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

Russian propaganda telegram channels

User:Alexiscoutinho insists on using Russian propaganda channels from Telegram as a source [1]. When I tried to remove these (a good bit of info was double cited anyway) I was told to, quote, “get over it”.

This particular channel specifically was anonymous, until an outside investigation revealed its ties to Wagner Group’s Yevgeny Prigozhin (yes, the mercenary group full of neo Nazis, who then mutinied against Putin etc.). The administrators of the channel have repeatedly made false claim, including who they were, putting forth fake identities.

The administrators of the channel themselves have said that “They work(…) in the field of information warfare and counterpropaganda in the name of the interests of the Russian state.” [2]

Call me crazy but that does not appear to be anywhere close to being a reliable source, and an editor who insist on using such sources probably should be kept away from the topic area altogether. Volunteer Marek 21:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

We can't trust Wikipedians individual judgement with anonymous Telegram posts like this. This is what journalism is for. Basically zero reason to ever cite Telegram directly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

There were better ways to fix that issue instead of just deleting everything like that without any discussion. I've mostly used it as a support source together with ISW reports in that cities list page to explain specific dates when the ISW wasn't really clear about them in the reports. If one requested for me to substitute them, I could do it no problem when I had the extra time. Your assessment should take into account this context and my history of helpful edits in that page. Please don't fall in the "witch hunt" trap. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You are over generalizing this. Despite all those problems, which I'm not going to deny because I don't know them very well, it is still a generally reliable source for territorial changes. And I'm not talking about the Wikipedia definition of reliable, I'm talking about the common sense/casual usage of the word. I follow that channel and ISW's reports almost daily and I can attest that those sources go inline with each other almost all the time. There's been a long time that I don't hear something (territorial changes) that Rybar said that was debunked by ISW. When they diverge, it's usually when there isn't a lot of geolocated footage constraining the maps. Rybar is also one of the most conservative Russian milbloggers when it comes to territorial changes. In fact, he was one of the few if not the only one who originally denied the Russian claim that Marinka was captured on December 1. So yeah, I understand your point that he isn't the best source for Wikipedia main space articles, that's why I put {{bsn}} in the battle page, but in that list page I really don't see a problem. In fact, I don't even think the RS guideline really applies to such pages. It was never really meant to be perfect and it will probably be deleted in the future when all the info contained in it goes to the individual mainspace articles. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not “over generalizing” anything. Very specifically and particularly, Rybar, a self proclaimed Russian nationalist propaganda channel, is not reliable source. I don’t know what “common sense” or “casual” definition of reliable source you have in mind, but that’s actually irrelevant as on Wikipedia we have an established policy, WP:RS and this source doesn’t satisfy it. Not even in the least.

Of course WP:RS applies to such pages. We’re getting into WP:CIR territory here. Volunteer Marek 21:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That page was never meant to fully conform to Wikipedia's quality standards. It's a fast paced page aimed to help the map Module. When the war is over, it will probably be deleted. When the situation of each battle cools down, those citations could all be substitutes with actual reliable sources. I've done that multiple times in battle articles (the battle of Marinka is the only exception that I remember because I was simply confident that when the ISW report comes withing a few hours it would fully confirm those claims). I could be wrong, in which case I would obviously correct it, but that seems quite unlikely as geolocated footage exists and clearly confirms the claim. When the report comes, I planned to substitute it with the report as source, hence the correct usage of {{bsn}} to portray the temporary nature of that citation. Going back to the list page, even if those Rybar citations weren't substituted when better sources were available, it wouldn't be a problem because most entries are deleted anyways when the frontline moves far away from those villages and cities. Thus, I think you guys are overblowing the proportion of this and also not "assuming good faith". Dialogue is always a good first step when you find something wrong, not accusing others of "pushing propaganda" and threatening to sanction the editor. About the "get over it" comment, I'm sorry about that, what motivated it was the shock of such a huge revert without notice/warning. Once again, I think "assuming good faith" there and starting a dialogue there would have been the best action. Also note that several editors there showed no concern with those edits of mine for months. Thus I was quite "angry" at your bold revert. Once again, it doesn't justify the "get over it", but I hope you understand where I (that mindset) was comming from. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If a "page was never meant to fully conform to Wikipedia's quality standards", then it shouldn't be part of Wikipedia; it's that simple. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not a repository for breaking news, not a collection of primary sources. Verifiability is one of our pillars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Deprecate Russian telegram as they are never reliable, and should not be used for ANYTHING. Andre🚐 21:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

All rules/guidelines exist for a reason/motif. Simply repeating/parroting it for any and all contexts doesn't seem very helpful and productive. Please familiarize yourself with the context. But with that being said though, I am indeed willing to stop using it from now on there if it indeed is deemed unfit (after a proper analysis of context). But I vehemently disagree with any form of sanction ignoring WP:AGF. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous Telegram channels obviously can not be used as reliable sources. Sometimes these "Z military correspondents" channels get referred to by reliable sources (not by sources which only report social media), then I guess they can be mentioned. Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you even know the context of those edits? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS applies to all mainspace pages. Andre🚐 21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Literally nothing on Telegram would be a reliable source, nor would anything on any other social media outside of BLPs in an WP:ABOUTSELF piece of info or, in rare occasions, official news accounts on social media reporting on something. Other than that, anything on social media would not be reliable unless a reliable source, such as the news, reports on it. And, in those cases, you would be citing the news article instead. Silverseren^C 21:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with the other editors here: Telegram channels like these are certainly not RS (and I'm strugglng to think of any "context" that would make these acceptable). Look for reliable secondary sources (like Reuters) instead. Neutrality^talk

• Guys, I know Telegram in general is not a RS according to Wikipedia guidelines. Please consider the context of where they were used. That page is a dynamic and fast paced list and pretty much all information there is temporary (settements far from the frontline are deleted and the whole page will probably be deleted when the war is over and individual main space articles are created). It is also not linked in any article and its only purpose, afaik, is to support the map Module, as a "writing board" (because it's much better to use wikitext and tables instead of writing citations and keeping track of historic changes in Lua comment strings). With that being said, I think the most adequate solution would be to make that page an exception/make it exempt from these more rigorous RS rules (i.e. let those lesser sources be usable, but obviously recommend substituting them with better sources when available). The map template doc itself said something like "big claims require great evidence", but no "big claims" were made there using only these "unreliable" sources (these big claims are kept as wikitext comments, check them yourselves). With all this in mind, I don't see a reason to make such "a big fuss" over this. I already give preference to citing ISW anyways. Thanks. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think someone should add “…not a OSINT aggregator” to WP:NOT. Yes, that’s a more general problem with some of these articles. But regardless, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we stick with our WP:RS policy. Volunteer Marek 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

But regardless That's the problem, you don't want to consider the context. It's like a judge who already has a veredict in mind and just applies the sentence without even looking at the evidence and defender's statements. That's just applying rules for the sake of applying them. It doesn't make Wikipedia any better because nobody is even reading that page (just editors) and because the map will still be the same (it doesn't show references for each marker). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no rule on RS only applying to readers, not editors. I understand what you're saying that it's for internal use, but if that's the case, create a page in Project space or User space. Andre🚐 00:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright. One last doubt, does purposely keeping the {{unreliable}} banner on that page make it exempt from these more rigorous rules? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No, those are cleanup tags. They don't exempt articles from policy, especially one as fundamental as this. They exist to provide cleanup tasks in a maintenance queue. By putting that tag, you're telling a volunteer to COMEFIXIT. Andre🚐 01:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Quite aside from that Alexis, we shouldn't be providing readers an off link to a source of propaganda that is unreliable, as a reference let alone any kind of external link. I'm not saying you need a sanction or anything for this, just please adjust and move on accordingly, there's a clear consensus not to use Telegram links from Russia for anything, and I wonder if we should consider adding them to the spam blocklist. Andre🚐 00:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

👍 Thanks for the well rounded response. I mostly agree, but there is a caveat/I have a question: we shouldn't be providing readers what readers? That page is not really meant to be accessed by readers. It's more like a dev/internal page. For us editors, being shown such questionable sources is not potentially harmful in any way. We as editors know how to treat those sources and we know their limitations. Already answered above Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You write that the list is “dynamic and fast paced” and “pretty much all information there is temporary.” But that’s not a reason to suspend, or even loosen, application of our RS policy. In fact, the whole point of the RS policy is to be conservative: if a reliable source is not available, we simply don’t cover it in the encyclopedia. Put differently, it’s better to be slow and deliberate — to wait for sources to develop — than to rush (and thus risk inaccuracy, or even the appearance of unreliability). Neutrality^talk 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

👌 I've already addressed the issue. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• In no way is this a reliable source. Wait until independent reliable sources pick it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with everyone above that such Telegram channels are not RS, but there is a wider issue. I think that after Russian 2022 war censorship laws, which resulted in a significant number of convictions, all sources published in Russia starting from 2022 are not RS on the subjects related to wars conducted by Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Mega claim. You can't just generally try to sanction all sources from a country. Don't forget that Ukrainian sources are also censored. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  We routinely deprecate sources that are simply mouthpieces for repressive states. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Correct, but their point isnt wrong that we cant blanket sanction all sources from a country. Case by case, if they are acting as mouthpeices of any state we can and should sanction. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  While we don't have an article about it, the Ukrainian government has imposed quite a lot of restrictions on the media as well (see here). It doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them at all. Our editors can and should exercise judgement and decide whether a given source is reliable for a specific claim. For the avoidance of doubt, anonymous telegram channels are certainly not reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 08:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. But, as usual, we can cite secondary RS that cited such Telegram channels. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek and Business Insider (low quality mainstream news sources) have occassionally used Rybar as a source, with a pinch of salt. Where they have done, I guess there might be a reason to cite them, with clear attribution, but we should never cite Rybar directly. Some background: https://en.thebell.io/pro-war-media/ https://thebell.io/unmasking-russia-s-influential-pro-war-rybar-telegram-channel https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/11/18/who-s-behind-rybar https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/11/19/the-bell-releases-the-name-of-the-creator-of-telegram-channel-rybar https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/10/14/russian-military-command-complains-about-fake-news-from-pro-kremlin-war-bloggers https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-war-report-pro-kremlin-telegram-channels-twist-iaea-words/ https://www.ndc.nato.int/research/research.php?icode=794 BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Social media outlets are self-published channels and are not used as sources in wikipedia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know on what planet any competent editor could ever consider anything on Telegram to be reliable save for WP:ABOUTSELF and even then I'd have really big doubts given the difficulty with verifiability and services like Telegram. I was recently doing some NPP on a article about a Kurdish neo-Nazi group and the article was littered with links to Telegram and I didn't think twice about removing every last one of them even though it could have been argued that they might pass WP:ABOUTSELF precisely because of my concerns about verifiability. TarnishedPath^talk 11:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, outside of a few edge cases mentioned by others that do not appear to be met here, nothing from a telegram channel can be considered a WP:RS.

