion concluded unreliable but had few participants.

Views on the reliability of Jewish Voice for Labour as a source also welcomed. Other sources currently used in the article include The American Spectator, World Socialist Web Site, TrueRepublica, and the MintPress News YouTube channel. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This has turned into a bit of a laundry list, editors here can't be expected to write commentary on all of these. The most recent kerfuffle at the article has been about a leaked QC report and the sources currently being used, with attribution, for that are MEMO and the Jewish Voice for Labour, which I have reported to BLP board in response to your other post here so perhaps raise RSN discussion about these two sources specifically/what they are being cited for, if that's what you want to do? Raising the same points at two different boards is likely to cause confusion.Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not asking for commentary here on all of these sources. I am mainly asking for additional eyes on the article in question, from editors with familiarity with RS issues and/or familiarity with these sources, as it seems a large number of potentially questionable sources are being used in it. (In addition, for those sources which haven't been discussed here already, I wouldn't mind views on whether they are usable or not.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

None of those are suitable for controversial BLP content and some aren't suitable for anything. You don't need an rsn thread if only one editor is advocating for inclusion though. Journalism and scholarship, not advocacy orgs. Levivich 13:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently, it is two editors but as can be seen from the talk page there are potentially others. Is the Jewish Chronicle suitable?Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. When I answered this same question at BLPN earlier today, I hadn't yet checked RSN and RSP. But now I see that it's listed as Green (with caveat about bias) at RSP, based on a March 2021 RFC at RSN. So, yes, it is what RSP says it is: reliable, but biased, use with attribution for certain topics. Anyone wanting to challenge that would need to start a new RFC and show that something changed since the last RFC. Levivich 15:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Things actually have changed considerably for the JC since 2020. nableezy - 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And actually, that RFC appears to have suffered the defect of being overrun by socks of banned users. All on one side of the issue. Huh. nableezy - 16:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"Overrun" is an exaggeration; plenty of editors in good standing participated in that discussion with a variety of views; socks don't make discussions defective (we can handle it, it's nothing new). But anyway, rerun the RfC if there is new info for the community to consider. Until then, RSP documents our current global consensus. Levivich 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There are 2 Icewhiz socks (with them voting per the other), a Yaniv sock, and a NoCal100 sock in there lol. nableezy - 17:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

...and like 30 editors in good standing, so no, not "overrun". Lol. Levivich 18:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And if you take out the socks of banned users, the balance of the discussion changes. Changes from 17 in support of option 1 to 13. Pretending like 30 editors supported the finding of the RFC is asinine. Would expect a more intellectually honest argument tbh. Especially given the finding on consensus on the topic under discussion here was already "weak" per the close. Lol. nableezy - 19:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Levivich but as Selfstudier already pointed out this thread is not a good place for extensive commentary and re-litigation of sources where there is already consensus; better to use it to get views on sources not previously discussed such as Palestine Chronicle, TrueRepublica and Jewish Voice for Labour, and clarifying unclear consensus re Middle East Monitor. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Shocking development, user whose view prevailed in a discussion disrupted by banned user does not want that view re-examined. nableezy - 19:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Why do some always have to make it personal? We can't just have a disagreement without resorting to ad hominems on this website. Levivich 19:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Somebody makes an argument that a discussion where the consensus very much shifts if you remove the ARBPIA violating contributions (2 at the time, both for option 1), and the socks of banned users (4, all for option 1) and the majority on just a raw count shows at the very least no consensus for the position they advocated, and says we should not discuss or relitigate because of that tainted "consensus". I find that to be an incorrect view, and would like to revisit that issue. nableezy - 19:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

But youre right, have struck the personal bit of this, and down below youll find why I feel that argument to be problematic. nableezy - 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said in the other discussion, the extensive use of JC the article is definitely problematic but its been like that for a good while now and addressing the JC issue formally in due course is on the agenda. I don't think anyone is seriously pushing the Palestine Chronicle source so I wouldn't worry about that one. about TruePublica seems quite OK on the face of it but it is neither here nor there at the moment. Views about JVL which some would consider the polar opposite of JC and MEMO as well, those two would seem the most pertinent to the immediate situation, specifically any evidence of hoax or falsehood, failure to fact correct, that sort of thing, we can stipulate that they are biased.Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not Reliable The EJ already have an RSP entry so that one clear while reading our article about MEMO especially descriptions by BBC as "pro-Hamas" organization gives us clear view that the source cannot be trusted Shrike (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, Shrike, if you are right about MEMO (and the BBC chap writing in 2011), then since the outfit is based in London and the UK has designated both Hamas wings as terrorist, there should have been some arrests by now.Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We dont disqualify sources for being "pro-Israel" do we? nableezy - 16:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We now have Bristol Post, a balanced, up to date report (finally). Anyone who wants a summary of what all this has been about can read it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism

The Black Book of Communism which is an unreliable source. For instance, the book pens the total death toll in the gulags to be around three million while an analysis by J Arch Getty, Gabor T Rittersporn and Viktor N Zemskov shows a death toll of slightly over a third of that amount and inflating the death toll of the Cultural Revolution. Thus it should be deprecated. Elishop (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh good. We were missing out on more Mass killings under communist regimes drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with SFR - we don't need this garbage. The Black Book of Communism is a key source in the Mass killings article (but there are half a dozen others). It's been brought here about 9 times (as far as I can tell without any success in getting it deleted). It's a fundamental study in its academic area. Various editions published by top notch publishers (Harvard University Press, and Éditions Robert Laffont in the original French). Top scholars. The argument against it seems to be that the authors of the chapters don't completely agree (what else is new?) Elishop just decided to delete all the text in the Mass killings article related to this book. I reverted him and told him he should take his criticisms here. (Sorry) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Without any opinion on the book, it seems slightly misleading to not note the considerable debate about the gulag death toll, with the study you linked being superseded by more recent sources that posit a higher death toll, with three million being around the top end of what is consider reasonable when deaths among those released early on medical grounds is included. BilledMammal (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The book is almost 25 years old now, but the basic framework has not been refuted. Exact numbers in this situation are impossible. But the case you cite is not the reason people want to get rid of it on Wikipedia. You want to say that a subset of the data should be bigger than recognized in the book. The folks who want to get rid of the book dislike it because they think the overall numbers are too high. This is really not the question here though. The real question is:Is this a respected academic source. Look at the authors and the publishers, the extensive reviews. It obviously is a reliable source. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• It was always a terrible source (regardless of the recent article drama). It is extremely biased and has a clear POV that the authorship isn't even trying to hide in that regard. It is certainly not a high quality source for historical article encyclopedia writing. I don't know if outright deprecation is needed, but it should absolutely be removed anywhere it is being used on-wiki and replaced with actual high quality historiography. Silverseren^C 02:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable to give my actual vote, as the chapters of the book are almost never cited on-wiki. It is always just the Introduction, which is a known biased and unreliable part of the book written by someone with an agenda to cherrypick other sources to suit a claim they want to meet. And that person doing that is the reason why so many of the academics who wrote chapters in the book have disavowed their involvement and relation to that person. Since they care about their neutrality and in the scientific/historical research process and nothing about what that person wrote is actual academic writing in the slightest. Silverseren^C 03:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• It is plainly a WP:BIASED source which always requires attribution; it also doesn't have a particularly great reputation, so it might be best to cite it via secondary sources rather than directly. But it does have secondary coverage, so I feel mentioning it once in the article to represent Courtois' opinions is fine, with attribution and a characterization of the position it was written from sourced to the best secondary sources discussing it - that is to say, provided we also mention the extensive criticism the book has received. Citing it repeatedly the way we are now with no real indication of what sort of book it is is giving it inappropriately undue weight and misusing it as a source. Even putting aside the criticisms over its accuracy for the moment, sources with strident bias like that can be used, but they have to be used with extreme caution, especially when it comes to due weight and proper attribution (which includes making the perspective a biased source is written from clear.) The current citations make it sound like Courtois is an impartial academic stating things that are generally uncontested, all of which is glaringly untrue to the point of misusing it as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• The 1993 Getty et al source is certainly superior to those pre-1991 sources that estimated deaths in the Gulag that were far too high (e.g., Solzhenitsyn, Conquest, Rummel, etc), however it is a bit outdated. More recent sources there note the tentative historical consensus is that around 1.7 million perished there, out of a population of 18 million who passed through the system, with some saying the death toll could be "somewhat higher". In a 1999 paper, historian S.G. Wheatcroft put it at about 1.6 million. So the BBoC estimate might be a little high, but not by much. The much ballyhooed Alexopoulos source, which elevates the death toll to something like 6 million and is thus widely cited by those who would like to see the pre-1991 higher death tolls restored, has been roundly criticized by other scholars and I would not consider it a real challenge to the emerging consensus. That being said, the biggest problem with the BBoC is the introduction, which was denounced by the main contributors to the book for the most significant chapters on the USSR and China. Although there is better scholarship out there, those two chapters are probably the strongest part of the BBoC. The smaller chapters on Cuba and other countries are pretty bad, and pull large numbers of executions out of thin air (I think it was like 20,000 for Cuba if memory serves) with no sourcing to back them up. Bottom line: I'm not in favor of deprecation, but the controversial introduction should never be cited without proper attribution to the author Courtois.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure everybody would appreciate it if you all address "What makes a book a WP:RS. It's not your opinion of the authors' bias. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, what makes something a reliable source is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So if many well-established scholars say that the book's research and conclusions are dated or otherwise seriously flawed, that reduces its reliability; a source whose scholarship is heavily contested should be used with caution, which its current heavy use in the article certainly doesn't reflect. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

May I ask you two questions? What exactly each of you mean under "The Black Book of Communism"? What exact statement do you want to support using this source? These are not rhetoric question. I am asking because the Book is considered a very reliable sources mostly due to the Werth's chapter about Russia, but the part that is being cited in Wikipedia is an introduction by Courtois, the most controversial, most criticized, most politicized, and most provocative part of the book. A talk page of the recent AfD contains a representative sample of sources about the BB. They fully confirm my words. In other words, Courtois's introduction and the chapter are unreliable for figures. It is also unreliable for his generalizations, and, especially, for his attempts to link all crimes to some generic Communism. In contrast, the Werth's part, is a reliable source, as on author wrote, "a rock the whole book rests upon".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that his attempts to link crimes to the totalitarian ideology that undergirded communism as implemented by 20th century regimes is considered to be generally unreliable (Rudolph Rummel, who is well-respected, agrees with this sort of analysis). It's certainly provocative, but to say that this is generally unreliable is something that requires a good deal of evidence. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, the question is not what you think, but what arguments you have. I saw Rummel, who else? Did you see my list of sources? Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it had been agreed before that while chapters of the book had been written by experts that the introduction was unreliable. In fact, the main contributor to the book, Nicolas Werth, denounced the introduction as factually inxorrect. If this were any other topic, that would be enough to discredit it. TFD (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• No longer reliable - I wouldn't go so far as to say it's been discredited, but I think scholarly opinion of it has moved in that direction in recent years:
  • Laure Neumayer (2019), The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351141765. Page 5: In this context, a publication aiming to record all the ‘victims of communism’ worldwide, The Black Book of Communism: crimes, terror, repression (Courtois et al., 1999), contributed directly to the rise of the totalitarian paradigm. This best-selling publication was the subject of violent controversy among historians specialising in communism, to the point that some of its co-authors distanced themselves from the introduction written by the French historian Stéphane Courtois. Its detractors criticised its lack of methodological rigour, its conception of historical work as ‘work of justice and memory’ and the ideological dimension of its approach (Dreyfus et al., 2000; Traverso, 2001; Morgan, 2010). In any event, by making criminality the very essence of communism, by explicitly equating the ‘race genocide’ of Nazism with the ‘class genocide’ of Communism in connection with the Ukrainian Great Famine of 1932–1933, the Black Book of Communism contributed to legitimating the equivalence of Nazi and Communist crimes.
  • The American Historical Review reviewing The Cambridge History of Communism (2017) doi:10.1093/ahr/rhz214: Unlike the cardboard cutouts of Communist leadership presented in ideologically charged studies like The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (1997), these essays are both nuanced and balanced, presenting Lenin and Stalin as human leaders driven as much by realpolitik and personal histories and events as by Communist ideology.
  • Engel-Di Mauro, Salvatore; et al. (4 May 2021). "Anti-Communism and the Hundreds of Millions of Victims of Capitalism". Capitalism Nature Socialism. 32 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/10455752.2021.1875603: A petulant upsurge in anti-communism is permeating the United States (US) and Canada, as well as countries in the European Union (EU). Its main truncheon is the simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim that communism caused 100 million victims, a catchy slogan sensationalised through a 1997 propaganda volume titled The Black Book of Communism (henceforth BBC).
  • More at The Black Book of Communism#Criticism. There is also a support section, and plenty of positive reviews as well.

Given the mixed reviews, I'd say it's too controversial (and frankly, for this subject, too old) to support statements in Wikivoice and should not be considered an RS. It should be listed yellow at RSP (use with caution, always attribute, not in wikivoice). Levivich 05:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Levivich: The piece in Capitalism Nature Socialism is written by a trained... geographer. The journal has an avowedly ecosocialist bent. I'm seriously doubtful of the peer review process there for that paper; the editor-in-chief is listed as "Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro", who appears to be the author of the piece you're citing. The managing editor is "Adi Forkasiewicz", whom the journal lists as an "independent scholar" and for whom a google scholar search doesn't actually appear to return anything published and whose name returns zero results in a search using The Wikipedia Library. The stretch to include Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro's piece in your analysis really should be struck; I'd almost rather cite Medieval English literature professor Grover Furr's denialist work on Katyn than give the Capitalism Nature Socialism source weight in any analysis. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Any assessment should look deeper than just his job title (his CV makes his qualifications clear), and being the eic of a journal doesn't make him less credible. Even if it's self-published, it'd be an WP:EXPERTSPS. Levivich 14:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Attribute when a claim is disputed There is a significant problem of accuracy. Two reviews I have looked, they claim:

• Weiner, Amir. Review of The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 32, no. 3 (2002): 450-452. muse.jhu.edu/article/16325.: Although it adds little data that is new, the list is long, informative, and, for most part, indisputable. Even when the numbers of victims are questionable or obviously inflated, the brutality of communism in power is well established. Moreover, the fact that the atrocities consistently commenced with the seizure of power lends support to the argument for intentionality, particularly in the section on the Soviet Union by Werth, the most subtle and best-documented in the book. That said, this thick volume is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation. Although the authors argue that the [End Page 450] logic of communism entails the above atrocities, they go out of their way to salvage Marxist ideology.
• Dallin, A. (2000). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. By Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, and Jean-Louis Margolin. Trans. Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999. xx, 858 pp. Notes. Index. Photographs. Maps. $37.50, hard bound. Slavic Review, 59(4), 882-883. doi:10.2307/2697429 "The chapters vary greatly in quality and reliability. Though often debatable, much the best ones are those by Nicolas Werth on the Soviet Union. Some of the others suffer from rather shrill rhetoric, and the whole enterprise of course leaves vast stretches of uncertainty; thus the attempt to establish the number of victims of communism (a futile effort that would depend greatly on definitions even if the statistics were more reliable) comes up with strikingly vast variations and vague totals (e.g., 65 million deaths for China, 20 million deaths for the USSR, and so forth). But then the moral, legal, or political judgment hardly depends on the number of victims. The authors make no attempt to differentiate between intended crimes-a la Auschwitz or the Moscow show trials-and policy choices that had (intended or unintended) consequences that were terrible..."

So, best way is to attribute when needed. Surely there is a reliability issue but I fell it does not deserves being deprecated. Cinadon36 05:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as a WP:RS
• The book was a collaborative effort and not all contributors agreed with each other, which is normal with these sort of academic efforts (what would you say if all contributors marched in step-lock?). Werth was and remains free to disagree with his fellow contributors and with the editor, but his scholarly opinion... well, it is his scholarly opinion. It is absurd to say a scholarly book is not a reliable source because one scholar, or for that matter, a range of scholars, object to it.
• The fact the book was translated and published by the world's top publishing houses, including
  Espasa-Calpe in Spain (1998),
  Arnoldo Mondadori Editore in Italy (1998),
  Éditions Robert Laffont in France (1997),
  Bertrand (pt:Grupo Editorial Record) in Brazil (1999),
  Harvard University Press in the U.S. (1999).
  Perhaps the German publisher arrived late and is not as prominent, Piper Verlag (2004), but the mere fact a German version was deemed necessary seven years after the French original goes to show the book is far from irrelevant and unserious. It is as solid a WP:RS as they come. As such, were Wikipedia to deprecate it, it would say more about current Wikipedia editors than about the book! XavierItzm (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do some always have to make it personal? We can't just have a disagreement without resorting to ad hominems on this website. Anyway, the 1990s were a long time ago, what about recently? Any positive reviews from the last few years by RS? If so, please link and quote. Levivich 05:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Books generally get reviews when new or revised editions come out. Whether positive or negative, reviews for the Brazilian edition, issued by Latin America's largest editorial, for example, came out in 1999. I hope this comment is informative for those unfamiliar with the nature of book reviews. XavierItzm (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And yet Levivich gives examples of statements about the book in reviews (admittedly of other works) from the past few years. And they're all rather negative toward the long-term viability of the book and its relevance to modern history research. Silverseren^C 06:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And yet that's not what L asked for, is it? And what does WP:RS have to say about drive-by comments? Ahh, yes: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." XavierItzm (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Translation of a book to other languages is not an indicator of reliability. Also, red tagging is not a valid argument. Cinadon36 06:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Translation per se, obviously not. Edition by the world's most prominent editorial houses in their own languages, however, indicates the editorials are willing to stand behind the publication. XavierItzm (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Werth's chapter stands on its own merit and his other works, largely, as always with historians, for specific claims rather than the general vibe people all too often read into a historian's engagement. Courtois, as I have explicated in detail previously, hangs his chapters on "non-catholicism" as a causative category of communism and therefore murderousness. This is widely recognised to not be social science. It depends, as the ***great big header at the top of the page explains*** on which bit, is cited in what article, for which claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Use with attribution. It would be silly and glaringly lacking to cover this topic without reference to it. While it does have critics for sure (some but not all of which comes from blatantly ideological sources like Capitalism Nature Socialism), it also received positive reception, as noted at the article on the book. So, we simply in-text attribute the book's claims to the book, and then reliable sources that disagree can be presented as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• It depends but generally green–yellowish, and use with attribution — most chapters are reliable, some of them more than other (Werth),2 but may be outdated1 — introduction and foreword are too controversial and disputed to be reliable but can be relied on for secondary coverage, such as the reactions of Le Monde and Le Figaro, and as primary sources for quotes. I do not understand this dismissal of Capitalism Nature Socialism as if it negates the criticism and controversy also reported by Neumayer and more centrist sources — that article is good as a tertiary source (to quote TFD, "Engel-De Mauro is merely reciting facts: that the 100 million figure has no support in reliable sources and was chosen for its propaganda value. He is not providing his own opinion. The advantage of a recent source is that the author would be aware of any changes in the academic literature."), and is absurd to compare it to Grover Furr when it was written in an academic journal published by the academic press (Routledge). And to quote from the RSN discussion, "[a]n academic journal that serves a particular community and thus embodies its biases does not sound very different from a news website with an editorial slant, as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES is concerned. I'd take a journal that wears its editorial mission on its sleeve ... over those that try to look staid while having no standards inside." Centrism is also an ideology, and left-wing books and articles published within the academic press remain reliable, whether we like it or not.

Notes

1. The Cambridge History of Communism seems to be a better, more recent, balanced, and nuanced picture of Communism than the Black Book.

2. Even Werth was not free from criticism, e.g. see Kenez 1999.

Davide King (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC) [Edited to add 2.] Davide King (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• In this context, attribute everything. As was made clear at the AfD discussion, the fundamental issue with the article, as far as many contributors are concerned, is that it presents the opinions and assessments of particular writers as objective fact, while discussing complex subject matter inherently requiring subjective judgement. Any move towards an article that actually satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality must begin by moving away from the idea that there are abstract 'reliable sources' involved, and instead present the debate as to whether 'mass killing' (however defined) and 'communist regimes' (ditto) are inherently linked in some manner as what it is - a debate. One with opinions that should be presented as such, rather than sorted into 'reliable' and 'unreliable' by Wikipedia contributors. The Black Book is clearly a part of this discourse, and must obviously be used. Appropriately, citing specific authors for what they add to the debate, and noting later critiques of such material, as and when it is pertinent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Use with attribution: As per Aquillon and others above, it is a biased, controversial source that is has been cited by some scholars and contested by others, so should only be used with clear attribution, and alongside contesting scholarly views where its claims are disputed by experts. Shouldn't be deprecated. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Never reliable well known trash-tier propaganda. It's inclusion on Wikipedia in articles surrounding socialism is a stain upon the integrity of the encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Use with attribution and caution It seems even its supporters agree it is controversial and even its detractors agree that it is mostly reliable. If we exclude a source simply because it is imperfect, we would have none at all and in the topic areas where this book is relevant, all sources are going to have problems. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• No longer reliable. Certainly ideologically motivated, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is propaganda but the editor has been somewhat liberal with drawing conclusions and manipulating statistics. So much so that major contributors have distanced themselves from the conclusions drawn in the book as well as the deaths count, and that when a communist organisation allegedly contacted Harvard University Press, Harvard admitted that it contained "remedial maths error" (this is sourced from a communist organisation, so it may not be true). More recently, many of the statistics cited have been revised following the release of previously classified information, such as the death toll of Holodomor, now estimated to be around 3-3.5 million rather than the 7 million asserted in the book. Whether this was intentional or simply a higher end estimate based on available data at the time, its clear that many sections of the book have become unreliable, and I would advise against using it. Dark-World25 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Let me clarify it one more time

1. The Black book is normally used in Wikipedia as a source for a figure of 85+ or 100 million victims, and for the claim that they are linked to Communism and Marxism. For this claim, the BB is unreliable: it was criticized specifically for that, including the criticism by Nicolas Werth, a major contributor to the BB. The BB cannot be used as a source for that, unless that statement is supplemented with a due criticism and comments

2. With regard to other parts of this huge and non-homogeneous volume, each of them have different reliability, and some of them, especially the Werth's chapter, are pretty reliable. Unfortunatelly, main conclusions and observations made by him are rarely used in Wikipedia.

Does anybody has anything to add to this conclusion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, and use attribution for its introduction. There seems to be a scholarly consensus that it’s individual sections (particularly that in the Soviet Union) are legitimate scholarly works. The introduction is much more controversial among academics, which means that WikiVoice statements should be avoided when directly sourcing from it. But it’s certainly a work that carries weight in these sorts discussions given that so much has been written about it and that it has been historically influential. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Also, to respond to others saying that the source is unreliable because they find it biased; WP:BIASED might be worth a good read. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  That is correct. Many reliable sources are biased. However, the BB's figures in the introduction, which is the most frequently cited information, are not only biased, they are unreliable. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• A spin on notability is not inherited, just because some scholars in the book can (and should) be cited, does not make the whole book reliable. Werth can stand on his own and the book is the source of his findings, but doesn't mean the rest of the book should be used freely as wiki voice fact. Slywriter (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Definitely a reliable source, would need attribute anyway since a number authors have contributed to the book and so we need to distinguish who is saying what. Also in regard to numbers, one will never get an truly accurate estimate, even the total death toll of Nazi mass killings is not clear despite it being highly documented by Nazi bureaucrats. --Nug (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  You would deem the additions by the editor, which has been renounced by two of the book's contributors, to be reliable? Certain chapters are pretty reliable but the overall conclusion? Hardly. Dark-World25 (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Mostly Unreliable Has been subject to scathing criticism by other scholars. However, certain chapters are more liable than others and can go in, with attribution. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable, WP:DUE applies. It's a book written by scholars and published by a reputable academic press. If there are contradictory sources that exist, integrate them in the content of the article per WP:NPOV. In any case, the way the proposal is worded is borderline disruptive, as if specifically crafted to stir up more drama. JBchrch talk 05:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• The issue, @JBchrch:, is that the section of the book almost exclusively used on Wikipedia is not any of the chapters written by said scholars, but the Introduction written by a known biased source trying to SYNTH together cherrypicked data to fit a desired claim and said author of the Introduction makes no attempt to hide that fact. To the point that many of those scholars that wrote chapters in the book have disavowed their involvement and any connection to the person who wrote the Introduction. So, in all regards, the part of the book that is actually cited on Wikipedia is not reliable. Silverseren^C 03:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• User Silver seren !voted near the top of this thread to make the entire book an "unreliable source" but here says: "the part of the book that is actually cited on Wikipedia is not reliable." XavierItzm (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• -->So, is this against the article Mass killings under communist regimes of last week's AfD or is this against the Cortouis book? XavierItzm (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry Silver seren but Stéphane Courtois is a professional historian who has held the highest academic rank at one of the most prestigious research institutions in Europe and whose text is published by Harvard University Press. Definitely a reliable source, 100%. As a matter of DUE, once again, we can confront him with his critics. And SYNTH doesn't apply to sources. JBchrch talk 04:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally reliable, but subject to WP:DUE as we must accurately represent the prevalent perspectives in the topic area. But I would say generally reliable, given that the research chapters are still largely accepted in the field, reprinted, and cited often. However I would agree with some here including @Mhawk10 that the Introduction should be considered an WP:RSOPINION and attributed as such. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, my reason for attributing the lead was not because it was a Newspaper editorial (it isn’t), but because of WP:BIASED. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Use cautiously with attribution Academic disputes with the book are well documented and go beyond well beyond the introduction. What is presented in the book however was influential and, in many ways, represents a certain (and resurgent) interpretation of 20thC history in the West. So of course the book should not be fully deprecated. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• I suggest adding an RFC tag to this discussion. We do it for other sources, let's get broader input. Levivich 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable - no 25-year-old book counts as a recent reliable source, even if it has not been refuted by more recent scholarship (as many parts of this have, notably the Introduction) and even when the publication was not intended as an intervention in an ideological debate (as this one was). Simply not reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Just as novelty does not impart reliability, age does not impart lack thereof.XavierItzm (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course it does. A history book written 100 years ago is less reliable than one written last year (controlling for other variables). That's part of WP:RS at WP:AGE MATTERS. Levivich 14:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible you missed the may qualifier at WP:RSAGE? I will grant you that Communist regimes have continued the killing of people since 1997, (e.g. China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.), but unless the current Uyghur genocide in western China is currently being minimized as much as the Holomodor was by Walter Duranty and his associates at the time, then hopefully the numbers since are not yet large enough to render obsolete the previous research, which therefore remains valid.XavierItzm (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh, actually, the policy says With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, I don't think BBoC is so much closer to the events that it should be considered less likely to have errors, but on the other hand, it should not be penalized for age unless new documents have come to light. --SVTCobra 14:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The very next sentence is However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt., and later is says Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. This is such a case, with new developments in this field in the past ~25 years, plus we're further away from the events and thus newer sources are better at "remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt" which is why I and others have quoted from newer sources above. This situation is square-on what RSAGE is about: the 1990s is too close to the fall of Soviet communism; 21st-century scholarship is better. Levivich 17:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That is very subjective. It is just as easy to argue that 21st-century scholarship has become worse to increasingly polarized political environments. Has the fall of the iron curtain led to previously unknown documentation to become available to scholars is a more objective standard. My main point with my above comment was that age is not the important factor for evaluating BBoC. --SVTCobra 18:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, but use attribution for introduction - most of the dispute concerning the book is about the introduction which should be used only with attribution, the rest should be regarded as any other generally reliable academic work.--Staberinde (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Intro generally unreliable, rest requires attribution The BBoC is a very contentious book, you could likely make an article that is just dedicated to "Responses to the Black Book of Communism". The intro is easily the most criticized portion, and it should be considered to be Courtois' opinion and only used for conveying such. As for the rest of the book comprised of actual analysis, it has widely been considered to be a biased or partisan piece of scholarship, and should be attributed in all cases per WP:BIASED. Doesn't mean it can't be used, but it should never be used as the sole source on a wikivoice statement. Also, this should really be given a neutral opening statement and be tagged as an RfC, we should really have some proper community consensus on the BBoC. Perhaps @Robert McClenon: could facilitate. BSMRD (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think, this collection of sources may be relevant. I collected scholarly sources as they appeared in the google.scholar results, without any cherry-picking, and analyzed one by one. Most authors who discuss Courtois (and his introduction) criticize him. In reality, the question about reliability of the Black Book is a question of reliability of Courtous/Malia statement that Communism killed 100 million. This is the most notable, the most controversial and most criticized statement. The rest is less controversial, but other parts of this huge volume are far less popular among Wikipedians. Therefore, I reiterate that the Black Book is unreliable as a source for its most famous claim, and is more reliable (or pretty reliable) as a source for events in separate Communist states.