If it is actually important and verifiable information, it would have been reported by a reliable source. FortunateSons (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

http://www.genocid.lt/Leidyba/1/arunas1.htm

can anyone give me a read on this source? I am going inclined to say yes, because the author is an expert, but I am not and possibly this is a forum, and Holocaust in Eastern Europe is definitely a contentious topic. I will probably have other questions btw. The sentence is was formed by the German occupation government and was subordinate to Einsatzkommando 9 and later to Sicherheitsdienst (SD) and Sicherheitspolizei (Sipo) in Ypatingasis būrys. Thank you all.Elinruby (talk)

It would definitely need attribution at least, as the author and this work specifically have been accused of revisionism of the holocaust. If possible I would find a better source. No comment on the specific details, I'll let someone with more knowledge of the area step in. Also you signature needs a timestamp, otherwise the talk page reply function doesn't work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I would not consider this a reliable source on Lithuanian collaborationism. There are far better sources to cite. (t · c) buidhe 02:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

open to suggestions for alternatives, but I mostly agree. The problem is that there are a lot of accusations in the area, including of both the Polish and the Lithianian national archives. It's marginally better than what it replaced, but that is a very low bar. The part about "subordinate to Einsatzkommando 9" seems uncontroversial but its formation is also attributed to the Provisional Government, thus the caution. If all else fails I will report both with attribution. When I am back at that page I will take another shot at this. Ypatingasis būrys seems to have three different origin stories so far.

Apart from Bubnys, though, what about the website? That's the real question. Lithuanian Holocaust wiki-articles seem to rely on it pretty heavily and there may ube an uproar if I remove all references to it at once. Can anyone verify that it is in fact a forum? that apparently mirrors archivist articles? Elinruby (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

My comment was on the author and the work that your link is an excerpt from. If the only source for a detail is a work criticised for its Holocaust revisionism, that details is best left out. The website and organisation itself seems to suffer from the same problem, and criticism of it are not hard to find. Attribution isn't enough in instances like this, as it's verges on false balance. This isn't to say the Polish sources are necessarily better, see the last discussion about IPN for instance. I can find complaints from Holocaust organisation about it dating back at least to 2019, might be that earlier work was less og an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I am struggling with. Several wikipedia articles come across as extended apologia, and that's after giving Bubnys credit for having some of the receipts. As for the Polish pogroms, check out Jedwabne pogrom; some of the statements about it at the last Arbcom case were scathing. It doesn't begin to meet the sourcing requirements for Poland, for a start, and that's after featuring in an Arbcom case. The ones that haven't been touched in a while are quite a bit worse. I take it the forum doesn't especially even meet RS let alone academic sourcing. I was checking because it superficially resembles a Science-Po database that I think does. But yes, I am aware of the criticism of Bubnys, and have been looking at alternate sources for some of the articles that rely on him extensively, more than would be healthy for any author. In other news the sourcing requirement for Lithuania looks like it is passing with 7 supports and 2 abstentions Elinruby (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree sourcing in the area is problematic, sometimes extremely so, but the solution isn't balancing Holocaust revisionism with other Holocaust revisionism. If there isn't any reliable sourcing, the best case could just be to leave out those details. The Lithuania case looks to be a good addition for the subject ares. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I know that's the answer, but the answer isn't satisfactory. We have an article heavily cited to an out of print, not-online source in Polish, that calls a man a war criminal, although no other source does as far as I can tell, and another article about the same man, largely cited to Bubnys, that calls him the most important figure of the country's resistance. I realize I am whining. Working on the other-source theory. Tell me these accusations of revisionism come from somewhere other than the IPN though? Elinruby (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No it was Jewish and Holocaust remembrance organisations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

ok thanks that helps Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: A reminder about sourcing requirements in a topic that I think includes this article. It means if this source is removed it cannot be replaced without full consensus. All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933–1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Two branches of the same tree: OW-JP-AH and WCE-WRD/WCD

Operation World, Joshua Project and Asia Harvest

Asia Harvest (https://www.asiaharvest.org/) is an American Christian missionary organisation focusing on Asia and especially on China. They produce extremely detailed (and overestimated) fantasy statistics about Christians for each one of the smallest administrative divisions of the country.

Let's take, for example, the purported 2020 statistics for Shanghai (https://www.asiaharvest.org/christians-in-china-stats/shanghai). As you can see, they extrapolate absolute numbers on the basis of the very same percentage values for the total population numbers of most of the districts, and then the resulting numbers are divided according to the various statistical subcategories. Amongst the numbers in the tens of subcategories, they cite sources for only three of them, and they are some journals (probably missionary journals) dated to 1990, 1991 and 1992, while the general data are presented as being dated to 2020. The source for some of the totals is, otherwise, Operation World (https://operationworld.org/), "the definitive volume of prayer information about the world", associated with the Joshua Project, which is already classified as unreliable in the WP:RSP list.

I propose that Asia Harvest and Operation World be added to the Joshua Project entry in the WP:RSP list. Besides, on the Wikipedia article about Operation World it is written that the subject is related to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the predecessor of what is now published as the World Christian Database and World Religion Database, themselves thoroughly discussed in 2018 and 2022-2023, and listed in WP:RSP. Æo (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I ping Erp who raised doubts about the extreme precision of WCD/WRD data in the abovementioned 2022-2023 discussion, since the same argument applies to this case. Æo (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Besides, on the Wikipedia article about Operation World it is written that the subject is related to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the predecessor of what is now published as the World Christian Database and World Religion Database, themselves thoroughly discussed in 2018 and 2022-2023

The meaning of this point is somewhat lost on me. According to the close of the linked 2023 discussion, There is no consensus to deprecate these sources (bolding added). If consider Asia Harvest or Operation World is/are affiliated with/comparable to the WCE as a source, that would suggest not deprecating them, but instead merely advising editors to use them with prudence while favoring, where available, stronger, more certainly reliable sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

They are clearly not the very same as the WRD/WCD (which is nonetheless questionable, and this is why it is in the perennial sources' list and the closing statement also says that there is rough consensus to attribute it and prefer better sources), at least according to what I have been able to find, although they cross-reference to each other (it is unclear to what extent). Asia Harvest and Operation World are on the other hand directly related to the Joshua Project, which is classifed as unreliable in the perennial sources' list: The Joshua Project is an ethnological database created to support Christian missions. It is considered to be generally unreliable due to the lack of any academic recognition or an adequate editorial process. The Joshua Project provides a list of sources from which they gather their data, many of which are related evangelical groups and they too should not be used for ethnological data as they are questionable sources.. Æo (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum:

• In The Ethos of Operation World we can read the following statement: We pray that these statistics and prayer points present a reasonably balanced account of what God is doing in our world and of the challenges facing us as we press on to complete the Great Commission. Apart from Operation World, only the World Christian Database/World Religions Database shares our ambition (folly?) in attempting so massive a task as compiling a comprehensive body of data relating to the world’s religions, denominations, and churches, as well as to the progress of the Great Commission.. Here, Operation World and the WRD/WCD are clearly defined as confessional, evangelical entities working together for the "progress of the Great Commission", which is unclear whether it refers to the doctrinal concept or to the American fellowship of evangelical groups which disbanded in 2020.
• In this paper by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, some of whose members are also the editors of the WRD/WCD, on pp. 16-17 the methodologies of the latter are compared to those of Operation World.

Æo (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for this, but you seem to be saying two different things simultaneously. First you say that They are clearly not the very same (bolding added); then you say they are clearly defined as confessional, evangelical entities working together (bolding added). Are they together, or are they not; and in either case, why is that a reason for depreciation of Asia Harvest (which is the source I thought was under discussion).

In any case, it is not so clear to this reader as it is to you. The Ethos statement does not seem like evidence of organizational collaboration. Rather, it reads as an observation that they share a field of study: both are attempts at compiling a comprehensive body of data relating to the world’s religions, denominations, and churches. To use another example, both Michael Burlingame and Ronald White shared the ambition (folly?) in attempting so massive a task as narrating the life of Abraham Lincoln in single-volume biographies. But they were not collaborators.

As for the "Christianity in its Global Context, 1970–2020" document, the comparison drawn is moreover a contrast, pointing out how Operation World's definitions of "evangelical" inflate their numbers compared to the World Christian Database.

Finally, simply as a note, you emphasize connections between GCTS faculty and the World Christian Database but have left out how World Christian Database is published by Brill, an academic publisher that employs editorial and peer review. (Likewise, World Christian Encyclopedia was published by Oxford University Press, also an academic publisher that employs editorial and peer review.) That, plus their relative contemporaneity (as both were published in the twenty-first century) instills a great deal of confidence in WCD and WCE as sources.

In any case, this has been a digression. The posted discussion at hand pertains to Asia Harvest and Operation World, which have different publishers and different traits. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It is ascertained that WCE and OW originated as two branches of the same tree, and that they maintain some connections, as hinted to in the statement above about the "Great Commission" and underlined especially in the sentence in that paper Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background which I have quoted below (17:04, January 2 addendum): There has been a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information among Operation World ... and the World Christian Encyclopedia. This is what I meant, and I am still investigating to find further, clearer evidences. Besides, AH and OW appear to be related as well, given that the few references showed by AH are mostly to OW statistics, and in turn OW is clearly connected to the Joshua Project (they are authored/edited by the same person, Patrick Johnstone), which is acknowledged to be a completely unreliable source.