Keeping in mind that this discussion is not the first (and, if I remember correctly, even not the second) RSN discussion of this source, I propose to include the BB into Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Politico update?

Due to the complexity related to WP:PIA, should there be there be changes to the WP:RSP listing of Politico similar to Fox News and Newsweek?

Below are a few proposals:

• Proposal 1: Create a note of a potential bias with current listing
• Proposal 2: Create a listing similar to the current Fox News listing specifically for Israel-Palestine topics, e.g. WP:GREL Politico (American politics) and WP:MREL Politico (Israel-Palestine topics)
• Proposal 3: Create a listing similar to the current Newsweek listing for the overall reliability of Politico, e.g. WP:GREL Politico (pre-2021) and WP:MREL Politico (2021–present)

Thanks for any support or comments ahead of time!--WMrapids (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Politico)

Comment: Opening an RfC as recent changes could pose potential issues for WP:PIA related articles that have been subject to arbitration, requiring the community to take a look at updating an existing WP:RSP listing.

Knowing how controversial WP:PIA articles are, I do not even participate in them. However, the recent acquisition of Politico by Axel Springer SE has raised concerns about the company's journalistic objectivity. Haaretz has said that a "pro-Israel policy" now exists at Politico while FAIR wrote that pro-Israel advocacy was introduced and its parent company has "No semblance of objectivity".

Currently, I made an edit recognizing this new distinction of a possible pro-Israel bias.--WMrapids (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• These are concerns about possible bias rather than reporting on actual biased material, so I think it's too early to add such clarifications. FAIR, being a media bias watchdog, criticise everyone which does not mean we should add their every comment to the WP:RSP. As an example, should we say that the NYT is biased towards billionaires based on this? Alaexis_¿question? 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Alaexis: You are missing the point. The alleged support is not only sourced by FAIR and is more than a simple bias, it is now company policy. As Haaretz notes, Mathias Döpfner says that support for Israel, a "united Europe" and free market economics "are like a constitution, they apply to every employee of our company" and that workers who do not comply "should not work for Axel Springer, very clearly".--WMrapids (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Worth noting that Haaretz's source, the WSJ, phrases it in a slightly more nuanced manner, as "support for ... Israel's right to exist", rather than "support for Israel", with the former appearing to be much more limited than the latter. On the EU and free market economics, though two match, although the WSJ phrases the later as "support for ... a free-market economy". BilledMammal (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• If there are RS stating that politico is biased in one field, then it should be mentioned at "perennial sources". Cinadon36 07:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Cinadon36: Well, Haaretz, currently recognized as generally reliable, has described Politico as "pro-Israel", which is why it is currently mentioned. Are you agreeing with proposal 1?--WMrapids (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes @WMrapids: I am for proposal 1. Apologies for not making that clear in my previous comment. Cinadon36 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The Haaretz itself marked as biased regarding the conflict Shrike (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• The Haaretz source references an interview in the Wall Street Journal, where Springer CEO stated that he expects "Politico staffers to adhere to Axel Springer-wide guiding principles include support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy, among others." If we are to consider them biased on any one of these topics on this basis then we must consider them biased on all - but I don't believe that this is sufficient evidence for doing so. I would also note that FAIR (1 2) was a controversial source a decade ago; I don't know if things have changed since then? BilledMammal (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• @BilledMammal: Thanks for bringing up the background on FAIR. It looks like one of those discussions was regarding a singular opinion on FAIR's website? Since there are multiple sources involved with the description of Politico and we are not using WP:OR, should there be less issues with this? Again, this discussion was created as a collective effort to make decisions on how to describe Politico as a source (especially in the context of WP:PIA), with this decision being based on descriptions from reliable sources.--WMrapids (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. What is your brief and neutral statement? Make the case for the change in the discussion, not in the same section that you're introducing the RfC question. This should be procedurally closed if the RfC prompt isn't cleaned up. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would think the discussion should also ask whether a note should be added to the RSP entry, rather than starting with a note added and asking if we should go further - particularly as the note says "recognized as", rather than the softer terminology used in the RFC statement of "possible". BilledMammal (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• @BilledMammal: I can agree with the softer terminology and thank you for noting this. @Mhawk10:, not too familiar with RfCs and this was my best attempt of bringing up the issue at hand while trying to remain neutral, but I can move the details to this discussion section.--WMrapids (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• News Sources should not be used by encyclopedias I'm going to keep harping on this but I don't think news sources, like Politico, are relevant to an encyclopedia project. As such, on the basis of it being a news source, I'd recommend against its use on Wikipedia. Period. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC as above. RfC isn't for general discussion. As for not using news sources, that makes no sense to me. A large number of our articles are of necessity heavily based on news sources. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: This is not just for general discussion, this is about changing a WP:RSP listing that was already determined through a previous RfC. --WMrapids (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: I am very consistent in my opinion that any article that depends on newsmedia to have "reliably" sourced entries is probably subject to far too much WP:RECENTISM to be treated as encyclopedic in scope. I am sure you will recall this is far from the first time I've decried the use of newsmedia to bulk up Wikipedia's vain attempts to be a news aggregator. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Elaborate on how it is WP:BIASED but otherwise wait and see. While the current version says a "small number" of editors consider it biased, this obviously changes that and we ought to discuss it and elaborate a bit on, more specifically, the ways that the new policy biases it - it seems hard to interpret an outright policy setting rigid ideological expectations any other way. But beyond a note about potential bias, that alone isn't enough to affect a source's reliability. We should come back later once there has been time for secondary sources to discuss the actual impact that this policy had on the accuracy of their reporting before we do anything beyond elaborating on their bias. --Aquillion (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Aquillion: Not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you implying that you support Option 1? And did you mean "reliability" instead of "notability"?--WMrapids (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Oops, yes, reliability. And the current version already notes bias concerns, but I suppose I'd say 'option 1 in terms of expanding that note, since clearly this makes the bias concerns more significant; it just needs a few additional words per [17] mentioning that they have potential bias stemming from a controversial statement of guiding principles that requires support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy. It's important to note that the ideological requirements to work at Politico under the new management go beyond just stuff about Israel. I'd also note that while some people say we should wait and see to even note the bias, we do have coverage indicating that the policy changes introduce bias - we need to wait and see for more information about their reliability, definitely, but when a source openly declares their bias and says that people who don't share those views shouldn't work there, there isn't really anything left to debate or to wait and see on. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bad RfC As per others. Also "Israel right to exist" is shared by every respectable newspaper on the right and on the left so I don't see any real bias issues --Shrike (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Provide a statement that describes the situation in as neutral tone as is possible. This isn't optional, it's part of the RfC process. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: @Shrike: @Shibbolethink: Can you explain how the updated proposal is not neutral? This is easy to change without dismissing the proposals entirely. How else would you make a proposal more neutral when you have to raise an issue like this? Shrike, no one is arguing about Israel's "right to exist", this is about reliable sources discussing a possible pro-Israel bias, with one RS writing that "New Politico Owner Says Will Enforce pro-Israel Policy". So let's not move the goalposts on this. Notes of bias are present throughout the WP:RSP listings; an example of this would be the the WP:RSP listing for the Anti-Defamation League ("Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all").--WMrapids (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I would want to see an overall landscape of how different sources view Politico, not just the negative criticism. That is one way I think it could be improved if it were reopened. At this point, I agree it is A) likely premature and B) not likely to achieve a lasting consensus on this issue. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  The point is the premise of "Israel right to exist" is not sign of any bias as it supported by almost by everyone Shrike (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• This RFC is premature at this point and I believe it should be closed. If actual problems arise in the future we can revisit the issue then. Calidum 20:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, while I can understand waiting and seeing in terms of reliability (which is more about their long-term reputation), when it comes to WP:BIAS, we already have several pieces (like the WSJ) describing the statement of principles requiring support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy. If that isn't sufficient to consider a source biased, what sort of coverage are you waiting on? (ie. what would convince you, in terms of what we should wait for before running a second RFC?) Because AFAIK we have normally taken overt statements of intent from a company to cover particular topics in particular ways, coupled with secondary sourcing covering those statements, as sufficient to describe them as WP:BIASED in those areas. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• I suppose it will come down to the question of whether these positions are "extraordinary" and indicate bias. Their full "Principles and Values" as of October 2021 are as follows:

1. We stand up for freedom, the rule of law, democracy and a united Europe.
2. We support the Jewish people and the right of existence of the State of Israel.
3. We advocate the transatlantic alliance between the United States of America and Europe.
4. We uphold the principles of a free market economy and its social responsibility.
5. We reject political and religious extremism and all forms of racism and sexual discrimination.

To me, none of these come across as "extraordinary", and many of them align with editorial guidelines issued by other organizations, such as the BBC on racism; it comes close in a few areas ("united Europe" and "transatlantic alliance"), but even there I don't feel the principles themselves cross the line, and so I would want to see the implications of that in practice before we rule on whether it is biased in such areas. BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

While it seems unusual to me to have an explicit editorial line like that at the level of the parent company, it is not really all that much different from a newspaper stating its editorial line outright. The Guardian describes its parent as a safeguard to its “liberal values”, for example, while the opinion pages of the WSJ are run under the banner of support for “democratic self-government and the freedom of individuals to make their own economic choices.” If Politico’s news content is shifted in after its acquisition by Axel Springer; then there might be ample concerns about WP:BIASED. But, such bias does not appear to be showing up thus far. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, we usually want RfC's to have more specific bullet points than this, but stepping back from the procedural nitty-gritty, I'd say it's pretty clear that we should note the owner's stated intent to push an ideological line. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  Do they plan to do this mainly through opinion pieces, or will this affect news coverage? If it is the former, then is it really unlike the British quality press? — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The Diplomat

Currently, The Diplomat (thediplomat.com) is listed at WP:RSP as "generally reliable" with the summary: "There is consensus that The Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics."

However, I'm wondering if this should perhaps be reevaluated, with an added disclaimer similar to Forbes, which not only distinguishes between it's print magazine and it's website, but especially (in this case) makes a further distinction regarding its various authors (Staff writers vs. Contributors):

RSP entry for Forbes magazine
Forbes magazine is listed at RSP as "generally reliable" with the summary: "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors."

RSP entry for Forbes.com website

Meanwhile, Forbes.com, the website, is listed as "generally unreliable" with the summary: "Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". See also: Forbes.

As for the Diplomat, I've noted there can be a difference among contributing authors. Here are two examples;

1. Franz-Stefan Gady: "Franz-Stefan Gady is a Research Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) focused on future conflict and the future of war. Follow him on Twitter.

   Franz-Stefan Gady is a Fellow with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London and a columnist for The Diplomat. He is the author of a number of monographs and book chapters on Asian and European security issues.

   Franz-Stefan was a Senior Editor with The Diplomat. He has also reported from a wide range of countries and conflict zones including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. His writing and photos have appeared in The International New York Times, BBC News, Foreign Affairs Magazine, Foreign Policy, The Christian Science Monitor, and Slate among other publications.

   His analysis has been featured in The Financial Times and The Wallstreet Journal [sic], and on Al Jazeera and PBS, among others.

   Follow him on Twitter."

2. Rick Joe: "Rick Joe is a longtime follower of Chinese military developments, with a focus on air and naval platforms.

   His content and write ups are derived from cross examination of open source rumors and information. He is active on Reddit and can be found on Twitter."

Example #1 is likely to be a reliable author, whereas example #2... maybe not so much. I'm thinking that if something to the effect of: "Each contributing author should be evaluated not only on their content, but the information provided about them in their individual bios." was added to the summary for The Diplomat at RSP, this could be beneficial. Thoughts? - wolf 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I am in support of User:Thewolfchild's cogent proposal. In general the source is reliable but please check the author creds. I have seen everything in the Diplomat from outright gems to trash, typically correlating with the credentials of author. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• That's already how it's supposed to work. WP:RS makes clear that you should evaluate each "source" AKA news article in this case, not only by the outlet but also by the author. A reliable outlet can occasionally publish an article by the guy who builds antigravity lawnmowers in his garage down the street, and it would be an unreliable source. Unless this happens so often that we are forced to reevaluate the editorial judgment of the publisher, it doesn't really affect the reliability of the outlet. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Vox revisited

I'm concerned that Vox does not clearly distinguish fact from opinion. For example, this recent article opens and closes with an opinionated statement about invasive species from the author's perspective (including the headline), although it presents attributed opinions from others. There are other examples, but I don't have the time to seek them out. The main page of this website also does not segregate op-eds, as other mainstream news sites like The Guardian do. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. Vox should be treated as analysis or opinion source, which means that generally it should be attributed. It does not even pretend to be news, rather than "explanatory journalism".

In your example the author uses first person singular: "I posed this question to ..." The author is not introduced in their profile and does not seem to have any other articles under their belt for Vox.