Amongst the many discussions about the JP, read this 2008 one, which was particularly animated (and which highlights that already back then there were strange waves of spamming of this type of sources, as I myself noticed more recently); some quotes: [JP is] a very aggressive evangelistic project. ... Linking or even mentioning this project on this kind of scale should be considered as fundamentalist Christian spam. (Jeroenvrp); All links to the Joshua Project should be deleted immediately and without question. The information on the site is often original research and totally incorrect. It is not a reliable source at all. The fact that someone can't find alternative information on Google is no excuse: get out of your chair and head to a library. (Caniago); Here is another example which illustrates the sort of disinformation they are spreading. They invented a whole range sub-ethnic groups of the Javanese ethnic group, yet there are no published academic sources (in books or peer reviewed papers) which mention these sub-ethnic groups at all. There are a plethora of other examples of their disinformation if you compare their website against reliable sources. (Caniago); The project site is not an academic source. ... The Joshua Project has an religious agenda. Anyone should agree on that. This is very clear on the site and not even that, it is also very offensive. Not only for people of these ethnic groups, but for anyone who condemn these kind of aggressive evangelisation practices. I even find it very scary how they present the data (e.g. see the column "Progress Scale"). It's like: "evangelism meets the Borg". ... The data on the Joshua Project is unreliable, like others before me have proved. ... Information from the English Wikipedia is easily translated to other Wikipedia projects. Although people who translate should double check these kind of sources, unfortunately sources like the Joshua Project are spreading like a virus to those other projects. That's why I am here now, because I noticed the Joshua Project was listed as a source on the Dutch Wikipedia and learned that they came from here. So know your responsibility! ... To conclude this: I am not accusing individual Wikipedians for "fundamentalist Christian spamming". No, what I mean that on a larger scale it's "fundamentalist Christian spamming". (Jeroenvrp); There are no cases where there Josuha project is the best source of data. A bunch of evangelical missionaries are the last people who can be trusted to present non-biased reliable ethnic data; the examples we have given proven the case. (Caniago).

Regarding the fact that some of the sources we are discussing here (WCE and its successors) have been published by renowned publishing houses, this does not make them reliable. This was already pointed out in the 2022-2023 discussion. The "peer review" and "editorial process" is very often carried out by people belonging to the very same agenda and organisations (those American evangelical organisations). Take for instance the paper Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background that I quoted below: it was written by D. A. Miller, peer reviewed/edited/co-authored by Patrick Johnstone of the WEC International, and published on the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion founded by Rodney Stark (known for his publications which were very supportive of Christianity); the journal's editorial board includes Massimo Introvigne, whose CESNUR and related publications are themselves currently listed as unreliable in the WP:RSP list (and I personally consider CESNUR, or at least some of its publications, as much more reliable than the sources we are discussing here). Regarding the fact, and the problem, that the WCE and its successors have been published as seemingly academic resources, there are some further considerations expressed in a recent critical essay which I will cite and quote in a separate section below (cf. #World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database). Æo (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that CESNUR and its related publications are more reliable than the assessment listed on Wikipedia's current Perennial Sources page would suggest. I think the generally unreliable characterization is inaccurate and that the academic field of religious studies has a much more favorable impression of CESNUR than Wikipedia's Perennial Sources page does.

Patrick Johnstone was not a peer reviewer of "Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census". Blind peer review means the reviewer is anonymous. Johnstone and Duane Miller are listed co-authors of the paper. The two peer reviewers would have been two other scholars whose identities neither of us know.

Your impression that renowned publishing houses like Brill and Oxford University Press are somehow being subverted by a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus of the field of religious demography stretches this editor's credulity. The peer review process is more robust than that.

That information is shared between World and WCE does not necessarily make one unreliable merely because the other is. Different sources can use the same raw data to arrive at different conclusions, such as how WCE and Operation World arrive at quite different total numbers, projections, etc.

In any case, I think that an earlier comment in this discussion from Erp rings true: for this particular discussion, we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. There is not a consensus between us about WCE or WCD or WRD. Maybe there can yet be a consensus between us about Asia Harvest and Operation World. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with P-Makoto: "Your impression that renowned publishing houses like Brill and Oxford University Press are somehow being subverted by a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus of the field of religious demography stretches this editor's credulity. The peer review process is more robust than that." There is no evidence that the process is somehow compromised and is just speculation. Borders on conspiracy theory actually. In fact they show divergence of data too per already quoted differences in numbers in the sources. They are not equivalent or the same. I also agree that we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto, I never wrote about "a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus" and are trying to subvert academic publishers. Apart from this, you wrote that the Ethos statement does not seem like evidence of organizational collaboration, but the statement in the Miller & Johnstone paper clearly tells us about a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information. Also re-read Erp's comment below, with an excerpt from the Operation World book (2010 edition, p. 25) telling us that ... the Joshua Project List, the World Christian Encyclopedia and a handful of other resources are at the heart of this information, which is both fuel for prayer and data for mission strategy, and on that page the discourse of the author is general, about the shared project in which OW, the JP and the WCE are all actors. In my opinion, there is enough evidence to affirm that the WCE and the OW, and their affiliated projects, are still closely related. The discussion about the WCE and its successors, however, continues below (cf. #World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database). Æo (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding P-Makoto, I never wrote about:

You wrote that Regarding the fact that some of the sources we are discussing here (WCE and its successors) have been published by renowned publishing houses, this does not make them reliable. This was already pointed out in the 2022-2023 discussion. The "peer review" and "editorial process" is very often carried out by people belonging to the very same agenda and organisations (those American evangelical organisations) (bolding added). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The next question is the reliability of "Operation World", multiple editions by Patrick Johnstone and Jason Mandryk with the latest being the 7th edition, published 2010, plus a web site. It is explicitly a prayer guide and does not seem to be peer reviewed. I note in reference to the Joshua Project that Operation World's website states: "The Joshua Project is our default site for people group information." https://operationworld.org/prayer-resources/helpful-resources/ Looking at the google preview of the book has "...Joshua Project List, the World Christian Encyclopedia and a handful of other resources are at the heart of this information" Given the dependence of "Operation World" on Joshua Project a "Generally unreliable source" and lack of peer review for the work itself, I would say Operation World must also be listed as "Generally unreliable source". Erp (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and the WRD/WCD should be re-assessed as well, given its connection with Asia Harvest/Operation World. In Darrell L. Bock (2013), The Cape Town Commitment: A Confession of Faith, A Call to Action: Bibliographic Resources, p. 32, we read: These two books come from the same stable. While up to the mid-1990s the databases behind Operation World and the World Christian Encyclopedia were virtually identical, they began to diverge in the 1990s, partly because Operation World took a more generous definition of the word 'evangelical'. In 2010, World Christian Encyclopedia said there were 300 million evangelicals worldwide, whereas Operation World said there were 550 million.... On the same page, the World Religion Database/World Christian Database and the Atlas of Global Christianity are identified as the continuations of the World Christian Encyclopedia, while The Future of Global Christianity is identified as built on the database of Operation World. Other minor publications associated with them (listed on the same page) are: World Christian Trends – AD 30-2200, World Churches Handbook, Global Religious Trends 2010 to 2020, Megatrends and the Persecuted Church, Global Restrictions on Religion, Global Pentecostalism, The New Faces of Christianity, The Next Christendom, Barna Updates (https://www.barna.org), and Global Mapping International (https://www.gmi.org). Ultimately, they are all affiliated with the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, the same who launched the 10/40 window concept. Æo (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The assessment of the World Religion Database and World Christianity Database strikes me as a separate question. If they are re-assessed, I would encourage re-assessing them "upward" rather than "downward". The source you cite, Cape Town Commitment, even identifies how the two sources are different: Operate World took a more generous definition of the word 'evangelical'. In 2010, World Christian Encyclopedia said there were 300 million evangelicals worldwide, whereas Operation World said there were 550 million. You speak of WCE/WRD/WCDs' connection with Asia Harvest/Operation World; however, what seems to be demonstrated is their disconnection; if Operation World and Asia Harvest are overstating, WRD/WCD/WCE apparently are holding back in comparison. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the WRD/WCD should be re-assessed "upwards"; their problems, which are still different from those of the AH/OW discussed here, were pointed out and thoroughly discussed with extensive quotes from critical sources in the specific 2022-2023 discussion. AH/OW and WCD/WRD are ultimately two branches of the same tree, dedicated to "the progress of the Great Commission" (cf. above), and this does not mean that if one of the two branches is unreliable the other is reliable, and vice versa. Both of them have problems, albeit differentiated. Æo (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There appears to not be consensus between us. The specified 2022-2023 discussion also had extensive references from laudatory sources which reviewed the Encyclopedia positively. I developed an impression that the listing of WRD/WCD/WCE as "additional considerations" may have been excessive and not the right call.

But that would be a discussion different from that of the present one about Asia Harvest. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. Given that Operation World depends on the already listed as generally unreliable, Joshua Project, and Asia Harvest depends on Operation World that both should also be listed as generally unreliable. In addition neither seem to be peer reviewed. Does anyone disagree? Erp (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Before leaping to "Generally Unreliable", may I ask whether "Additional Considerations" would be appropriate, and if you do not think so, why not?

I would note that peer review, while a gold standard, is not Wikipedia's only standard. Many sources subject only to editorial review and not peer review (newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses) are accepted on Wikipedia, so the lack of peer review is not itself necessarily a point against. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto, True. Your observations are accurate with respect to the additional comments you have brought up. Indeed the jump to generally unreliable is why the RFC for WRD/WCD/WCE failed depreciation petty badly across the board. The academic sources did not support such a claim. Context matters to what Asia Harvest is being used on. Also numbers on China are hard to pin down. All polls are estimates for that. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Erp that AH/OW should be classified as "generally unreliable" given the precedent represented by the related Joshua Project. The latter was the subject of eleven discussions on this noticeboard, and it was decidedly assessed as unreliable; just read how editors commented here and here, for instance: ...some argue based on the idea that they wouldn't have any reason to give inaccurate figures. This isn't a useful argument. There's also strong opposition to using them as a source. According to their list of data sources, a solid majority of their sources are just other evangelical groups... They shouldn't be ranked beside census counts as equivalent... They should be considered unusable due to a lack of verifiable methodology and recognition for statistical or academic contribution, even when setting aside all questions of advocacy and bias. (Elaqueate); We have no idea where they get their data, it's not part of their primary mission, and there's no significant penalty to them for errors, so I see no reason to consider them as a reliable source for population statistics. (Mangoe); I looked at the source, and I believe you. It's a hobby site by three random religious enthusiasts. Certainly not a reliable source for population data. (Alsee). Regarding the use of non-academic sources ("newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses"), P-Makoto, yes, I think they should be eschewed and I always try to eschew them when I contribute to Wikipedia. Besides, other considerations apply in this specific case, given that we are dealing with a field of information, statistics, for which there are official censuses and statistical institutions which provide "hard data" — i.e. precise numerical results which constitute "facts" subject to minimal interpretation —, and even in the case we need "soft data" — i.e. unofficial and not always accurate data —, there are still impartial and reliable survey agencies to rely upon. In said field of information, we do not need WP:SPECULATIONs produced by organisations with blatant agendas of evangelism, proselytism or propaganda through unclear methodologies (in our case the methodologies are declared, indeed: word of mouth from priests, pastors and other church staff). Æo (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Here other users expressed other clear evaluations of the quality of the JP: Religious advocacy group, cites unreliable data sources. (PaleoNeonate); 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. (anonymous IP); Very obviously unreliable. Attempting to use it as a source is absurd. (Tayi Arajakate). The use of the Joshua Project on Wikipedia even caused the creation of an article about a non-existing ethnic group: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawa Pesisir Lor. Æo (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the use of non-academic sources ("newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses"), P-Makoto, yes, I think they should be eschewed and I always try to eschew them when I contribute to Wikipedia.

As individual editors, we all I suppose have the option to hold ourselves to higher standards than Wikipedia's; however, it is not consensus to, as a project, eschew newspapers, magazines, and nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses for being such. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at https://www.asiaharvest.org/christians-in-china-stats/china Multiple sources, I initially thought the TSPM and CPA figures were accurate since they are possibly official government sources (these are registered and recognized churches) except notes 3 and 4 indicate that the registered protestant number is from a 2010 survey that found 23 million registered protestants and that the numbers were adjusted to include non-adults and presumably the decade since. The number has been adjusted to 39,776,275 for 2020. In addition the table apparently took the 2010 Operation World figures of 86,910,600 protestants in 2010 (unregistered House Church and TSPM) and apparently projected forward to 2020 and got 109,650,630 (split between the 39,776,275 registered and 69,874,355 unregistered (note the increasing specificity during the data manipulation). I decided to look at what might be the overall source "2020, Hattaway, The China Chronicles, no page number given" which seems to be a 7 book series "The China Chronicles" by Paul Hattaway and published, by as far as I can see, "Asia Harvest" an organization Hattaway co-founded with his wife. I'm guessing he or his organization is also responsible for this table published on their website. Both count as self-published and not at all peer reviewed. They might accurately cite other sources. Erp (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Here we can read that the book Operation China by Paul Hattaway has <...a foreword by Patrick Johnstone, author of the best-selling Operation World, who "I have relied much on the information in 'Operation China' during compilation of the section on China for the latest edition of 'Operation World'. May this unique book go a long way to focus prayer on the need for the gospel among these peoples.'>. Patrick Johnstone is mentioned in your comment above (20:13, January 1). AH and OW are definitely related. Æo (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I found 54+ references to "Asia Harvest" in Wikipedia. A lot have to do with descriptions of people/languages where Asia Harvest in turn is citing another source (I suspect the "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Chinese Linguistics" for at least some which is a 1991 work in Chinese [Zhongguo yu yan xue da ci dian 中国语言学大辞典]). My guess is that Asia Harvest was used by wiki editors because it has translated some of the information into English. I suspect editors would be better off for a comprehensive work relying on Ethnologue (which has some faults but is generally accepted by scholars) though it does require a subscription. Glottolog is also useful especially for references to works on a language (less so for numbers of speakers).

Operation World is also cited (oddly enough mostly in articles about Baháʼí such as Baháʼí_Faith_in_Nigeria) which has "Estimates of membership vary widely - a 2001 estimate by Operation World showed 1000 Baháʼís in 2001 while the Association of Religion Data Archives (relying on World Christian Encyclopedia) estimated some 38,172 Baháʼís." Another source had about 15,000 in 2000 (Lee, Anthony A. (2011). The Baha'i faith in Africa: establishing a new religious movement, 1952-1962. Studies of religion in Africa. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-22600-5., page 107, itself citing an unpublished article). I'm inclined to go with the peer reviewed book. Erp (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Duane Miller's Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census (n.b. edited by Patrick Johnstone, WEC International), questioned on this noticeboard in 2017, was built on Operation World and Joshua Project data. On pp. 3-4 we find further details about their parent organisations (as of 2015) and author: The results of this massive, multidecade data collection effort were eventually made available in the form of the religious data on the Operation World website, which is hosted by Global Mapping International, and the ethnolinguistic data on the interactive website of the Joshua Project, for which Johnstone was a senior editor. Therefore additional details on the sources of our information can be found at the website of the Joshua Project, which is currently managed by the U.S. Center for World Missions.. If my understanding is correct, based on our previous findings, Johnstone was ultimately behind both Operation World and the Joshua Project. Æo (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Let's keep this secondary, as suggested above, but on the same p. 3 we read: There has been a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information among Operation World, the Summer Institute of Linguistics, and the World Christian Encyclopedia.. Æo (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The Miller and Johnstone source clearly supports that Operation World is a reliable source by the way. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Johnstone is the editor/author of the OW and JP themselves. Therefore, that paper is a completely unreliable source. Besides, in the 2017 discussion one of the commentators correctly pointed out that the study misused the word "census" (which has a very precise meaning) in its title, misleading readers to think that the statistics presented were really from a census, when they were not: The author declares that he has published "a global census": the problem is that a census is "an official enumeration of the population, with details as to age, sex, occupation, etc.". So no, it's clearly not a census of any kind. Far from that. (AlessandroDe). Æo (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Heartily disagree, you can't point to a walled garden as evidence of reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with AEo and Erp, these publications should really just be grouped together in one GUNREL entry here. They're all interdependent and interrelated using the same evangelical propagandizing. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I agree that they should be grouped as a single WP:GUNREL entry. Would you also support a deprecation? I decided to open this discussion since a few days ago I noticed that the OW-JP, through AH, is still being spammed throughout various articles without attention to its problematic nature and classification as unreliable in the perennial sources' list. This has been ongoing since the 2000s, unfortunately, and even on other Wikipedias, as the user Jeroenvrp from the Dutch Wikipedia complained in the comment quoted above from 2008: unfortunately sources like the Joshua Project are spreading like a virus. This is why I think that, perhaps, it is time for the further step of deprecation.

Also, what is your opinion about the related World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database discussed below? Æo (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Grouping all three together under a single GUNREL entry seems straightforward enough, its a compact ecosystem and all of them are generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think it is worthwhile to open a new RfC for the deprecation of the OW-JP-AH datasets. Back in 2021, Alaexis, who opened that year's RfC, which resulted in the classification of the JP as "unreliable", complained that it was still being used. Things have not changed since; just take a look at these September 2023 additions (of OW-JP data via AH), complete with a map (and this is not the only case).--Æo (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: OW-JP-AH

The #Operation World, Joshua Project and Asia Harvest are databases of religion demographics related to the Christian missionary movement. OW and the JP are both edited by the Christian missionary Patrick Johnstone, while AH, which reproduces OW-JP statistics for Asia and China, is edited by the Christian missionary Paul Hattaway. The JP has been the subject of more than ten discussions on this noticeboard, with almost all comments finding it completely unreliable. The latest discussion with RfC in 2021 decided its inclusion in the perennial sources' list as a generally unreliable source. Despite this, it is still widely used throughout Wikipedia (cf. 1), and its associated projects OW and AH are also widely used (cf. 3, 4), and this was already a matter of complaint in the previous discussions.

Should the JP, and its associated projects OW and AH, be WP:DEPRECATED? Answer yes or no.

Æo (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Yes, it's time to deprecate them. The JP was categorised as unreliable in the perennial sources' list with a 2021 RfC, after more than ten discussions on this noticeboard in which comments were almost universally unanimous on the serious unreliability of the source. Despite its classification as unreliable, it, and its related projects OW and AH, continue to be used uncritically in various Wikipedia articles.--Æo (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database

Our latest discussion about the World Christian Encyclopedia and its successors, the World Religion Database and World Christian Database, currently also presenting their statistics through the platform of the Association of Religion Data Archives, was in late 2022-early 2023. As demonstrated in the section above (see comments 20:13, 1 January by Erp; 20:16, 1 January addendum by Æo; 17:04, 2 January addendum by Æo; 18:39, 3 January by Æo), the WCE and its successors have some connection and/or collaborate and share information with Patrick Johnstone's Operation World and Joshua Project and their network (incl. Paul Hattaway's Asia Harvest, et al.), and ultimately the WCE and OW branched out around the mid 1990s from the same statistical database, and they all seem to be affiliated with the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (see comment 21:17, 1 January by Æo).

A new critical essay about the WCE and its successors, which adds to those already mentioned in the foregoing 2022-2023 discussion, was published right last year: Adam Stewart's Problematizing the Statistical Study of Global Pentecostalism: An Evaluation of David B. Barrett's Research Methodology, in Michael Wilkinson & Jörg Haustein's The Pentecostal World (Routledge, 2023, pp. 457-471). It criticises the methodologies of David B. Barrett, a Welsh Anglican priest and the creator of the WCE, which were used to compile the WCE itself. Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo, who are also mentioned in the essay and are the theorists and directors of "Global Christianity" studies at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, are otherwise the continuators of the WCE in the form of the WRD/WCD.

Within the essay, the author elaborates: <... what I call the “Pentecostal growth paradigm,” initially promulgated by David B. Barrett, and now ubiquitous within the field of Pentecostal studies, as well as four common critiques of the paradigm ... the complicated typology conceptualized by Barrett in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia in order to classify and measure Pentecostals around the world ... the – very limited – information that Barrett provides regarding the data collection techniques that he used to gather the data contained in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia ... the construct validity threats contained within Barrett’s typology of Pentecostalism and data collection techniques, which, I argue, provide sufficient evidence to substantiate previous claims that the Pentecostal growth paradigm lacks the methodological rigor required to provide valid research results ...> (p. 457).