Another random example, from the front page: "I will conclude by reiterating a point I've made several times before; that the most important question in Dobbs is not whether the Court writes the magic words "Roe v. Wade is overruled."[18] Millhiser does not seem to have strong journalistic credentials: before joining Vox, they wrote columns for Thinkprogress. And so on. Politrukki (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

My concern is that this is not mentioned in the website's WP:RSP entry. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this a problem and should be reflected in the RSP entry and color. WP:RSOPINION is toothless if people can just get around it by using outlets like Vox to recycle opinions as fact. Right-wing outlets that mix fact and opinion like this are considered unreliable, as are some left-wing ones, and that should be applied here too. Crossroads ^-talk- 08:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

What specific text in which specific Wikipedia articles is that Vox piece being used as a citation? --Jayron32 14:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

While I enjoy reading Vox, it is, by its own admission (see its about us and ethics pages), "explanatory journalism", which I like and value, but I also recognize is something different than straight news journalism. It's opinion/analysis. I'm not sure they do any actual news reporting or even real investigative journalism. I could be wrong about that, I haven't read everything they've published of course. But we shouldn't be citing to Vox analysis for statements in wikivoice. I agree it shouldn't be green at RSP, and the RSN threads linked there are old (2014, 2017, 2020) and/or don't really grapple with general reliability (especially the 2020 one). I don't think those linked RSN threads support a green listing as it stands now, but would support an RfC and would probably !vote to mark it yellow (use with attribution only). Levivich 14:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree Vox tends to wear its opinions on its sleeves, but when you distill out the facts, they are still reliable and engage in proper editorial practices. As more and more sources take this type of accountability journalism approach, I think we can't rule out their reliability, just know when the writer is speaking in a subjective voice versus an objective voice (eg per WP:YESPOV). We need editors to be fully aware of how to use such articles, not only from Vox but other sources in the future. --Masem (t) 15:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it should be yellow to alert editors to this? I fear if it's green, editors will just adopt it in wikivoice without question, and any editor who questions that will be told it's green at RSP, end of discussion. Levivich 15:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that what's happening with Vox is indicative of many other nominally reliable sources, I don't think it should change as the source is still good, but one just has to be more careful of what's included in wikivoice. --Masem (t) 16:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Vox is exceptional in mixing opinion and fact, and does not even purport to do otherwise. Many editors are of the mindset that an opinion in a green-listed source becomes a fact that we can state in wikivoice, and this leads to laundering of POV into fact. I support Levivich's proposal. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Masem (and others), not always proper. Vox has edited this 2020 analysis several times. It has issued maybe four editor's notes, but hasn't actually corrected the article, except for some details; a poor journalistic practice that is sadly becoming a norm. The Washington Post reported on this (calls Vox "explanatory news site"). The Vox analysis was cited in this discussion. Has the piece ever been used in mainspace? No idea, but it could have caused a major blunder. Some editors in the discussion argued that Vox is a reliable source specifically because RSP says so.

I wish people would stop citing RSP like it's some kind of kind of religious document. I cite Vox sometimes, but rarely for stating some in Wikipedia's voice and never before careful consideration. Mainstream papers like The Washington Post publish pieces that are blogs or news analysis. We consider them less reliable for facts than news articles even though the publisher is the same. Politrukki (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading, those updates reflect changes to the scientific consensus that happened after the article was published. Updates and corrections like that are laudable and are signs of a WP:RS, but it's especially absurd to blame them for not being able to see the future. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINE has us well-covered here. Once you're past the headline, I don't see any issue with this one article. "Explanatory journalism" is not a reason to say a source is less reliable. Firefangledfeathers 15:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Vox is more of an opinion magazine that also publishes news, rather than a news magazine that also publishes opinions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• The headline is just covered by WP:HEADLINES. I don't agree with the argument that Vox largely publishes opinion, and especially with the argument that it leans more towards publishing opinion than most other online news sites today, which is simply wrong. See eg. the discussion of their data-driven explanatory news approach here. Nothing there, in their mission statement or articles indicates that they are primarily about opinion, and they have significant use by others that treats them as factual, nor has anyone actually presented any reason to think that beyond "it just reads to me that way", which isn't grounded in anything and which I certainly disagree with. Having a bias is insufficient to treat a source as opinion (though they are not unusually biased; eg. [19] puts them in the same category as the Washington Post, the New Yorker, NBC News, and so on). And in the absence of any other real evidence, some of the arguments above, by saying "it reads as opinion to me", are basically saying "I disagree with their analysis and the conclusions they make, therefore it is mere opinion and not staid factual analysis." That isn't how it works - their articles go through a rigorous fact-checking and editorial process comparable to those at other high-quality news sources, and are therefore appropriate to cite for facts in the article voice. It's also factually incorrect to say that they do not segregate opinion - they have a First Person section for that. In terms of WP:USEBYOTHERS, see [20][21][22][23]. The New York Times describes Vox as a site known for explanatory journalism and podcasts. The Washington Post describes it as a digital-news site. I'm not seeing any particularly compelling arguments above to question these usages and assessments. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Like Aquillion, I'm not seeing particularly compelling arguments to change the status quo in a significant way. On a case-by-case basis, it might be appropriate to cite a Vox item as attributed opinion, but that's really just business as usual. Concerns that "it's green at RSP" could end a discussion seem disconnected with how discussions actually happen around here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Concur. Vox is fine. Attribute if you're particularly concerned. A few editors here think that if they can claim "bias" then factual reliability doesn't hold, and that's not how anything has ever worked here - David Gerard (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Status Quo. Agree with @David Gerard here. All news is biased. What matters is their reputation for reporting facts accurately. And nothing about that has changed wrt Vox. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Encyclopedias shouldn't be news aggregators while I concur with @David Gerard that Vox is no more or less reliable than any other journalistic source I also am of the opinion that journalistic sources are inappropriate for an encyclopedia per my usual complaint regarding newsmedia and the proliferation of WP:RECENTISM - however I would make sure it's understood that I would say the same thing about the Guardian, the CBC, CNN or China Daily as sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Aquillion's reasoning above. Don't see any compelling reason to reassess Vox. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle

The RFC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Jewish_Chronicle found "a weak consensus that it's generally reliable" for material related to "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians". A look at raw vote, and yes I know WP:NOTVOTE but it is useful to examine the situation, counts find of the 30 participants, 18 of them voted option 1 , though one of those only for its pre-2010 content, 9 voted option 3 for at least this topic, and 2 more voted option 4. Of the 18 votes for option 1, three of them came from non-EC accounts, which may not participate in the topic area, and one came from a sock of User:NoCal100 (Kenosha Forever, though that was discovered prior to the close), two came from socks of User:Icewhiz (Hippeus and 11Fox11), and one came from a sock of User:יניב הורון (SoaringLL). If you remove the participation of the users disallowed from commenting by either ARBPIA or by being banned editors, and the user who expressed no opinion on material post-2010, the 18/30 in favor of being generally reliable becomes 11/23, with 11/23 saying generally unreliable or outright publishes false material and should never be used, and one user saying "additional considerations apply". I feel that the close of the RFC is tainted by the participation of banned editors, and as such ask that the post in WP:RSP finding that the Jewish Chronicle to be "generally reliable" be rescinded and a new RFC be run if any user feels it necessary. But the current consensus simply does not reflect the discussion with the participation of banned users removed. Pinging User:ProcrastinatingReader who closed that RFC (and even if I quibble with the close at the time, I dont think it was an unreasonable reading of the discussion as it stood then, but knowing now that banned users make up over 20% of the support makes me think the close should be rescinded). nableezy - 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy Yes, it should rescinded - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No Even if rescind those two votes I don't think its matter as we going by strength of arguments and those who argued that the source in unreliable their arguments were refuted. Shrike (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike - remember that !votes and comments might have influenced judgements of other editors who !voted after (besides the closing person). All results affected by heavy participation of sock-puppets should always be rescinded. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It isnt two votes, it is seven. When a third of the support for a position was disallowed from participating entirely that calls in to question the integrity of the result. nableezy - 21:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy Yeah. Regularly rescinding such results might also discourage sock-puppetry in that topic area a little. I think that's the correct approach. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You can initiate a new RfC anyway - there is no formal 'rescinding' or a waiting period to do it. Having said that, the closure noted weak evidence against the reliability which remains the case no matter how many sockpuppets !voted in that RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 21:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the current status quo is an issue here. We have an RFC which declares a consensus for a position that the majority of eligible voters argued against. And that supposed consensus is used as a basis now in a number of disputes. nableezy - 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

My point is simply that gauging the current consensus would require a new RfC irrespective of the validity of the previous discussion. Alaexis_¿question? 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but claiming a current consensus requires that previous discussion. My view is we have no consensus now, and RSP should not declare one exists. And users are claiming that an RFC that quite literally had 38% of the participants in favor of option 1 banned from participating is however the current consensus and that the source is reliable full stop. nableezy - 21:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis - starting a new one indicating that the last one was affected by heavy sock-puppetry is an alternative, but I like rescinding option because that might discourage future participation of sock-puppets a little. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I still fail to see meaningful difference. You also need a consensus for rescinding. Alaexis_¿question? 21:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The meaningful difference is that this would return to a status quo ante in which there is no current consensus on the reliability and RSP may not be used to claim that there is one. Do you think the RFC linked, with the banned comments removed, can reasonably be found to contain a consensus? nableezy - 21:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any new evidence for/against reliability of the source since March 2021 that we should look at? If so, maybe re-run the RfC. If not, maybe strike the sock votes and then ask the closer to re-close it. Levivich 22:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Unaware on the former, fine with the latter. Or just vacating it and letting any interested party take up a new RFC if they are so inclined. nableezy - 22:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Will https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/24/the-ipso-jewish-chronicle-car-crash-just-gets-worse/ this do to be going on with? In case I did not made it clear before, there have been informal discussions (on wiki) about going back to RSN and those involved had agreed to wait but since Nableezy is contesting the "consensus" now, then we may as well get on with it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

three of them came from non-EC accounts; even under the "broadly defined" I consider it too "broadly defined" to prevent non-EC related accounts from commenting on the reliability of sources because those sources also cover matters related to the protected area, as it means that articles that are entirely unrelated to the protected area start to be impacted by the restrictions. As such, their comments should be allowed regarding the reliability of "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam", and dismissed only for comments regarding the reliability of "content involving Palestine/Palestinians". BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the Labour antisemitism dispute is inextricably linked with the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, and indeed Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is listed as being covered by ARBPIA. nableezy - 22:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that the three non-extended confirmed users are the difference between "reliable" and "no consensus" or "unreliable", perhaps it should read "reliable for x, y, and z in general, no consensus or unreliable for x, y, and z that fall under restricted area" - while a tiny percentage of articles on the British left are covered by the restrictions, the vast majority is not, and I would be hesitant to forbid editors who may otherwise be involved in that area from commenting on sources that they may use because of the tiny percentage, and because of restrictions that aren't related to the work they are doing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but I dont think there are many disputed cases of use outside of that area anyway. nableezy - 05:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. Only skimming, but I don't imagine I placed much value in the comment of SoaringLL, and not exceptionally much in 11Fox11's. Hippeus's maybe would've been more influential (on participants too), since it actually contained an argument, but only two other editors voted "per" that editor, and both of those comments also cited two other editors' arguments. Nobody cited Hippeus's arguments individually (as opposed to, eg, BobFromBrockley, who was cited individually by another participant). With three socks blocked since the close I don't think it changes the strength of arguments too much, esp as two of the comments were just straight votes and only one sock made a novel argument. I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition (ideally a consensus of admins should decide if it is, at WP:AE; I can see the relation but I wouldn't have thought it necessarily applies).
  I think if I were closing it again I'd have the same finding about general reliability, although probably no consensus for "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians", in part because it was rather weak in the first place and depends too much on how you read certain comments (comes back to paragraph 1 of the close), and so slight changes in participation probably does affect my reading in that part of the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it appropriate to update WP:RSP to reflect no consensus on the latter? nableezy - 01:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• If one feels that the prior RFC was tainted by inappropriate participation, the best way forward is to start a fresh RFC to gauge community consensus anew. Consensus can change, and there's no fault with checking in once-in-a-while, especially in 1) a close call and 2) where there are questions about inappropriate votes in the first case. Rather than declaring the prior discussion invalid by decree (especially since the majority of the participation was valid), just start a new RFC. --Jayron32 12:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont just feel that, I think I demonstrated that, and thats fine for determining a new consensus, but right now, as a status quo, users are pointing to a supposed consensus that even the closer says he would not have closed as a consensus knowing what he does now about the participants, and using that supposed consensus to say that the reliability of the JC is settled and it is reliable full stop. Requiring a new RFC to overturn an invalid one does not rectify that issue. nableezy - 14:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE seems to be relevant here. If it takes a few days to conduct a new RFC so we can be sure we have a clean and clear RFC to point to for consensus purposes, that is preferable to rushing ahead without any clear direction from the community one way or the other. I would rather have a clear consensus we can actually use than having one person unilaterally deciding to overturn a prior discussion and pressing ahead as though the opposite consensus were true. The solution to "no existing consensus" is to do nothing, and if we have no consensus, we're bound to do nothing one way or the other, so it behooves us to start that new consensus. --Jayron32 15:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No, its not relevant here. I am not asking for the opposite consensus to be adopted. I am however saying that we should not be saying there is a consensus when the discussion it is based on does not contain any such consensus with ineligible accounts excluded. I am not asking for a consensus that it is unreliable, I am asking that the entry in RSP be updated to reflect that the RFC does not contain a consensus for this issue. You can pretend like there is not a first movers advantage here, in which a consensus is required to overcome an existing one, but there is, and that existing one is invalid and should not be treated as though it were not. nableezy - 15:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's reasonable. As long as your only claiming that there is no consensus, and have no plans to start overhauling Wikipedia massively until there is a consensus, that seems reasonable. --Jayron32 15:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That is indeed my only claim. nableezy - 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously Yes. The JC will need to be reopened at some point, given the new evidence against it, several more cases of defamation have emerged and an IPSO standards investigation has been requested by the JC's victims. This request is being considered and would be the first ever by IPSO, despite it also regulating several deprecated titles (E.g. The Sun, The Star, The Mail group). There have also been two articles on the JC written by a professor of journalism stating it is unreliable since the last RfC.

The last RfC involved large numbers of users who should have been disqualified. It also featured entirely erroneous arguments based on the fact that the JC had been reliable in the past which had no bearing on the case at hand and that it was reliable for other topics than Labour and Muslims, which nobody disputes. It was also widely argued that IPSO regulation and the occasional publication of corrections made the JC reliable, despite the fact the same applies to many deprecated publications. These arguments were seemingly taken as valid by the closer, when they should probably not have been. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The last RfC involved large numbers of users who should have been disqualified. Four out of thirty is not a large number. Levivich 14:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Noisy minorities can have an impact beyond their numbers, probably the whole idea of socking.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I make it 7, and also what Selfstudier said. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't just make up a number; the number of blocked users is 4. Everyone else is in good standing and is qualified to participate in that discussion. (And seven out of thirty is also not a large number.) Levivich 14:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Define large number for future reference. 50%?Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No, users not extended confirmed are not qualified to participate in project discussions in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. You can't just make up a number. The number is 7, all supporting one side of the debate. nableezy - 16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the other 3 absolutely were in good standing, but (per Nableezy) they were contributing in an area which forms part of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and did not have the 30 days required for this. The contribution of the socks was constant and sustained, and designed to create the impression that the arguments in favour of reliability were self-evident, and seem much stronger than they actually were.