Other quotes:

• pp. 457-458: Stewart explains that some Christian authors have pushed for: <... a trend of steadily increasing estimates of global Pentecostal adherence ranging anywhere from 250 to 694 million ... The genealogy of this authorial ritual can be traced back to David B. Barrett’s original attempt to enumerate all of the various forms of global Christianity published in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia in 1982, which, he argued, revealed the substantial numerical growth of Pentecostalism between 1968 and 1981. This is confirmed by Johnson who writes that “virtually all estimates for the number of Pentecostals in the world are related to Barrett’s initial detailed work”. Barrett persisted in this project for another two decades, which was continued by his closest academic successors, namely, Todd M. Johnson and, more recently, Gina A. Zurlo, who continue to record the ostensibly boundless growth of Pentecostalism around the world, a perspective which I refer to here as the Pentecostal growth paradigm ...>;
• p. 458: He explains that such a paradigm was adopted and fueled by church leaders: <... who flaunted estimates of Pentecostal growth in an attempt to legitimate their particular religious organizations, proselytistic efforts, beliefs, and/or practices. Non-Pentecostal scholars of Pentecostalism, of course, also played no small role in reifying the Pentecostal growth paradigm. Estimates of the dramatic numerical growth of Pentecostalism served “to legitimate their work among their disciplinary peers who largely understood Pentecostalism as either a social compensatory mechanism for the poor, uneducated, and oppressed or – from the opposite perspective – an oppressive form of cultural imperialism that homogenizes vulnerable poor and uneducated global populations” ...>, and explains that <Some scholars of Pentecostalism – even when sometimes citing the continually ballooning estimates of global Pentecostalism themselves – are critical of the Pentecostal growth paradigm, and, especially, of Barrett’s contribution to this discourse. In my review of the academic literature, I detect four common critiques of the Pentecostal growth paradigm. First are concerns that Barrett’s early research methodology might not have been sufficiently sophisticated to provide valid results. Second is the charge that Barrett’s use of the three waves metaphor carries an ahistorical, Americentric, and teleological bias ... Third, is a more specific critique closely related to the more general second critique, which asserts that, although the increasing prevalence of Pentecostal adherence around the world is not seriously debated by scholars of Pentecostalism, a significant portion of increasing Pentecostal growth estimates are the result of definitional sprawl rather than an increase in the actual number of adherents ...>;
• p. 459: He cites, amongst others: <Allan Anderson, who has characterized Barrett’s estimates of global Pentecostalism as, variously, “wild guesses,” “debatable,” “inaccurate or inflated,” “considerably inflated,” “wildly speculative” “controversial and undoubtedly inflated,” “inflated wild guesses,” and “statistical speculations” ...>;
• p. 463: <Barrett’s description of the data collection techniques that he used in order to gather the data contained in the frst edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia was incredibly short – just two paragraphs ... Another notable characteristic of the data collection techniques employed by Barrett is a very liberal approach to estimation. He wrote, for instance, “The word ‘approximately’ is the operative word in this survey; absolute precision and accuracy are not to be expected, nor in fact are they necessary for practical working purposes. This means that although the tables and other statistics may help readers who want specific individual figures, they are mainly designed to give the general-order picture set in the total national and global context. To this end, where detailed local statistics compiled from grass-roots sources have not been available or were incomplete, the tables supply general-order estimates provided by persons familiar with the local statistical situation.” Barrett even admits to extrapolating estimates of the total national populations of those Christian organizations that largely recorded only either child (e.g., Catholics who mainly record baptized infants) or adult (e.g., Baptists who mainly record confessing adults) adherents. He explained, “the missing figure … has been estimated and added either by the churches themselves or the editors.” Barrett explained, for instance, that he estimated the total number of Catholic adherents within a country “by multiplying total affiliated Catholics (baptized plus catechumens) by the national figure for the percentage of the population over 14 years old”.>;
• p. 464: Stewart comments that: <... his [Barrett's] cavalier approach to data collection and estimation raise significant red flags regarding the validity of his work.>;
• p. 467: <The presence of significant monomethod bias represents a catastrophic failure of Barrett’s research design, which, as a result, does not meet the minimum standards of valid social scientific research. In addition to this more fundamental construct validity threat, the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia also contains evidence of five other threats to construct validity relating to data collection techniques, namely, reactivity to the experimental situation, experimenter expectancies, attention and contact with participants, cues of the experimental situation, and timing of measurement.>;
• p. 468, Stewart concludes: Unfortunately, the research methodology employed by Barrett – specifically his typology of Pentecostalism and data collection techniques – was simply too flawed in order to provide valid social scientific research results that can be trusted and longitudinally or geographically compared. My analysis confirms Anderson’s claim that, “Scholars should no longer assume that there are some 600 million pentecostals in the world without further qualification”>.

I have also found further older papers containing negative critiques of the WCE and its successors:

• Marta Reynal-Querol & José G. Montalvo's A Theory of Religious Conflict and its Effect on Growth (Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, 2000). On p. 10 we read: <For the sake of comparison we also collected data directly from the World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE) using its division of groups. This data set has the advantage of being a time series, providing information for 1970, 1975 and 1980. However, as we pointed out before, this source has several shortcomings. ... Comparing to the other source of information we realize the data is biased towards Christian religion. ... The distribution of religious groups between 1970 and 1980 does not change in many countries. There are only about seventeen countries that present change in proportions. But those changes occur in countries where there is double practice and they usually imply an increase in the percentage of Christians ... Because of these reasons we take the data coming from the WCE with a lot of caution.>.
• Andrew McKinnon's "Christians, Muslims and Traditional Worshippers in Nigeria: Estimating the Relative Proportions from Eleven Nationally Representative Social Surveys", Review of Religious Research, 63(2): 303-315 (Sage, 2021). In it we read: <... those assessments that make use of multiple sources of data, such as the World Christian Database (WCD), have not tended to make their calculations publicly transparent, nor clarified how they have squared the differences between contrasting indicators.>; <Figures in the most recent edition of The World Christian Encyclopedia (Johnson and Zurlo 2020) draw on figures assembled and updated as part of the World Christian Database (WCD) ... None of the particular calculations are provided, nor is there any accounting for methodological decisions in any particular case; neither transparency nor replicability are in evidence, which makes social scientific evaluation of how they reached their conclusions impossible.>; <... they also note that the Database does seem to overestimate the Christian identification, and expressed concern about what appears to be uncritical acceptance of figures provided by religious groups of their membership. With reference to one denomination in Nigeria McKinnon (2020) has recently found evidence that supports the criticisms offered by Hsu et al (2008). WCD estimates for Anglican identification in Nigeria were found to be dramatically over-estimated due to The Church of Nigeria's un-evidenced membership claims.>

--Æo (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that Wilkinson & Haustein argue there are meaningful flaws in the methodology of Barrett and WCE. This criticism in a reliable source of the demographic methodology and technique is the first indication to me that there is substantial reason to be cautious about using these sources. (I remain unconvinced that the socioreligious affiliations of certain authors and editors is as much reason for alarm as you have seemed to imply.)

With Wilkinson & Haustein's detailed criticism focusing on Pentecostal demographics, would we say that additional considerations must be taken when citing WCE for specifically Pentecostal demographics?

For now, I will pause my earlier musing that WCE/WRD/WCD could be re-assessed to "Generally reliable" and would consent to them being left listed as "Additional considerations". I would suggest the description in the table be changed to emphasize that the reason for such an assessment is that reliable sources have criticized the sources on methodological grounds and that the demographic conclusions require "further qualification". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Context matters here.

These databases are global debases from academic publishers and they provide useful data that others simply do not have. All major undertakings like this will have some methodological issues and no survey or census is immune to it. No survey or census is definitive on religion. All provide pieces of the puzzle. Two examples one on another global demographic attempt and another on a country:

Actual estimates on the "atheism" demographics show how multiple surveys do not agree on the numbers or method per each country or globally. There are many reasons why this would be the case - countries vary in understanding of religion and diverse methods each one contains. For example you would think that determining atheist rates is easy (yes/no) but its more complicated. Zuckerman's study (Cambridge Companion to Atheism) [3] states "Determining what percentage of a given society believes in God – or doesn’t -- is fraught with methodological hurdles. First: low response rates; most people do not respond to surveys, and response rates of lower than 50% cannot be generalized to the wider society. Secondly: non-random samples. If the sample is not randomly selected – i.e., every member of the given population has an equal chance of being chosen -- it is non-generalizable. Third: adverse political/cultural climates. In totalitarian countries where atheism is governmentally promulgated and risks are present for citizens viewed as disloyal, individuals will be reluctant to admit that they do believe in God. Conversely, in societies where religion is enforced by the government and risks are present for citizens viewed as non-believers, individuals will be reluctant to admit that they don’t believe in Allah, regardless of whether anonymity is “guaranteed.” Even in democratic societies without governmental coercion, individuals often feel that it is necessary to say that are religious, simply because such a response is socially desirable or culturally appropriate."

At the end he had to sift through a grip of surveys his estimate ranges from 500 million 750 million atheists worldwide from this paper. Pretty wide range. His country by country ranges are complex in p. 15-17 using numerous databases. WCE and even Operation World are used in a few without issues by Zuckerman.

Even the census data can show wide divergence with other surveys in other countries like Britain. Voas and Bruce (2004) "Research note: The 2001 census and christian identification in Britain" [4] state "Results from the 2001 population census suggest that nearly 72% of people in England and Wales may be identified as Christian. This figure is substantially higher than the proportion found by the British Social Attitudes survey and other national studies. It is also higher than the broad estimates of the size of the ‘Christian community’ previously produced by the Christian Research Association, the leading source of religious statistics in the UK (Brierley, 2003:2.2)." And even note issues with census data collection ”Another problem seems more serious. Unlike opinion polls which ask questions directly of respondents, census forms are generally completed by one individual on behalf of the entire household. There is no rule about who should take responsibility, but typically it is the head of household or at least a senior member of it."

On the WCE, The Andrew McKinnon's source does state The editors of the World Christian Encyclopedia provide reasonable methodological reflections on the different sources upon which scholars may draw in order to estimate the different religious populations of the world, as well as some of the issues that crop up as one tries to reconcile sources that disagree (Johnson and Zurlo 2020: 897–914)."

And the Marta Reynal-Querol & José G. Montalvo source does say ”For the sake of comparison we also collected data directly from the World Christian Enciclopedia (WCE) using its division of groups. This data set has the advantage of being a time series, providing information for 1970, 1975 and 1980.”

Other sources like Hsu et al. 2008 deal with methodology directly and state [5] state "Scholars have raised questions about the WCD's estimates categories, and potential bias, but the data have not yet been systematically assessed. We test the reliability of the WCD by comparing its religious composition estimates to four other data sources (World Values Survey, Pew Global Assessment Project,CIA World Factbook, and the U.S. Department of State), finding that estimates are highly correlated....Religious composition estimates in the WCD are generally plausible and consistent with other data sets."

For WRD "Given the limitations of censuses, including incomplete and irregular global coverage, potential political bias swaying the findings and the absences of many religious groups from censuses, any religious demographic analysis must consult multiple sources.[6] They state their sources which include census and surveys as well and say they are transparent to the scholarly community p. 1. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ramos,

Regarding your claim that these databases are global debases from academic publishers and they provide useful data that others simply do not have: this is simply false; there are statistics produced by national censuses, national statistical institutes, and independent reliable survey organisations. Regarding your claim that no survey or census is definitive on religion: censuses are official countings of the characteristics of the whole population of a country, and in the case they have any shortcomings there are other surveys produced by national statistical organisations or independent reliable survey organisations. "Independent reliable" organisations necessarily means non-confessional, non-missionary, non-evangelistic, while "survey" organisations necessarily means that they actually conduct polls among populations. The WCE/WRD/WCD, given the evidence, is neither the first, nor the second thing.

Regarding Zuckerman's study of worldwide atheism, I do not understand what it has to do with the case being discussed here: Zuckerman does not claim that his study is a census, and in any case I would not use it in Wikipedia articles in place of census statistics. Regarding Voas & Bruce's research, I also don't understand what it has to do with our case: statistics from the British Social Attitudes Survey and the Christian Research Association have never been given precedence either in Wikipedia or elsewhere over census statistics. I think that the 2001 British census finding that 72% of the population identified themselves as Christian was correct, and in any case their number has shrunken to 59% by the 2011 census, and to 46% by the 2021 census; I trust that these are the correct proportions of self-identifying Christians within the British population in the three census periods.

Regarding your excerpt from McKinnon's paper, it continues with the sentence that I already quoted above: None of the particular calculations are provided, nor is there any accounting for methodological decisions in any particular case; neither transparency nor replicability are in evidence, which makes social scientific evaluation of how they reached their conclusions impossible..

Regarding your excerpt from Reynal-Querol & Montalvo's paper, it continues with the following conclusions, also already partially quoted above: However, as we pointed out before, this source has several shortcomings. First, and probably the most important, the data does not consider the possibility of double practice, very common in Sub Saharan Africa and Latin America countries. Comparing to the other source of information we realize the data is biased towards Christian religion. A clear example is the case of Kenya in which the distribution of religions is considered to be similar to Spain or Italy. The distribution of religious groups between 1970 and 1980 does not change in many countries. There are only about seventeen countries that present change in proportions. But those changes occur in countries where there is double practice and they usually imply an increase in the percentage of Christians and a reduction in the size of animist followers. Because of these reasons we take the data coming from the WCE with a lot of caution..

Regarding Hsu et al., their full paper can be read here, it was already widely quoted in the 2022-2023 discussion and it is mostly critical of the WCE/WRD/WCD. I hope it is not necessary to repeat the same findings already explained in the 2022-2023 discussion. However, your quote is missing the following parts: ... however, the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries. ... we find that WCD estimates of American Christian groups are generally higher than those based on surveys and denominational statistics. ... the WCD counts tiny religious minorities, classifies some Muslim groups within the neoreligionist and ethnoreligionist categories, and has higher numbers of nonreligious. (p. 680); the conclusions about correlation with other datasets: ... the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y - x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. (p. 684); and the final conclusions: We find some evidence for the three main criticisms directed at the WCD regarding estimation, ambiguous religious categories, and bias. The WCD consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets. ... We also found evidence of overestimation when we compared WCD data on American denominational adherence to American survey data such as ARIS, due in part to inclusion of children, and perhaps also to uncritical acceptance of estimates from religious institutions. ... we find the WCD likely underestimates percent Muslim in former Communist countries and countries with popular syncretistic and traditional religions. ... Data on percent nonreligious are not highly correlated among the five data sets..

Regarding the WRD's own methodology paper, it is a self-published source (n.b. Brian J. Grim is another member of the Gordon-Conwell team) and it is quite simply false that they use census statistics; their data definitely do not correspond to the statistics provided by censuses. This is obvious and anyone can demonstrate it, given that census statistics are public and accessible to anyone. Stewart's paper (p. 463) also mentions census statistics dated 1900 to the 1970s, which are obviously obsolete, and some improbable unpublished data from “unprocessed” or “incomplete” national censuses. Æo (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: We must also remember and underline another important, critical point, which is that WCE/WRD/WCD data are speculative projections (WP:CRYSTAL) ranging from 1900 to 2050, not even survey outcomes, actually. Æo (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto, I would agree with your proposal to add that "reliable sources have criticized the sources on methodological grounds and that the demographic conclusions require further qualification" to the description in the table.

I would not restrict the scope of the source to Pentecostalism alone, however, owing to the fuzzy definition of Pentecostalism itself (cf. Stewart) and to the fact that its alleged 600+ million adherents, purported by the sources being discussed here, add a lot to the overall number of Protestants and Christians worldwide, and also owing to the fact that (cf. Stewart; Reynal-Querol & Montalvo; McKinnon) this demographic "athorial ritual" (as Stewart calls it) apparently originated among Anglicans and also involves the overestimation, and often self-overestimation, of the populations of other Christian denominations, including Anglicans themselves and Catholics, and therefore of Christians as a whole.

I would also agree with your proposal that the source be kept in the "additional considerations" category; otherwise, if other users think it would be more appropriate to downgrade it to the "generally unreliable" or even "deprecated" category (given the continuous spam campaigns of which they are, and will likely continue to be, the subject), I would agree with them. Æo (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would not agree with downgrading the sources under discussion to "Generally unreliable" or "Deprecated". I have proposed neither, and I oppose both.

You would not restrict the scope of the source to Pentecostalism. But why then does the author make Pentecostalism and the "Pentecostal growth paradigm" the scope of the argument? I would be more comfortable being cautious about how far we extrapolate those conclusions.

To clarify, I do not mean to simply add "reliable sources have criticized the sources on methodological grounds and that the demographic conclusions require further qualification" to the description in the table. Rather, I would propose replacing the present description in the table with such a sentence. The current description of editors considering the source WP:PARTISAN etc. is based on editor assessments, rather than reliable secondary sources. There is not consensus on whether or not the sources are partisan. But perhaps there can be consensus that a reliable source has said that the projections require further qualification and have methodological flaws. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto,

I agree the depreciation is unreasonable. But I certainly would question the Petacostal paper when Hsu et al. 2008 [7] clearly does an actual wider assessment and concludes "To address the criticisms mentioned above, we compare the religious composition estimates in the WCD to four other cross-national data sets on religious composition (two survey-based data sets and two government-sponsored data sets): the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department). In our analysis, we find support for some of the criticisms made by reviewers, but on the whole we find that WCD estimates are generally consistent with other data sets. The WCD is highly correlated with the other data sets, estimates for percent Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu; however, the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries." and "In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups.”

Additionally, Hsu 2008 also explicitly says "We ran correlations of the five data sets with each other on the percentage of adherents to the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) as well as the nonreligious (Table 2). The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable.

Also I think that there are methodological issues with other sources like census data as is exemplified with Britain. Many countries do not even have religion questions on the census either. But no one tries to depreciate those sources. It seems too much to require more from WCE than other sources when the evidence shows it is reliable and consistent with other databases on the whole.

I think removing partisan and leaving the wording as is for in text attribution makes more sense for middle ground on the table.

Also these databases are respected by diversity of scholars and authoritative sources such as scholars of Islam (e.g. The Oxford Handbook of Politics in Muslim Societies (2022)), scholars of nonreligion / irreligion (e.g. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 7 (2016)), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007)), Pew Research Center's uses it in own methodology and database (see Pew's methodology, The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa (2020)) and also Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies (2022), Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe (2022)

- Woodberry, Robert D. (2010). "World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable" [8] - "Despite these criticisms, we can appreciate the editors’ achievement in applying a relatively consistent methodology across the world. Furthermore, the WRD estimates are highly correlated with other cross-national estimates of religious distribution, a conclusion supported by an article by Becky Hsu and others." and also "Still, despite my criticisms, I will eagerly use these data in my research. I do not know of any better data available on such a broad scale and am amazed at the editors’ ability to provide even tentative estimates of religious distribution by province and people group."

- Brierley, Peter. (2010). "World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!" [9] - "The WRD is a truly remarkable resource for researchers, Christian workers, church leaders, religious academics, and any others wanting to see how the various religions of the world impact both the global and the local scenes. It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it."

If it is good for demographers it certainly good for Wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 Those are old sources. Have you evidence the situation is the same 13 or more years later? Doug Weller talk 15:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Well, not sure if you looked at the Handbooks I linked, but some are from the 2020s. For example here is an extract of an authoritative source The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa (2020):"The 2010 Pew Report is notable in terms of its comprehensive research design. Pew utilizes demographic sources from the World Religion Database as well as extensive survey data for nineteen African states. This mixed methods design of both quantitative and qualitative sources is important because it provides a substantive way to ground truth our understanding of religious affiliations and attitudes. Published demographic data alone on religion is usually drawn from censuses which can be fraught with design problems, but Pew utilizes field tested, empirical observations." Ramos1990 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you realise that that book is discussing the Pew Research Center, and that the WRD is just mentioned in a note about the sources upon which the Pew builds its estimates? The book is neither citing the WRD directly nor discussing it. And the Pew's own criteria about its use of WRD data have already been quoted in my <19:44, 6 January> comment below. Æo (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It does not need to. It merely incudes it as part of its positive assessment of the quantitative (WRD) and qualitative (survey data) combination. It certainly does not support your view at all (that is its worthless and useless). Pew's methodology page does not either. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto,

In my opinion the outcome of the previous community consensus should not be altered, and Firefangledfeather's closing summary should be kept, with its reference to WP:PARTISAN, or WP:BIASED, and WP:CRYSTAL, and just altered to add your new sentence, possibly also adding Stewart's conclusion that the source lacks the methodological rigor required to provide valid research results, and a reference to the fact that these results systematically overestimate Christianity (as found by all the critical papers quoted above) and underestimate other religions (as found by Hsu et al.). Regarding WP:BIASED, I think that it is important to keep it because in my view it is quite clear that the source is biased; for me, the relationship that it has with the OW-JP, its origins as a Christian missionary project, the fact that it is edited by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (which, by the way, is itself directly related to Billy Graham and his Lausanne Movement), are all indicators of a clear bias, and in any case, this is clearly stated by Reynal-Querol & Montalvo where they wrote we realize the data is biased towards Christian religion.