7 users in this case is the difference between "generally reliable but biased" and "no consensus on reliability", I would suggest this is a very large number in this case.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Please don't argue that the Jewish Chronicle is part of the IP conflict. "Jewish" does not mean the same thing as "Israeli." 30/500 doesn't apply to an RSN about the Jewish Chronicle (or other Jewish media). Levivich 14:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats a clever trick, changing the framing of the discussion. The Jewish Chronicle's reliability with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is indeed part of the conflict topic area. And the truly offensive insinuation is something you should be ashamed of. nableezy - 16:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Why do some always have to make it personal? We can't just have a disagreement without resorting to ad hominems on this website. Levivich 16:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am the one who intimated that their interlocutors were opposed to a source because it is "Jewish". I am the one making it personal, silly me. If not for not wanting to violate the same policy as you have, Id tell you where you can shove that insinuation right along with your faux outrage. nableezy - 18:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The JC's disagreement with the Corbyn Labour party was intimately linked to Corbyn's policy on Palestine, and to the JC's proudly declared zionism. Several of the false stories which the JC published were linked directly to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Zionism isn't the same thing as Israel either, and neither is British/Palestinian politics. You are painting with too broad a brush and I find it a bit offensive. The Jewish Chronicle, Zionism, and British/Palestinian politics all go back to long before Israel was founded. These are older than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. JC's reliability is not part of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Levivich 15:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Youve lost that argument before, try not to make us run it back again. Th articles under discussion here are all listed as being in the topic area. If youd like to challenge that you can do so, but pretending that your view is the current consensus one is nonsense. nableezy - 16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh look, Talk:Zionism has a shiny notice showing it to be in the topic area. Huh. nableezy - 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that my post has upset you, but I think we will have to agree to disagree here. While I recognise that British involvement in Palestine and its relationship to zionism predate the current conflict, the disagreement that the JC had with Labour is entirely attributable to the current situation in I/P and frequently referred to specific current differences on the rights and wrongs of the actually existing I/P situation. Therefore I concur with Nableezy that this falls within the scope of the 500/30 rule. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Your post has not upset me. Finding something a bit offensive isn't upsetting. Similarly, I find "I am sorry that my post has upset you" condescending, but that still doesn't upset me. Don't worry about my emotions; just focus on the arguments please. Levivich 15:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, fyi, in my dialect of English "upset" is a possible synonym of "offended", perhaps that is not the case for you. The Labour-Antisemitism article forms part of ARBPIA, this topic should also a subset of the Labour-Antisemitism article as the JC's relationship to the British left and Muslims was a significant factor in that situation. The JC's negative attitude to Labour and Muslims is entirely conditioned by that scandal, so the same measures should be in place. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you are correct, however, that distinction is increasingly being blurred and not just by the JC whose version of this is to associate the British left (as well as other targets) with support for the Palestinian position and define that as an axis of evil.Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, this is simply a distraction from the main issue, the socked RFC and what to do about it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I probably agree with that as well, the sock contribution was extremely significant whether or not we allow the 3 500/30 contributors. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The user who closed the RFC above says that removing the participation of users disqualified from participating, and I don't know if he is even including the non-ec users either, would likely result in the a finding of no consensus on the matter at issue here. User:ProcrastinatingReader, can you update the close and WP:RSP? nableezy - 16:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsure, since (given the disagreement above on the best way forward) I don't want to unilaterally plough ahead, doubly so as I'm not familiar with RSP practices in situations like this. I don't usually apply the result of my closes in general, or add entries to RSP in cases where I'm the closer (and didn't add this one); I generally prefer RSP regulars/others to turn the reading of consensus into an appropriate RSP format. I think @Newslinger added the entry and is uninvolved & experienced with RSP/RSN, so maybe their take on the way forward might be helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Jayron32, any suggestions here? I think it fairly clear that no consensus on this topic exists in that RFC, but even with the closer saying that he does not think there was consensus anymore users involved in disputes about this source are continuing to claim a consensus (see immediately below). nableezy - 18:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Or User:Newslinger? nableezy - 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, Newslinger hasn't been active for over half a year now. I have updated the section header with the two socks (if I haven't missed anyone else) that were found after the close (one was found before it) but I think the cleanest way for an attempt at overturning the previous RfC will be to start a new one. Seeing as there is a new development (the latest IPSO investigation/development), it would be justified on that ground as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Its three (Hippeus, 11Fox11, and SoaringLL), but Im mostly concerned with the editors claiming a current consensus than with establishing a new one. nableezy - 03:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, I had missed one. I took a brief glance at that discussion as well and even after disregarding the sock comments, I don't think it is that clear whether this is no consensus. The statement in the entry at least still appears to reflect the discussion, though there is a stronger case for no consensus since the sock comments were ardently pushing for generally reliable, while some of the others are more qualified. For the time being, I have edited the RSP entry to indicate that the entry is disputed but this is not a long term solution and I would strongly recommend a new RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont think thats enough honestly, and that still includes the non-extended confirmed editors for at least whats covered by ARBPIA. Even the closer says he doesnt think the close reflects the discussion absent the unqualified comments. Im fine starting a new RFC, what I am not fine with is having the basis as a current consensus being what is not a valid consensus. nableezy - 15:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The last RfC or the entry can't be used as a basis anymore if you were to start a new RfC. I can remove the statement in the entry as well and just add a line that an RfC is ongoing when it's opened. Though, if you want to just overturn/discard the previous RfC or remove the entry, I don't think I can do much about it nor do I think it would be very productive, anyways WP:CLOSECHALLENGE would be the way to go. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

We routinely default to the prior consensus in the case of no consensus. And as far as WP:CLOSEREVIEW, thats what I'm trying to do here. And the closing editor has said he doesn't find a consensus anymore. I'm just looking for somebody to update the RSP entry to that effect. nableezy - 19:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at prior discussions, they mostly focus on a specific incident and would be summarised as "generally reliable" anyways. They are also from 2010 and 2011 so quite outdated especially considering some of the arguements made by the non-sock extended confirmed users in the RfC, who state that its reliability fell after 2010/2016. So defaulting to that would probably end up being counter-productive, but if you really want to go that way then ask for a close review or alternatively a re-close at WP:AN where RSN close challenges usually occur and since there is no clear consensus on what to do with the previous RfC over here (most people are just saying that a new RfC would be the way to go). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Edit - Neutral As always the same characters are here, at least giving the impression of trying to stack the deck. But to quote from the AFD notice: ".. consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes". For now I'm completely opposed to opening up a new RFC on a Jewish Paper which has been in existence for 180 years. Someone above mentioned that "new info" has come to light. If that info is from RS, I'm open to changing my mind, but I haven't seen it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Up above, here, I'll bring it down for you https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/24/the-ipso-jewish-chronicle-car-crash-just-gets-worse/ . Anyone wishing to start an RFC on JC can do so, this a discussion about amending a previous close. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on that, I withdraw my objections. However, as for the 2020 report they seem to be a member of IPSO in good standing with a well-documented editorial process. And scrolling through some of the incidents, they seem to mostly make quick retractions for any inaccuracies. [24] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bob drobbs, unfortunately IPSO regulates several deprecated titles, Daily Mail, Sunday Mail, The Sun, The Star. All of them publish retractions and are members in good standing. Even so, IPSO is currently considering whether or not to start a standards investigation against JC, which would be the first in its history. It probably won't have one, because IPSO is not a very good regulator and the big papers who pay its bills would vehemently oppose such an investigation, but even so, the JC is in unprecedented territory due to its consistent inaccuracy. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Three comments: (a) If I understand correctly, the objection to the RfC closure seems to include !votes by a couple of non-confirmed editors? ("If you remove the participation of the users disallowed from commenting by either ARBPIA or by being banned editors, and the user who expressed no opinion on material post-2010, the 18/30 in favor of being generally reliable becomes 11/23") But ARBPIA says "Editors who don't meet the qualifications may however use the talkpage to "post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." Thus even if this reliability discussion falls under ARBPIA, these users are perfectly entitled to contribute here. (Of the two non-confirmed users, one has 344 edits since 2014 so not exactly a newbie.) I count 26 !votes from users in good standing, of whom between 11 confirmed clearly argue for GR (14 including newer users and those who !voted for GR but didn't express a view on post-2010 period), 10 argue for GU, 2 for attribute, so the removal of socks makes no substantial difference. (b) If we junk the RfC, wouldn't that mean a return to status quo ante, i.e. general reliability? (c) The "new evidence" against is an opinion piece (it's filed under "Argument" in BylineTimes - RSN discussions here and here come to no consensus on reliability) which refers to "33 breaches" of IPSO's code, which sounds serious, but the breaches relate to a much smaller number of articles. According to the Telegraph earlier in 2021: The letter claimed there had been 28 breaches of the Editors’ Code in three years, and that there would be “more victims” if nothing was done. In fact, IPSO says there were eight complaints upheld in the past three years, with two not upheld and two resolved through mediation.[25] (See here for extended discussion]) Most of these breaches were prior to the RfC under discussion and were referred to in the discussion. I do not oppose a new RfC but the argument of new evidence does not seem that strong. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Bob, we've talked about the opinion quote you cite at length so your use of it here borders on the sophistic. There is no contradiction between 8 upheld complaints and 28 breaches. Both numbers are true, the JC published false information about 8 individuals who made complaints, across various articles in some cases, and IPSO found that the paper had violated their rules in 28 separate instances across articles relating to those complainants. The Telegraph is an exceptionally biased source as it has a declared anti-labour bias and a vested interest in weak press regulations. It is therefore hard to say whether the article you cite is ill-informed or deliberately deceptive. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that 8 complaints and 28 breaches don't contradict each other, but one without the other is misleading - specifically mentioning 28 breaches without clarifying how many articles it refers to makes it sounds like 28 articles which were found to have been in breach. I also agree the Telegraph is biased, but clearly so is Brian Cathcart and Byline (a large number of Cathcart's articles in Byline are attacks on IPSO and/or in praise of its rival Impress; in fact, if we rendered unreliable all the media sources Cathcart attacks there we'd throw out e.g. the BBC and Times along with the bathwater). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Bob, the objection is that three of the users in the closed RFC were socks of banned users, and you are very much misreading the extended confirmed issue. Users may participate on talk pages, but not in project discussions such as RFCs or RSN threads. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. Seeing as you quoted the first part of that from ARBPIA, I am a bit confused as to why you neglected the latter part, you know, the part that matters here and turns your argument on its head. As such, almost 40% of the users supporting generally reliable were disqualified from participating. nableezy - 16:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't get it. The RFC question was Which of the following options should apply to the Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam. with the usual 4 options. How is that covered by ARBPIA? Are JC, "left-wing organizations", Muslims, and Islam, covered by ARBPIA? I don't think so! ARBIA is not about Jews and Muslims. Levivich 16:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, I would say British political left as well as other individuals and orgs identifiable as being supportive of Palestinian rights, might as well be, as far as JC is concerned, not just a little bit but hopelessly biased.Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The material related to Palestine and the Palestinians as well as the British Labour party antisemitism dispute are all listed as being in the ARBPIA topic area. Kindly stop misrepresenting your interlocutors arguments, nobody has said anything about it being ARBPIA because of anything about Jews, Judiasm, or Jewishness; the RFC close very clearly references topics in the ARBPIA topic area and for those topics EC is required to participate in a noticeboard discussion. nableezy - 16:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(Again with the ad hominems. You just won't give it a rest with that. It's like every single reply you make must contain an accusation of wrongdoing against me personally. Take me to a noticeboard or shut up already.) So the British left is covered by ARBPIA is what you're saying? You want to exclude non-EC editors from an RFC about "Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam" (not specific to Britain) because some !voters mentioned the British left in their !votes? I don't the British left is part of ARBPIA (everyone has an opinion about Israel/Palestine, that doesn't make everyone part of ARBPIA), and even if it was, the RfC wasn't asking about that specifically. Levivich 17:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

So the British left is covered by ARBPIA is what you're saying? Pretty sure nobody said that except you.Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You have a curious understanding of the term ad hominem. I made no accusation about you, I remarked about your repeated attempt to frame this as though is has to do with "Jews". The implication youve made several times here is outrageous. That is not an attack on your person, but on what youve written here, and what youve implied about others. And yes, the RFC was very much about those topics. The entirety of the dispute of the reliability was centered on the coverage of the Labour party antisemitism dispute. That, as Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party]] shows, is in the ARBPIA topic area. The close also references those topics, when it says As for content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians: the consensus is weaker and it's somewhere between a weak consensus that it's generally reliable and no consensus. You can keep pretending that the discussion does not include material that very much is in the ARBPIA topic area, but anybody can see on the respective talk pages for those topics that they are included and your position is baseless. nableezy - 17:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I find it weird that you don't think those statements count as ad hominems. Anyway, I don't think that non-EC editors should be excluded from an RfC about the reliability of "Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam" (which is what the RfC asked) just because there are content disputes about JC and the British left, even if those content disputes were raised by participants in the RfC, and even if the closer addressed them as part of the closing statement. I don't think that a general, not-specific-to-ARBPIA RfC should exclude non-EC editors just because someone brings up ARBPIA issues in the discussion or because there is a related discussion on some other page. Levivich 18:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The dispute was centered around its coverage of Jewish Voice for Labour (in ARBPIA per talk page notice), and one of the non-EC users specifically discussed JVL (saying passes off a JVL complaint as having weight ...). So no, it is not just that the disputes were raised, even the non-EC accounts discussed them specifically. And in noticeboard discussions that is disallowed. nableezy - 18:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you're the one that suggested asking the closer to look at it again without the sock comments. And the closer said he would find it having no consensus for the topic under discussion here. And it isnt even clear if he left out the non-EC accounts in that finding anyway. Im curious as to why your own suggested course of action is no longer acceptable to you. nableezy - 18:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see where I said my suggested course of action is no longer acceptable to me, whatever that course was. I don't see where the closer weighed in on the ECP issue. I still think you should have a new RfC, which would be half done by now had you just done that. And if it's about ARBPIA then obvi ECP editors should be excluded. But if it's more general, like the original RfC question about JC and the Left and Muslims and Islam, then ECP editors should not be excluded. And more generally, what I'm saying here is not crazy, hypocritical, against policy, misrepresenting anything, or in any other way disruptive or immoral or anything like that. I don't mind if you disagree with me of course, but I really am asking you to stop constantly attacking me whenever I happen to disagree with you, and I mean like in every damn edit, in every response to me, you try to catch me in some kind of wrongdoing. You're constantly throwing crap at me. I'm tired of it and I'm not going to keep putting up with it. Levivich 19:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

When you write 30/500 doesn't apply to an RSN about the Jewish Chronicle (or other Jewish media) as though it being "Jewish media" was raised as a reason for why it applies at all you are indeed making an outrageous insinuation. One that you have yet to retract. When you say that others are being offensive for making an argument that they never made, that "Jewish" is a synonym for "Israeli", you are indeed making an outrageous insinuation. One that you have yet to retract. Nobody said that the British left is covered by ARBPIA. And claiming that anybody did, as when you write the British left is covered by ARBPIA is what you're saying?, is indeed misrepresenting your interlocutors argument. Since you seem to appreciate calling arguments logical fallacies even when they are not, maybe look at straw man. Im kind of tired of that myself. I dont really care what you want to put up with, Im more concerned with removing the claim in RSP based on an RFC that was indeed overrun with ineligible accounts, so much so that nearly 40% of the supporters for the finding listed were ineligible to participate. It would be great that if, instead of seeing bs about "Jewish" does not mean the same thing as "Israeli." when nobody said that it did, you could redirect your comments to the issue at hand, that being the RFC not having any consensus when ineligible accounts are discounted. nableezy - 19:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If it doesn't have to do with "Jewish", "Israel", or "British left", or a content dispute on another article, then why would the Jewish Chronicle RSN RFC be covered by ARBPIA? Every time I think I understand the connection is, you attack me for thinking it. In what world is asking for clarification ("is what you're saying?") a "misrepresentation"? You ABF in literally every comment directed to me (for example, my comments make no insinuations at all, I am explicit in my communications), including your last one. This is the last time I'm going to post about your comments here but I want to be clear that I'm asking you to be less hostile if you choose to communicate with me in the future. If what I'm doing is really as bad as what you say, take me to a noticeboard, but if you keep making constant accusations against me, I may take you to a noticeboard. Levivich 19:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure Ive explained why the line 30/500 doesn't apply to an RSN about the Jewish Chronicle (or other Jewish media) does indeed make an insinuation that editors are raising objections due to the source being "Jewish media", and it is an implication that I find incredibly offensive. I want to be clear I am asking you to not make implications of racism against others, it is very much ABF. As Ive seen said before, Take me to a noticeboard or shut up already. As far as the piece of substance in this, the British Labour antisemitism article is listed as being in ARBPIA. the JVL article is listed as being in ARBPIA. This discussion was focused on those topics. As such, it was in ARBPIA, insofar that the close is related to those topics. And that is the only part of the close I am challenging here. It would be great if you could discuss that part, and not bring up irrelevant crap like "Jewish" is not synonymous with "Israeli", a claim that quite literally nobody made. nableezy - 19:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no hurry to do the RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

To me it's an obvious thing but apparently not. Maybe we could somehow include the ecp question in the RFC ie allow non ecp subject to a determination on that by ecps. Just a thought.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Such matters should be probably determined at WP:AN or WP:AE --18:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

With Nyx86 now blocked as an Icewhiz sock (option 1), that changes the numbers even further here, with an absolute majority now in favor of generally unreliable or wholly unreliable for the topic under discussion here. And there may be one more Icewhiz sock in that list to be blocked. But with just Nyx86 removed, that changes the math even further. Can we discard that RFC now? nableezy - 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is incredible how much sock interest there is in keeping this awful source reliable. Could you possibly link to the page where this block is stated? There is nothing on the user page. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Here Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Another one indeffed, so per Nableezy above, it's safe to say that that RFC was well socked and the result unsafe,Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You mean another one in addition to Nyx? Also has Nyx been confirmed, or still suspected, as the link above seems to say? I believe removing Nyx means there were 10 non-sock confirmed users arguing for general reliability (plus two editors whose contributions are valid if this is not covered by ARBPIA) and 10 arguing for general unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see the link I put just above. Says Nyx blocked and DroidIam indeffed.Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You can also see that an account is blocked by looking at their contributions page [26] Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Can a Bhaktivedanta cult site be used to source praises about books related to Bhaktivedanta cult founder

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

“ For their authority, depth and clarity, his books have won praise from professors at colleges and universities like Harvard, Oxford, Cornell, Columbia, Syracuse, Oberlin, and Edinburgh. ”

References

Bhaktivedanta cult is also known as "Hare Krishna" group aka ISKCON.

In this edit User:Dāsānudāsa has restored praises about books by the subject. (The above quoted content was removed by me) Can a Bhaktivedanta site be used to source praises about books related to Bhaktivedanta founder? Can such a source be used to add such WP:NPOV violating content?

In my view, this is obvious promotion, and my removal was justified but I have been reverted repeatedly. If I remove again, I am sure I will be reverted again. The user had been warned by the admin for edit warring here. I have a suspicion that people/ supporters from the Bhaktivedanta/ ISKCON cult are active on this page and reverting improvements on this page. Venkat TL (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, source is not RS and does verify the sentence. [27]. Krisna.com is not a secondary RS, imo. Cinadon36 11:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well as they are not third party no.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. These are not third party independent reliable sources. They are, so to speak, "in-universe." They should not be used for reporting anything that is disputed outside of the cult's sources, and should be attributed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Not independent of the subject. That edit is extremely biased to the topic and skews NPOV. If that editor persists, you should take them to WP:ANI or something. Platonk (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

president.az

Is [28] a reliable source for Hayat Abdullayeva? Note that the source is used to support the claim that "Over the years of her creative activity, H. Abdullayeva has also created a number of major works, including the sculpture of Maxim Gorky, installed on the pediment of the National Library named after M. F. Akhundov, the bronze sculptures of the famous actor Huseyngulu Sarabsky, of the statesman and poet Shah Ismail Khatai, the monument-busts of Khurshidbanu Natavan and the one of the poet Vagif in the city of Shusha", none of which is mentioned in the source. Vexations (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks reasonably reliable for what it says, although I believe it is unreliable for words not contained in the source, as are most sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If the source does not mention the text that it is supposed to be citing, you should remove the text from Wikipedia. This is not a reliability issue, this is a WP:V issue. Sources have to actually contain the information that is being used to write Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 12:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There are two issues; a) can it be used to support a specific claim (obviously not) and b) can it be used to say anything at all about the subject of the article? (Context: It is a press release from the office of a dictator.) Vexations (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

SSCD

Four sources I found refer to Garad Jama Garad Ali as by the abbreviation "garad of SSCD", namely [29], [30], [31], [32]. Are those sources sufficient to place this abbreviation in the body of the article? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone 2021 book

On page 90 of the 2021 book Consequences of Capitalism, Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone claim that the US has an "unusually violent labor history, going well into the 20th century." I used this as the primary source for this edit to the lead of the article Labor history of the United States. It was subsequently reverted with the claim that "the chomsky is not a reliable source" (nothing said about the other author, a professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, and nevermind that Chomsky is considered by many to be one of the top public intellectuals in the US). To my knowledge, that the US has a labor history more violent than other Western nations is widely understood and hardly controversial, like the sky being blue and grass being green. In fact, on the page Union violence in the United States, the second paragraph of the lead says "According to a study in 1969, the United States has had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world". So I included this source as well (unfortunately, no page number was provided). I think the material and sources are WP:DUE for this article. I can add attribution if necessary so it's not in Wikipedia's voice, if that would help.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Chomsky quote should be attributed, I think. It's one person's view on a big topic. If it is the general consensus, then find a couple of other sources and put them all on the page and then you can use wikivoice. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Not Reliable Noam Chomsky is not specialist on the topic he is linguist and Marv Waterstone is Marxist geographer. The book is not academy publisher so its not WP:RS and clearly WP:UNDUE. And if its so clear there is no problem to find an academic source to source such facts Shrike (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Not generally reliable. In general, Chomsky's political writings are WP:BIASED and not scholarly (as opposed to his work on linguistics). They can at best be used as RSes for Chomsky's opinions, but not for factual claims. This specific book is not published by an academic press (per Shrike), and I don't see that the co-author—who speaks of himself as Marxist geographer (BIASED, once again)—has any expertise in labour history. So at best reliable for the author's opinions, provided that they are WP:DUE. JBchrch talk 17:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

While I probably agree that this should only be used for attributed opinion, suggesting a Marxist academic is biased merely because they are Marxist is entirely incorrect. All writers have political biases, right, left or centre. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I suggested at all. I do not think that Waterstone's writings were unreliable because he was a Marxist. What I said is that his scholarly work has an admitted Marxist perspective, per his own self-description. That is enough to designate it as WP:BIASED. And for the record, I would say the same of an economist who claims to be associated with the Austrian school, for example. JBchrch talk 20:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Is that opinion based on reading Chomsky? ~ cygnis insignis 23:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: Not sure what you're saying but Manufacturing Consent, A Companion to Chomsky, the Minimalist Program and Knowledge of Language are all within 10 feet of this keyboard. JBchrch talk 01:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a question inquiring what that personal opinion of Chomsky was based on, which so far is proximity to some titles. ~ cygnis insignis 02:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me know how many words and the deadline, professor. JBchrch talk 02:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Fifty, short answer form, but excluding the extraordinary amount of citations needed to support the assertion "Not generally reliable. In general, Chomsky's political writings are WP:BIASED and not scholarly". No deadline, there would be a lot of careful reading involved. ~ cygnis insignis 02:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Lol. JBchrch talk 02:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that Marxist geography is different from being a Marxist per se, and for all that not uncommon in the field. Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

OK if attributed. Chomsky is one of the most cited authors in the world. The definition of an unreliable source is not "I don't agree with what it says". Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

...which no one is arguing. JBchrch talk 21:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course they aren't. Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Please clarify what exactly you are implying here. JBchrch talk 01:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment It's important to note that Chomsky is simply stating what has been: a) widely repeated in RS since it was reported by the presidential commission on the cause and prevention of violence in America, and b) affirmed by other scholars since then. Here's a direct link to page 221 of the second source. M.Bitton (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

All the more reason to circumvent Consequences of Capitalism. At least Philip Taft was a labor historian. --SVTCobra 22:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Attribute According to this review it consists mainly of lectures they gave to their students in a course called "What Is Politics? (still doing it, apparently) so there is a standard of a sort there.Selfstudier (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

What is interesting is that the language is far stronger in the Philip Taft source (thanks for the link, M.Bitton) than the Chomsky/Waterstone source, which some here consider more biased. Nevertheless, so far it looks like a consensus is forming around attribute. I'm thinking something like this might work:

This is reasonable, no?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. Just noting—for the ideological profilers at home—that I would support a more assertive language if the Taft text was more recent. JBchrch talk 05:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The Chomsky and Waterstone book is not a reliable source. This is an empirical claim which has presumably been assessed by scholars across relevant disciplines (e.g. history, political science, sociology, economics), so there's no need to use low-quality sources. Here is a better source:[33] Adding quotes by Chomsky to the first paragraph in the lead of Labor history of the United States is not OK. It makes Wikipedia look bad when a partisan non-expert is flagged at the top of Wikipedia articles as if he were the main authority on the subject (imagine if Victor Davis Hanson or Jordan Peterson were cited like this in the lead on articles unrelated to their expertise). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a strong source. I would not object to swapping the Chomsky source for this one, and modify the language a bit to something like this: "According to labor historians, the U.S. has the most violent labor history of any industrialized nation". I think the Taft source should remain.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Reliable. It is standard to challenge Chomsky almost automatically because of his dour reading of history. No one doubts that in his works and interviews he customarily commands at his fingertips a detailed familiarity with the relevant historical literature. This particular remark is not an unusual claim, in any case.

‘From approximately 1873, the date which marks the peak of the post-Civil War revival of the American labor movement, until 1937, when the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Wagner Act, American labor suffered government repression that was probably as severe or more severe than that suffered by any labor movement in any other Western industrialized democracy. According to the foremost historians of American labor violence, the U.S. has had the “bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world.” An admittedly grossly underestimated tabulation of the number of casualties in labor disputes indicates over seven hundred deaths and thousands of serious injuries, almost all of which occurred in the 1973-1937 period.’(Robert Justin Goldstein Political Repression in Modern America, Shenkman (1978) Indiana University Press 2001 ISBN 978-0-252-06964-2 p.3 and for details pp.6-104, 195-208.(there’s a wiki stub on this, I see. Political Repression in Modern America).

Labor violence consisted predominantly of attacks on property; business and government violence consisted mostly of assaults on (striking) individuals by local police, state militia and federal troops. In comparative terms globally , the American labor movement figures as one of the least ‘ideologically militant’ in the developed world. So the ‘unusually ‘is fair in global perspective:

‘according to a leading historian of the American federation of Labor, with the possible exception of the metal and machines trades in France, employees in no other country “have so persistently, vigorously, at such costs and with such conviction of serving a cause, fought trade unions as the American employing class” and in no other Western democracy “have employees been so much aided in their opposition to unions by the civil authorities, the armed forces of government and their courts.’ (Goldstein p.4)

Indeed Michael Mann, in volume 2 of his magisterial The Sources of Social Power, Cambridge University Press 1993 p.407 (not linked. I have the work), citing the work of Goldstein and several others, states that, after repressing Indians on the frontier, and winning the Civil War, the United States army thereafter focused on ‘breaking up strikes and urban riots’.