Moreover, in his essay, p. 459, Stewart further explains that Barrett directly addresses and emphatically rejects what he calls the “folly of triumphalism” ... Despite this assurance, Barrett’s occupation as a missionary, stated belief that all of the world would be evangelized by the end of the twentieth century, and, not least of all, his development of a “theology of Christian enumeration” that explains the purpose of his work as helping “the followers of Christ to discern at what points to commit their resources in order to implement their commission” serve to make this, probably, the least debatable criticism ... The particular strength of this last critique might also possibly explain why, in his recent dismissal of the critiques commonly levied against Barrett’s work, Johnson [of the GCTS] elects not to address the accusation of triumphalism..

The previous quote adds to both the problem of non-neutrality, bias, of the source and to the question of the scope of the source. In his own words, Barrett theorised a "theology of Christian enumeration", not of Pentecostal enumeration. Furthermore, Stewart on p. 460 is clear when he writes that: To describe Barrett’s enumeration of Pentecostals – let alone of Christians as a whole – in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia as confusing would be a drastic understatement. Guiding the entire work is Barrett’s conceptualization of Christianity ...; and again on p. 466: Barrett's ... collection techniques in order to enumerate Pentecostals and other Christians around the world. Therefore, Barret's project affects Christianity as a whole, and not merely Pentecostalism. Stewart clept it "Pentecostal growth paradigm" apparently because such a paradigm was ... adopted and more widely disseminated by Pentecostal clergy and scholars – mostly in the Global North ... (p. 458). This is probably a reference to the OW and its affiliated networks; I remind that the book Operation World (2010, p. 25) declares that ... the World Christian Encyclopedia and a handful of other resources are at the heart of this information ....

Of course you have not proposed to classify the source as "generally unreliable" or "deprecated", I did not mean that, but I would propose it if any other users agreed, since this would help stem the ongoing spam of this source throughout Wikipedia (which has continued despite its addition to the perennial sources' list last year). Æo (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Considering the discussion here, which is very quite long, I concur with the original 2022-2023 consensus against depreciation of these sources. They are definitely used by academic researchers and the sources presented do verify that they are good for use in Wikipedia. Robert D. Woodberry's confirmation of Hsu findings of general reliability across 4 datasets are certainly notable here as multiple sources converge on overall reliability. Keeping in mind that there are many problems with all sources including census data (WRD methodology states that only about half of the world's censuses even ask about religion and that this is declining further) certainly means that many other sources need to be used by default. This is verifiable in the US, which has nothing on religion for so many decades. And numerous other nations have removed such questions for privacy and expense reasons.

I do see room for BOTH (World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database) and numerous other databases to be used on Wikipedia. After all, these are all just estimates at the end and the Pentecostal and Atheism examples here exhibit the need to use multiple sources to make some sense of adherents (upper and lower estimates). I will say that polls, surveys, etc also fail to predict verifiable things like political elections [10] so I can only imagine the difficulty in religion demographics.

I think a good median on the perennial table is to keep the wording as is minus "The methodology of these sources has been questioned as WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL." since these pass on comparison with multiple other datasets. Twice with this noticeboard by the same proposer AEO. The wording would sound neutral, very basic, inclusive, and not too specific. "Preference" does not mean "removal" or "prohibited". It allows coexistence of sources. Thus I think this is reasonable. desmay (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

After all, these are all just estimates – No, there are precise statistics from censuses and national surveys, possibly integrated by other good-quality statistics from independent neutral survey organisations, for most countries. We do not need speculative projections from non-neutral organisations of Christian evangelism. But this has already been widely discussed. The WCE/WRD/WCD are regularly spammed on Wikipedia and this causes a lot of nuisance for editors in the field of religion statistics like me, Erp and others (see here, here, etc.).

... polls, surveys, etc also fail to predict verifiable things like political elections so I can only imagine the difficulty in religion demographics – Actually, I think that a cultural identifier such as religion is much more verifiable and measurable than fleeting opinions such as political votes.

Twice with this noticeboard by the same proposer AEO – I did not open the 2022-2023 discussion myself, and, in any case, what is the problem? I also opened a discussion about WP:STATISTA last year, which resulted in its categorisation as WP:GUNREL. I read a lot, I noticed that the WCE/WRD/WCD were still being spammed throughout Wikipedia, I found new evidence of their problematic nature (the new papers presented in this discussion), and therefore I decided to open this new discussion. Æo (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Taking in what has been said so far, at this time, for WRD/WCD/WCE, I am inclined to support user desmay's recommendations. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Me too. I think it is a balanced recommendation. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to partially correct what I expressed in my <00:08, 5 January> previous comment, given that the clause with a reference to WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL was not present in Firefangledfeather's original closing summary, but was added by Folly Mox when they created the entry in the perennial sources' list. Yet, the new evidence (Stewart et al.) introduced with the present discussion fully justifies Folly Mox's addition, and I continue to support P-Makoto's original proposal to add a further sentence as expressed in her <10:25, 4 January> comment, and my own proposal of further additions and of category re-assessment as expressed in my <00:08, 5 January> comment, rather than desmay's proposal to return to the original closing summary. Æo (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I placed the entry at the RSP table because I had to do some citation repair regarding these sources, I think at List of religious populations. I've found that most places these are cited in articles seem to be infoboxes and tables, which don't lend themselves easily to additional explanations about methodology etc. My sample may not reflect the total citation population.

The words I used in the entry at RSP (the only one I've ever added) were probably intended to be a summary of the close of the lengthy enormous discussion. I have no objection to the wording being changed if I've misconstrued the conversation or the close. I'm not sure if I see Firefangledfeathers bluelinked above, so courtesy ping in case they have input. Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I continue to support P-Makoto's original proposal to add a further sentence

I believe this misrepresentation is accidental on Æo's part, but it is a misrepresentation of me. It was never my original proposal to add a sentence. It was my proposal that the description in the table be changed (bolding added), which I later clarified to replacing the present description in the table (bolding addeed). Any proposal which merely adds a sentence about a reliable source identifying methodological flaws while retaining the reference to WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL would be contrary to my original position in this discussion. Such a proposal originates from someone other than myself; I suppose it would be best described as Æo's proposal, inspired by an inadvertent misunderstanding of my proposal.

Additionally, my current position (as I expressed in this diff), is support of desmay's proposal: keep the wording as is minus "The methodology of these sources has been questioned as WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL."

I think the reference to WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL in the table as it exists is not a consensus assessment by editors. See statements in the above discussion from myself, desmay, and Ramos1990 for examples of editor expressing consideration of the WRD, WCD, and WCE to be academically valid.

It is also not consensus that the sources are unquestionable; Æo and Erp have made clear their impression of the sources as unreliable.

"Additional considersations" seems to be an appropriate assessment, inasmuch as there is not consensus for "Generally reliable" or "Generally unreliable". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the close of the RFC by Firefalgledfeathers did not include partisan and crystal phrase. Since Folly Mox is ok with restoring the close wording. We can remove that phrase. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's not rush things. The discussion has only been open for a few days, and few people have taken part in it as of today. Moreover, Folly Mox has written that they would have no objection to the wording being changed if they had misconstrued the conversation or the close. And I think they have not misconstrued the essence of the 2022-2023 conversation. Æo (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Folly Mox: "The words I used in the entry at RSP (the only one I've ever added) were probably intended to be a summary of the close of the lengthy enormous discussion." and pinged closer Firefalgledfeathers. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto,

Apologies. I originally misunderstood your use of the word "change" as implying a change by addition and not by replacement, but your clarification in your <21:22, 4 January> comment was already very clear. What I meant with my previous message is that I would support the addition of the clause formulated in your original proposal, together with other critical considerations, to the current description formulated by Folly Mox, keeping the latter as it is. Also notice that other users took part, and expressed their opinions, in the 2022-2023 discussion.

I opened the present discussion to provide further evidence, from new critical essays, about the questionability of the sources under discussion; let's focus on the merits of the new evidence provided, rather than on quibbles about the current description in the perennial sources' list. Æo (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have considered the new evidence presented. Seeing the new evidence presented prompted my earlier expressed decision to withdraw my suggestion to re-assess WRD/WCD/WCE as "Generally reliable" to instead support their assessment as "Additional considerations" (see my comment containing For now, I will pause my earlier musing that WCE/WRD/WCD could be re-assessed to "Generally reliable" and would consent to them being left listed as "Additional considerations". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest:

There is no consensus on the reliability of these data sources. Rough consensus developed that the sources should be used with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources. Some editors questioned their methodology and consider them to be partisan.

The order and tone matches many other "no consensus" RSP listings. The partisan issue was discussed more thoroughly than the point about their projections, but I wouldn't strenuously fight against including a short mention of the latter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Firefangledfeathers, I am not sure this captures everything form both sides because multiple editors are also not convinced of partisan and multiple editors think the methodology is appropriate and consistent with multiple databases (sources and quotes for those provided too). Even in the original RFC you closed, the same thing happened (most said "No" to depreciation 10 vs 5). Ramos1990 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As you look through RSP, you don't see a lot of "... but others disagreed". I think we just briefly state the most impactful concern, so that it's considered in future discussions when evaluating the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I'd support including a brief statement about one strength of the sources. The one that stands out the most to me in the prior discussion is that these data sources are so commonly cited by high-quality sources. Something like:

There is no consensus on the reliability of these data sources. Rough consensus developed that the sources should be used with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources. Some editors noted that data from these sources is commonly used by high-quality publications, while others questioned their methodology and consider them to be partisan.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I support this balanced version. It captures both sides and the sources that were used in this discussion and the RFC you closed. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to hear out some thoughts on this, and to reword the description. This version has improvement that I appreciate. I am inclined to suggest rephrasing "commonly used by high quality publications" to instead say "numerous high-quality publications"? It's a subtle difference, but there are high quality publications in topics unrelated to religious demographics that don't use these sources, so to say a source is commonly cited in high quality publications feels not quite on the mark. Saying that editors have noted that they are used in numerous high-quality publications, that seems fair and demonstrably true. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Not looking to make this change too soon, so you (and any others) should feel free to suggest changes or propose alternatives. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