It is rather annoying to see constantly how, every time Chomsky's work is cited, objections are raised as if he were a pariah, and, if a source is found saying identical things, that is promoted as a substitute. He writes history, in an analytical framework, and respectably so since, for example his Peace in the Middle East?, 1974. He like anyone else in the field, can make mistakes, but generally he writes with a thorough familiarity with the relevant historical literature. It's just that he is not a starry-eyed optimistic reader of the historical record. One should therefore cite a source like Goldstein, with Chomsky, and even Mann. 'According to' is not appropriate if the remark is, itself, not unique to that writer but relatively commonplace.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. I will add the Goldstein source to the article and then will remove "according to labor historians", as three citations should be sufficient enough for it to be presented as a statement of fact. I concur with your statements on the Chomsky/Waterstone source, but given that the consensus here is forming around attribution, I can see future edit conflicts arise with name-dropping Chomsky in the lead paragraph. I think it could be a good source for future additions to the body, however.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Because of how the above is worded, I feel compelled to point out that these sources involve authors writing in their credentialed field of expertise and with academic presses. JBchrch talk 19:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well strictly speaking, Mann is a sociologist, who history, just as Chomsky is a linguist who writes historical analyses.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Strictly strickly speaking, Mann does historical sociology. This is touched upon in the preface to Vol. 1 (2012 ed.), especially at pages viii-xii. There are some secondary sources on this as well. Again, the comparison does not hold. JBchrch talk 21:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Chomsky is a smart guy and an expert in his field. Just being smart does not make one an expert on all issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Not reliable If professional historians support a statement by a pop-historian then we should cite the professionals, if professional historians don't support a statement by a pop-historian then it shouldn't be included. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable The argument that Waterstone is "a Marxist geographer" as an argument against the subject being an academic expert in this subject shows a remarkable failure to understand Geography as a social science. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Similarly, this comment displays a remarkable failure to understand the arguments made above. JBchrch talk 20:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• I understand the arguments perfectly. But they're very tedious and basically boil down to "commies can't be trusted" so I'm treating them with an appropriate level of disdain. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• boil down to "commies can't be trusted" Proving the point. JBchrch talk 17:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution Chomsky is enough of a polarizing figure that his conclusions should be attributed, but he is also generally high profile enough that his conclusions are worth mentioning. --Jayron32 19:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Crunchbase Research Report

I know Crunchbase is not a valid source but I thought a report from them would be different. What do people think of https://about.crunchbase.com/cybersecurity-research-report-2021/ as a source? MaskedSinger (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It comes up with a chatbox asking if I need any help, in the manner of a consultancy attempting to sell its services. This would at absolute best only be as trustworthy a source as any such report from a consultancy attempting to sell its services - as the front page of about.crunchbase.com says, "Search Less. Close More. Grow your team with all-in-one prospecting solutions powered by the leader in private-company data." So not very suitable as a source. What was the article you were hoping to use it on? - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Thanks for getting back to me. I'm not quite sure what one has got to do with the other. For instance, one of the key report insights at the top of the report is The U.S. recorded 76% of all global cybersecurity funding in 2020, at $5.9 billion. You're saying this couldn't be added to Wikipedia with this report as a source because the chatbox wants to sell its services? It taints the facts cited in the report? I'm not trying to argue with you - just understand. MaskedSinger (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought my reply was quite clear as to the trustworthiness of a piece of marketing copy. You have also conspicuously failed to state which article you were thinking in terms of using this in.

More broadly, approximately 100% of usages of Crunchbase are commercial spam, and so far you're not giving any evidence this is any exception - David Gerard (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I thought you knew which article I was talking about. It was the one where you went and removed the deprecated source mentioning a Crunchbase report...MaskedSinger (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Playing coy like this is unlikely to convince anyone of your bona fides. Did the company suggest that link to you? - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Me coy? I would have answered you except you very clearly knew the page in question. When you asked again I wasn't sure if you were serious or not. I knew the page in question, I knew you knew the page in question and you probably knew I knew so what was there to gain by asking again? As for your question about the company suggesting I link to it - I'm not going to dignify that with a response. You're a much more established editor by a power of a million and I respect that, but this doesn't give you the right to be obnoxious. I found the link by doing research. Research I was doing when working out if there was enough material for a page. I was looking at List of unicorn startup companies - made a list of companies that don't have a page which I was going to create and I started with this one. The goal wasn't to be an all-encompassing definitive page. I just wanted to do enough to get accepted and then let anyone out there edit it as they saw fit. There needs to be a Wikipedia version of Poe's law where I deliberately didn't want the page to read as advertising/promotional and so this is what I was accused of. All I wanted was enough sources to establish its notability writing as little as possible. I have no problem with the review process for new pages being strict and for people being skeptical of my intentions. This is what every page should go through and if it's notable enough and the page is written well enough it should get by. FWIW, this Crunchbase reference doesn't matter one way or another. I've researched more and found other sources for the page but for the future, if you're going to be a source-czar try to keep an open-mind especially when the ban pertains to user-generated content and the source in question is not user generated content. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Discogs -- material backed by photos (typically discographies, track listings, and some credits)

Executive summary: the listing for Discogs at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is way off base and needs a serious update, regarding material backed by photos.

---

So, Discogs is listed at "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources" as "Generally unreliable" ("Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used... Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate"), and the blurb is "The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate."

This is entirely accurate and correct as far as it goes.

HOWEVER

The discographies and track listings, when backed up by photos (which is usual), are extremely reliable. The photos are 100% legit and what could be more reliable than a photo. Of course the labels could be wrong, but so could title pages of books etc. -- vanishingly rare. And track listing etc. are the primary, or anyway a major, use of the source.

For instance, here is the track listing for The Who Sell Out. I don't know who writes those, but they could be made up or just sloppy I suppose. However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listing (essentially 100% of the time) and also gives, usually, songwriting and producing credits and the catalog number etc. (There isn't a separate URL for the photos.) I haven't yet seen any record which doesn' have photos like this.

The back cover is sometimes shown too, which back covers are 100% reliable for their contents ("According to the liner notes, it was recorded at sea") and >99% for their statements ("It was recorded at sea") which is plenty reliable.

So, the rating and blurb is not true. 'We need to update the listing at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources I would say.

Exactly how I'm not sure. Since half of Discogs is essentially useless and half is really reliable, I'd split it into two lines. Not likely as we're hidebound here, so let's assume one line. We'd want to rewrite the blub ("...except for material, such as discographies, track listings, and credits, when backed by photographs") or whatever. Then the icon... probably should be changed to, I don't know, "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise", it' "areas of expertise" being record labels and jackets. There isn't an icon for "Half the material is essentially useless, and half is very reliable", so that's closest I guess.

Yes? Herostratus (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So I agree there's an issue here. Discogs is (1) a wiki made of user-generated content; (2) near-infallible in my experience, and a vastly more useful and trustworthy discography source than almost any edited redigestion. I'm not sure how to resolve this - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t this kinda how Wikipedia is, though? I don’t see an exemption for us citing our own good (or even featured) articles, for example, even though they have gone under peer review. Likewise, I don’t see a way around the problem of the reliability of sites that are user-generated with limited editorial oversight. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

well, precisely. OTOH, citing listings from photos on Discogs is basically citing the sleeves as sources, which we do - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listing Ok, so the source here is the labels on the disc and other information present on the album cover (the "liner notes"), and Discogs happens to host a picture of this source. Even though liner notes are a WP:PRIMARY source, I guess they are the most reliable source for information about an album. IMO a rough proposed amendment could be "Although the information on Discogs is user-generated content, Discogs often hosts pictures of an album's liner notes, which can be used as a source". JBchrch talk 20:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds not-bad to me. "as a WP:PRIMARY source" - David Gerard (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Heh. The division of sources into primary-secondary-tertiary was lifted partly from academic practice; we're a serious publication but not an academic one, and a pretty unique one, and it's not especially useful to us, and counterproductive to the extent that it's hammered into editors' heads that primary sources are bad. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If Discogs gets its content from its images of the album covers, labels, and liner notes, why cite Discogs as the source? The info may be cited directly from the albums using {{Cite AV media}}. Discogs is just being used as an image provider, and the image may linked directly with |url= (Discogs includes a "Permalink" for the actual image[34]) and identified with |via=Discogs for those needing proof. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is pretty much the argument I'm making. What do you think of adding these instructions in a footnote to the proposed text? JBchrch talk 19:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh dang I didn't see the permalink thing. So yeah that would be OK. Whatever works best. For my part I'd rather link to the Discogs page, because for one thing who is going to know about the photos (I didn't), and for another the Discogs page is formatted to be pleasing to humans (in theory anyway), while the photos aren't as easy to read. And the human-readable text is backed up by the photos.

But As long as we fix it that's all I care, I'll go along with anything. If you all want to recommend citing the photos directly, fine, whatever we can get agreed to and written up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources under the Discogs entry. I'm tired of people being like "You can't ref stuff to Discogs". Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, Discogs is very good for primary information: the stuff which can be lifted from a label or sleeve. For want of anything better, I imagine it's OK for details of parallel releases; though as I've never seen the need to use those, I've never checked. My concern is about Discogs hyperlinks, e.g. for songwriters and personnel (which, as a DABfixer, is what I usually find myself looking at). They generally seem good; but there's no guarantee that, say, the John Smith credited on a recording is actually the John Smith (57) or whoever at the other end of a hyperlink, and I prefer to have confirmatory evidence if I can get it. I treat biographical information as pure UGC, and never touch it (though it can be useful as confirmatory evidence). Narky Blert (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No, just cite the album jacket directly. Don't cite user generated photos/uploads. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Per Sergecross73, the citation is the album jacket itself. Discogs is a nice resource to find pictures of album jackets, but it should not be cited anymore than you would cite "Google Books" for a scan of a book, you cite the original work. --Jayron32 14:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes (yes!), but that means we also need a sea change in perception of discographical information. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people tag or blank discography sections for being "unsourced" - because people do not think of albums as published works (which they are) or things that act as sources of their own existence and content (just like a bibliography section). It is absolutely silly for us to have a line in a discography that reads "Foo Album (Foo Records, 1800)", and then an in-line citation to "Liner notes, Foo Album, Foo Records, 1800." But novice users find it absolutely irresistible to cite Discogs when this information is (typically frivolously) challenged in that way.

Another note, sort of following on David Gerard's comment above: all of this puts us in the unenviable position of telling people to look at Discogs all the time for basic discographical information (just as they would look at Google Books or a library catalog for bibliographic information), while also telling them they can never use it as a reference. That's a bit of Wikipedia pretzel-logic, but I suppose it will be consensus. Chubbles (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would argue Discogs is a means to verify any claims whenever liner notes are mentioned as a source. Users are providing scans/shots of published works. It's a self-published source in a way where caution is stressed on its reliability. – The Grid (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discogs is very useful, and where I always begin when I start album articles, but I agree with the previous discussion, consensus, etc. I generally cut and paste the song titles, for example, and then confirm via the images, and so often--or often enough--things are misspelled, out of order (even when accounting for specific releases/countries), missing symbols, etc. Or the song lengths don't match up to the images, so there's the discrepancy of the images being "correct", and the linked page being "wrong". Minor stuff, but I don't think it's any kind of burden to continue to cite the AV way, if necessary, or for Discogs to be under the external links, but am open to the discussion. To add a somewhat related wrinkle, I've come across a few times where the Discogs images are quite poor, or not there, and yet the eBay ones are great, ha... Caro7200 (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

R to JBchrch: Yes, it's basically the same point. I use Discogs and several other sites for their images and don't find them difficult to read. I believe it's preferable to cite the actual album notes as the source and remove any doubt about the accuracy of an unknown user gleaning the details themselves. As long as Discogs allows other info to be included along with the basic album note material without any idea of where it comes from, it cannot be considered a RS. There is also the problem of the large amount of advertising and unofficial video links that are potentially copyvio.

Maybe clarify your proposed amendment with something like "Discogs images of album covers, liner notes, etc., may be used for details about the release, but Discogs itself should not be cited as the source, since it includes other user-generated material". This may seem like nitpicking, but some editors feel that any use of UGC sites should be strongly discouraged.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright then, in the interest of a unified front, count me in too with instruction to cite only to the photos. It already warns about Discogs so the second sentence isn't necessary. We want to be both succinct and comprehensive, so I'll suggest that we just add something short like "...except for photographs" in the main body, then a Cnote link to a note at the bottom of the page where it lays out the details... how we are mostly talking about pics of covers and labels, how to use the the permalink button in Discogs, a recommendation of using the CiteAV template, a link to this discussion, and anything else needed. This is done often enough on rules pages.

Note that there's no requirement to cite track listings etc. We don't have to express an opinion on that one way or the other. If an editor is of the mind "I don't need a cite as the work itself is a cite", fine. IMO you're taking that chance that someone will come along and tag or delete the material as uncited but you can if you want. Discogs is there for if you want to cite. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Implementation

It seems like there is consensus that pictures hosted on Discogs may be used as primary sources, using the appropriate templates. I've boldly edited WP:DISCOGS the RSP entry for Discogs to reflect this: [35]. Feedback is welcome. (I have not added a link to this discussion since, as I understand it, this will have to be done once this discussion is archived.) JBchrch talk 19:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Discogs in the "auto-reject" bucket of any of the spam-fighting bots? We should change that if so. Chubbles (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It might even be possible to have most of the existing citations "repaired" (e.g., to use {{Cite AV media}} with a |via= to Discogs) by bot or AWB. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Before making such changes, there's another issue to consider: WP:LINKVIO. Does Discogs have the right to host these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discogs removes copyrighted images. JBchrch talk 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It may well. But there appear to be a significant number of images that are potentially still covered by copyright yet still posted there. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's entirely possible, but I would argue that if a website takes a commitment of this kind and creates a dedicated channel to report copyright infringement, we may assume that it's not hosting copyrighted material, and that LINKVIO is respected. Otherwise, links to Twitter, Facebook and Youtube—any UGC, really—would have to be nuked as well. JBchrch talk 04:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Er, no, we really can't assume that. See YouTube's entry at RSP - it would make sense to add something similar to its third sentence for Discogs. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course Discogs is hosting copyrighted images - tons and tons of them. But they are not doing so in violation of copyright, and the dedicated channel noted above is part of their obvious good-faith effort to respect copyright law. Chubbles (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

On what basis do you believe they are hosting tons and tons of copyrighted images but are not in violation of copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• See, you don't link, or even need to mention Discogs at all. If you're looking at a picture of the liner notes or track listing on Discogs, you cite the original liner notes. We don't cite "Google Books" if we're looking at a Google Books scan of a book, we cite the book itself. Same deal here. --Jayron32 13:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Right. Anyone who has UGC or potential copyvio concerns doesn't need to add the permalink link to Discogs nor mention it in via= (books are cited all the time without links/mentions of google). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

In the news (itnshow)?

I really tried searching for prior discussion but "in the news" is a hopeless search term.

My question is: everything about the site suggests it is untrustworthy, but I wanted a second opinion - it is not listed at RS/P.

Looking to potentially update the Sabrina De Sousa article (which has no information more recent than 2019) I came across this link.

So what is this site? Is it worth sitting through the video for information re de Sousa's recent activities (obvs her opinions on Gen Hayden are irrelevant)?

Feel free to link to prior discussion if there's nothing new to say. I just couldn't find anything and I would appreciate the simplicity of a RS/P red entry. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say you can quote her with attribution (as long as you cite the video with time stamps). If you are too lazy to even watch the video to find out if she did talk about her own 'recent activities', I don't think it is fair to ask other people to do so on your behalf. If she did, that would be WP:PRIMARY and that would have to be attributed, too. --SVTCobra 09:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Why assume bad faith on my part?! I wasn't asking you to watch the video for me. I am asking for general opinions on the itnshow.com web site's reliability. CapnZapp (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not reliable as a source for facts, but as with all interviews, it is reliable for the opinions of the person being interviewed. We can hear and see them speak in their own words. --SVTCobra 19:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay so we have one user (Cobra) who feels the site is Generally Unreliable (to use the RS/P) categories. CapnZapp (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC is the Bristolian a reliable source for Wikipedia?

The Bristolian’s slogan is “Smiter of the high and mighty”. It’s about page describes them as, “The Bristolian is a scandal sheet covering all sorts of shenanigans in the fine British city of Bristol.”

Our entry about the paper portrays a radical publication with strong left-wing partisanship. While I admire their commitment to free speech and holding the rich and powerful accountable, I have doubts over its general reliability as a source, particularly for contentious material in BLP articles.

Here’s my request for comment.

Is the current incarnation of The Bristolian (newspaper) a reliable source?

I have come up with the following options starting with what I think is the unlikeliest option.

• We grant the source full reliable source status at WP:RSP meaning editors can use it to satisfy notability, verifyability and contentious material.
• Full deprecation.
• We reach no consensus. We evaluate each use of the source on a case by case basis i.e the source might be ok for some Bristol related content but editors should use it with caution and find a better source for contentious material. The source cannot be used to demonstrate notability.
• Like similar publications such as The Canary (website) we treat the source as generally unreliable due to it’s hyperpartisanship.

I think the latter is the most sensible option but I look forward hearing everyone’s views.Ch1p the chop (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any concrete examples of how it has been used, is currently being used, or someone wants to use it in articles? Has it been previously discussed on WP:RSN? As the name implies, WP:RSP is for sources that keep being brought up in discussions, so there's very little point in listing something there "preemptively". –Ljleppan (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Times of India is not that pro-government as mentioned ?

There are many articles printed and created by TOI which are not pro-government., as:

Manipur woman's Ujjwala gas connection 'taken away' for joining Congress rally

Why BJP’s choice of Karnataka CM is being questioned

Is India staring at stagflation?

Hindutva will push Covid failures to background in UP polls

BJP arm-twisted Sirsa to join party, feared arrest: Sukhbir Singh Badal

Hypernationalists hyperventing over comedy riffs on India do great disservice to the country

Why campaign against 'halal' meat reeks of bigotry

The arrest of two HW News journalists for ‘instigating communal tensions’ is among a series of steps the police has taken, along with slapping UAPA, to crack down on people who wrote about the unrest

How to win foes and get reforms through? Learn from past PMs

The lawyer-activist spent three years in jail without trial

The way India’s ‘pro-poor’ democracy works empowers middle strata of society at the expense of those who are at the bottom of the heap.

Ex-armyman Mohammad Latif — who was given a bravery award in 2005 for killing a militant with his bare hands — wants justice for his son, Amir Magray, who was killed in an encounter in Hyderpora last week

A morality tale starring MSP and you

They have dedicated cartoon series printed on their newspapers which mocks all parties, politicians, celebrities, situations.

https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1465871969614581761

https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1464425829425815555

https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1463698407772491785

https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1461524450352922626

I have read the past discussions linked at WP:TOI.

Times Of India tries to cover almost every state, and not all of their work is done by their best journalists. There are some articles, news which appear only in TOI, so it might seem they publish non-notable news. But when they give coverage to some crime in a small unknown village, some interview by some local MLA, new upcoming actor, regional film producer, they are trying to cover maximum areas.

Those who have some experience reading TOI, they know which are reliable and which are not that important articles.

The articles where the name of the journalist is present and mentioned TNN are always created properly with verification.

Some of their sub-sections are not that reliable. Like regional non-Bollywood entertainment sections of Assamese, Odiya, Bengali, Punjabi, regional TV gossips, city sections like Agra, Ahmedabad, Bhubaneswar, and many other small cities. Even in these cases, all can't be termed as non-RS, as if the article is detailed along with the name of the journalist or interviewer being mentioned.

However, if it's related to serious crime, then they don't copy-paste from vernacular media but do their own investigation. TOI is not responsible for police', the witness' and victim's family statements, if they are found wrong due to fake complaints, wrong arrests by police. Knight Skywalker (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Knight Skywalker, if you want to change the entry at WP:TOI you will have to start a new RfC. Though, I am fairly certain that it's not going to end up much different and could possibly get it downgraded further. I'll point out some things about the examples though, as they are not representative of TOI's usual coverage; most of these are from TOI Plus which tends to have relatively better editorial quality, a significant number of them are just op-eds from guest author, some of these aren't even "not pro-government" and one of them is from the Mumbai Mirror which is not covered by the entry. It doesn't appear too pro-government compared to some of the more blatant news outlet which have gone off the far end, but you'll still find it occasionally reproducing what the government says, without attribution and accepting it as fact, even when they might include verifiable falsehoods. Personally, I think more than its pro-government tilt, its propensity towards sensationalism and undisclosed paid news is much more problematic. The most recent discussion on it highlighted a case where they copied from Wikipedia without fact checking, which is a citogenesis concern. That said, at present it can still be used, though largely for uncontentious information, I would not recommend it for things like serious crimes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

SFGate and Blake Treinen: Cause for concern?

I hope that I am in the right place, and I am not brewing a tempest in a teapot over this edit made a few months ago, but…

In October, an editor (Muboshgu, whom I have pinged) briefly added (Special:Diff/1049668090/next) claims that Blake Treinen (the Dodgers pitcher) "has promoted the views of a far-right crank who claims to be a "prophet of God," that Obama was secretly removed as President in 2010, that Trump is the true President, and that Jesus Christ has woken him up at night to tell him things - that he cannot share at this time, due to national security reasons", citing an SFGate article (not an opinion piece) as their source. The edit was quickly reverted by the editor themselves, who discussed the matter in the article's talk page.

While the talk page discussion has long subsided, I am wondering whether we can count this incident against SFGate's reliability as a Wikipedia source. In my opinion, the piece sounds like a smear campaign against Treinen, with him only mentioned marginally, and I only found some of its content true (although it could simply be because I don't want to go into political pages like the ones SFGate linked).

If this matter wasted your time, I apologise. Otherwise, thank you.

NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. The reason why I did not raise the issue immediately is because I was on Wikibreak at that time.

I did not add that content. Ac94133 did, an IP deleted it, and I reflexively reverted the IP. After the revert, I decided that the IP wasn't necessarily engaging in blanking/deletion of content, but challenging BLP content, so I self-reverted. There is nothing about SFGate that isn't reliable. Discussion at Talk:Blake Treinen#Prophet of God article petered out without any conclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. While I have already noted the fact that "Discussion at Talk:Blake Treinen#Prophet of God article petered out without any conclusion" before your reply, I am sorry to not have had a more thorough understanding of the situation. Sorry for wasting your time. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• SFGate is the online outlet for the San Francisco Chronicle. An old newspaper and an old online news source. You will need some pretty strong evidence to suggest this is not reliable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Do you have a specific reason to think that they're wrong / unreliable in this case? These are plainly WP:BLP-sensitive claims and would require high-quality sourcing. And while SFGate is reasonably high-quality, you could argue that if only one source has covered it then it is WP:UNDUE. But that wouldn't change the underlying reliability of SFGate, it would just affect our decision about whether to include or exclude this specific material - a source making the decision to cover something that other sources don't doesn't inherently make them less reliable as long as what they're covering is true and accurate. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. And just adding that being woken up by figures happens in the sane, but can be misinterpreted as something else, or just be a false claim... —PaleoNeonate – 13:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of protothema

How should protothema.gr be classified?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

Currently, protothema.gr is being used 201 times through en.WP [36] Cinadon36 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey (protothema)

• Close/withdraw. RSP-itis again. This noticeboard is for discussing reliability in context, and these RfCs should only be for "perennial" sources. If there are specific content questions, then just raise them. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (protothema)

I am re-posting what I have posted earlier in this noticeboard, but got not replies.[37]

Proto Thema is not a reliable source in my opinion. It can be found 205 times across en.WP [38] There is sensationalism, lack of accuracy and their fact are not regularly checked.

• A report for European Commission, posted by prof Anna Triandafyllidou (see also here) is devastating for ProtoThema. You can download the report from here
• Media Bias Fact Check has a small essay on protothema.gr that supports the above view. [39]
• Fact checking site Ellinika hoaxes has 188 entries on protothema.gr. [40] Ellinika Hoaxes is the sole Greek fact-checking org listed on WP:IFCN's signatories list
• Another report (on greek media coverage of covid pandemic) shows the inadequate verifiability of protothema articles (see page 9 and esp page 14 use of links [41])

Worth noting that Protothema ranks among the biggest news portals in Greece in terms of articles posted per day and traffic. (see discussion here [42])

Poor fact checking plus sensationalism means does not stand against WP criteria for RS. I think it should be included at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with the indication "Generally unreliable" Cinadon36 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Having reviewed all of the material you present, I am unable to get a grip on what they do wrong. The report from Triandafyllidou doesn't demonstrate a lack of fact checking and accuracy. Specifically, it is only about immigration, and while it makes it clear the paper is biased, and does not " reflect migration related diversity and promote migrant integration," that's not relevant. Media Bias Fact Check is terrible and I have not reviewed it, because it is worthless. I cannot read greek - if there is a specific hoax they are accused of hoaxing, that would be relevant data. Reviewing pages 6 and 14 of that subreport, the mentions of Protothema include them not taking the Coronavirus seriously... In January of 2020, and that they used... hyperlinks in Feb of 2020. Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Per the above, MBFC is not a reliable or well-respected fact-checking service in the journalism world. Legitimate journalism organizations don't think too highly of it, and we should not either. See WP:MBFC. --Jayron32 17:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: exclude MBFC, other citations indicate poor fact checking, and there is no indication pointing that it is reliable or accurate. @Hipocrite: regarding fact checking, Triandafillidou marks the site as "medium". It relies on official reports and does not regularly cross check data. Is that enough for WP? I think not. Moreover, rest of the report shows that professionalism is lacking. Anyway, fact checking site ellinika hoaxes has many entries on protothema.gr. There are 188 articles/hoaxes regarding protothema.gr. Report on Covid pandemic, I think it could be ok not taken seriously back in very early 2020, but misinforming on vaccines indicates lack of accuracy. Cinadon36 08:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Having looked twice now, I am not seeing any actual claim of fake news. Could well be an issue but unless OP can provide specific links to specific instances, not really sure there is anything actionable here. Slywriter (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Slywriter: I thought I provided a link but I now see it does not really works, so here:
  • it was reported that 1 million ppl in Gr has been vaccinated, but it was not true
  • photos of horses during a fire in Greece, they were photos from California and Australia (but it was not stated in the article)
  • four foods that can exterminate SARS-Cov-2, but the study was not even conducted in guinea pigs
  • illegal immigrants take down a Greek flag, but in reality, they were French students visiting the island
  • 11 month old baby dies of marijuana overdose, but that was not the case, even though there was a temporal relationship.
  • Talibans decapitated female volleyball athlete member of the national team but she was not decapitated, and she was not a member of the national team
  • There are ~261 fake news spotted at Ellinikahoaxes. Should I post more? Cinadon36 20:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • For at least one of those, volleyball, a look at the live page of the website shows they corrected the record and stated were mistaken [[43]]. Corrections are a good thing, so I am not sure they merit such drastic action as being deemed unreliable. A second look, vaccinations, shows the live article does not contain the one million vaccinated language [[44]]. Honestly, I find the source of these concerns, Elinnikahoaxes, to be a troubling as their claims seem to be snapshots that do not reflect if corrections are made. Slywriter (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Regarding the death of the volleyball player Mahjabin Hakimi, notice that protothema does not admit that it published an article containing fault facts. Yes, Ellinikahoaxes uses snapshot to prove the validity of their claim. I do not think that they shouldn't be doing so.. The overall argument is that protothema.gr does not fact check the claims/facts it publishes. Ellinikahoaxes has many examples, and Triantafillidou makes a similar case. I think the case for considering protothema as unreliable, stands strong. Cinadon36 22:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
        • But it does, twice. Once in the body saying previous reports of beheading were wrong and italicized text at the bottom that says "this article has been corrected...". Slywriter (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
          • It doesnt say "previous reports". It says "Ενώ αρχικά είχε μεταδοθεί ότι αποκεφαλίστηκε, αυτό δεν ισχύει." meaning "While it was initially announced that she was beheaded, that is wrong" It doesn't clarify by whom it was initially announced. Last line is "Το άρθρο έχει διορθωθεί σύμφωνα με τι πολιτικές του Facebook" meaning "the article has been corrected according to Facebook policies". Doesn't clarify which article. And what Facebook has to do with it? Strange wording. Nowhere does it says "our article was wrong" Cinadon36 22:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
            • Let's try a different approach, can you point to an article on wikipedia where the site is being used to support a false statement? Slywriter (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)