P-Makoto, works for me too. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I continue the discussion, with an alternative proposal, further below. Æo (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaning in agreement with AEo here, that the summary by FFF should be retained and editors cautioned about using these as sources. The issues over methodology are compounded by the real concern of religious advocacy/promotion/bias raised by Stewart and others. I'm also of the opinion that the very limited use of WRD by Pew Research is rather telling: they opt to cite it (as one among several databases) only in circumstances where basically no census/survey or granular data exist, rather than incorporating WRD reports into all of their estimates. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Pew uses WRD for 57 countries at least. That is a good chunk. Considering that they use "large scale demographic surveys" for 43 countries, and "general population surveys" for 42 countries, it is quite useful to complete the picture for their global estimates. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Look at which countries though... It is a rather limited use. I would not lean on Pew to establish reliability for this source, I'd find someone who actually endorses it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have multiple academic sources in purple and stuff like recent Handbooks above on it. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

But those 57 countries comprise only 5% of the population covered. JoelleJay (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Religious demography is about studying different countries and the beliefs of the people there. I am sure you will agree that each country is a different culture with diverse beliefs and histories and that these people matter - no matter how much on a global scale they are. Approximately 4.6 billion people live in ten countries, representing around 57% of the world's population [11]. I don't think that looking at only 10 out of 232 countries are representative of the cultures of the the remaining 222. China and India alone are 38% of the world population (~3 billion). Besides if you you calculate 5% out 8 billion, its 400,000,000 people from 57 nations with diverse cultures, histories, and beliefs. That is substantial and researchers do not just throw their hands up and ignore them. Most of nonreligion research focuses in Western nonreligious populations (Europe (12%), North America (5%)), but the overwhelming majority of the nonreligious are in Asia and in particular China alone (76%) from Pew. I don't think North America should be ignored just because it is 5% of the global nonreligious population. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It's 5% of the population because for that 5% Pew couldn't find any other sources besides WRD and some other databases. If WRD was being treated as completely reliable by Pew they would incorporate WRD data into the other 95% of their estimates. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Pew does not go by % people. It goes by Countries (25% of their countries used WRD, whereas large surveys (18%), general surveys (18%), and census (38%)). Good coverage. Each country has different understanding of religion and instruments of measure are diverse. You can read Pew's methodology to see that they say they used multiple quantitative and multiple qualitative sources for each country. Its inevitable because all sources are limited. Pew says "variation in methods among censuses and surveys (including sampling, question wording, response categories and period of data collection) can lead to variation in results". So adjustments need to be made (e.g. one source may have some data and but another source may have the missing data, but needs a third source to refine everything). In general there are 3 broad categories for religion (belief, belonging, and behavior). Some sources may have affiliation data, but not belief, or they may have belief data, but low sampling or poor wording. To keep it short, see Zuckerman in purple text, where he shows examples of massive hurdles to get a usable count on the number of atheists in any given country. Sometimes researches use more math to standardize (weighted or non-weighted). In any case, WRD is a database and it collects sources and is just one tool, among others, that researchers of every stripe do use. You can see the WRD methodology. It is available, not hidden. Also it used on continental Europe [12] by others. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In the methodology you linked previously, Pew says Together, censuses or surveys provided estimates for 175 countries representing 95% of the world’s population. In the remaining 57 countries, representing 5% of the world’s population, the primary sources for the religious-composition estimates include population registers and institutional membership statistics reported in the World Religion Database and other sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Pew breaks it down further "Censuses were the primary source for Pew Forum religious composition estimates in 90 countries, which together cover 45% of all people in the world. Large-scale demographic surveys were the primary sources for an additional 43 countries, representing 12% of the global population. General population surveys were the primary source of data for an additional 42 countries, representing 37% of the global population." With 57 countries for WRD, they covered more countries than large scale demographic surveys (43 countries), and general population surveys (42 countries). Population wise, large scale demographic surveys (43 countries) was 12% of the global population, which is very comparable to WRD. Of course % of people covered is irrelevant because each country has different practices and beliefs, histories (religious beliefs from China and India do not reflect most of the world despite them being 38% of the global population.) It would be odd to dismiss 57 countries out of 232, 43 countries out of 232, 42 countries out of 232, or 90 out of 232. They also state "Pew Forum researchers acquired and analyzed religious composition information from about 2,500 data sources, including censuses, demographic surveys, general population surveys and other studies – the largest project of its kind to date." Though I can see where you are coming from, I am afraid the view that there should be 1 magical super source that applies to all 232 countries is not quite possible. They had more than 10 times 232 sources analyzed and mathematically adjusted to come up with their final product for just 232 countries. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the proposal put forth by Firefangledfeathers and P-Makoto. It is neutral and on point. desmay (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

In her comments, Ramos quoted the abstract from Brierley's World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief! (2010) emphasising the author's seemingly positive evaluation of the source. However, reading through the essay one finds that in the conclusions the author points out that: ... This illustrates the dilemma for the compilers of the WCE and WRD. The Church of England may claim 26 million people, roughly the number living in the UK who have been baptized in the church either as infants or adults. The WRD treats this as their official source. However, not all of these now regard themselves as belonging to the Church of England and so did not tick the "Christian" box on the census form. Result? The WRD puts the Christian percent as 81 percent, the census as 72 percent, with the difference virtually entirely in the group of people who have left (as other research has shown). Which source should the WRD trust or use? This is their statistical nightmare, and the WRD in this instance opts for denominational information and does not judge between the two (though perhaps it should). This perhaps explains why some highly erudite commentators, such as Philip Jenkins, whose books on the world Christian scene have been so powerful and helpful, criticize the numbers in the WCE (and doubtless will those found in the WRD). Jenkins sometimes uses the CIA data instead, but there is no guarantee that that is more reliable.. This was written in 2010 with the data from the 2001 British census in mind; fourteen years later, things have not changed: compare WRD UK 2020 data with the 2021 UK census data.
The strength of the database, according to Brierley, merely consists in its unprecedented ... attempt on a worldwide basis to compile numbers for the different religions in a broadly compatible manner for each country.. Moreover, Brierley also concludes that: ... Christian and religious commentators have no option but to use it, despite hang-ups on definitions and individual numbers. ... These figures are not just for academic reflection and analysis but for strategic use and application. "Strategic use and application" refers to Christian mission, since Brierly is a Christian minister and/or missionary himself.
Ramos also quoted from Woodberry's World Religion Database: Impressive—but Improvable (2010); on the first page of the paper (unfortunately, I can't access the full text) we read: ... the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals. Denominations, however, typically overestimate the number of members they have, and liturgical (and state-sponsored) denominations generally count anyone who has ever been baptized as a member—even infant baptisms of people who no longer claim Christian identity or attend church..
There is also another paper of the same series, Arles' World Religion Database: Realities and Concerns (2010), but I can't access its full text.
Brierley's, Woodberry's and Arles' papers were all published on the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, and Brierley, Arles and probably Woodberry as well, are/were Christian ministers and/or missionaries, and therefore I think it is important to underline that these papers belong to the Christian missionary environment to which the WCE/WRD/WCD itself belongs. Such papers are missionary sources which recommend the use of another missionary source, highlighting its strength as an unprecedented attempt to quantify the world's religious populations, while at the same time criticising its flaws. Other "high-quality publications" might be uncritical in their use of the WCE/WRD/WCD, and indeed essays like those of Brierley, Woodberry, Arles, and also Hsu et al., Stewart, and the others already discussed, were published precisely to warn against the uncritical use of such sources.
Liedhegener & Odermatt's Religious Affiliation in Europe (2013), already quoted in the 2022-2023 discussion, pointed out that (p. 9) the WCE/WRD/WCD ... is not an unproblematic source, because its data, gathered originally from the World Christian Encyclopedia, result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries. Therefore, a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism..
As pointed out by JoelleJay hereabove, the Pew Research Center itself is very cautious in its use of WCE/WRD/WCD data, also considering that Pew mostly bases its studies on its own (real) surveys. On p. 53 of Pew's The Global Religious Landscape (2010) we read about their criteria for their use of WRD data: In cases where censuses and surveys lacked sufficient detail on minority groups, the estimates also drew on estimates provided by the World Religion Database, which takes into account other sources of information on religious affiliation, including statistical reports from religious groups themselves..
Folly Mox, in their <18:55, 5 January> comment, correctly warned that the WCE/WRD/WCD are still widely cited throughout Wikipedia in a great number of articles, mostly in infoboxes and tables and without further explanation about their nature, methodology and probable bias. This has been going on for years: many articles still uncritically report WCE/WRD/WCD data referenced to the ARDA or Gordon-Conwell websites; many of them are articles about countries and the data are reproduced directly in the country infobox, passed off as 2020 data despite the fact that they are speculative projections. Therefore, I think that it would be important that WP:CRYSTAL be mentioned in the description in the perennial sources' list.
That being said, my proposal for the description in the perennial sources' list is the following one:

There is no consensus on the reliability of these sources of data about religious populations, and concerns have been raised that they may be WP:BIASED and that they are WP:SPECULATIVE projections. Rough consensus developed that the sources should be used with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources (e.g. censuses and national surveys). While these data sources have been used in some high-quality publications, others have questioned their methodology and consider them to be partisan, and especially prone to an overestimation of Christianity.

Æo (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The RFC that Æo opened on this in 2022-2023 already had all of this commentary and MORE, and after all of that Firefangledfeathers was able to come up with a balanced closure wording to take into consideration ALL sides. I would say that Firefangledfeathers proposed wording, and P-Makoto's adjustment, is certainly very balanced and NPOV again and to the point. We should go with that as Firefangledfeathers is an uninvolved editor.

I also would just like to note that AEO seems to be an aggressive POV pusher against WCE/WRD/WCD sources. Seems to have an obsession to get these removed from wikipedia at any cost. To the point that he opened the 2022-2023 RFC and attempted to close it himself after the results were not in his favor (10 "No" vs 4 "Yes" - his count) with such biased wording emphasizing his view point and the minority and ignoring the majorities views (see here [13]). I thought that this opening and closing was unethical (conflict of interest) and requested an involved editor (see here [14]), which turned out to be Firefangledfeathers. His closure was much more balanced and at least took into consideration everyone's views (majority and minoirty) (see here [15]). As such, I do not trust AEO's POV pushing biased wording.

Based on this, I trust the uninvolved editor Firefangledfeathers balanced NPOV wording and P-Makoto's adjustment.

Addendum: Plus all of these quibbles were taken into account in Hsu 2008 - the only source to empirically assess these databases with 4 others: the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department) and found "The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable". Also about half or less of all countries in the world even ask about religion at all in any census. With inconsistent wording and on voluntary basis too. You have to use other sources by default to compensate. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the only quote in my comment above that I have recovered from the 2022-2023 discussion is the quote from Liedhegener & Odermatt. Brierley's and Woodberry's texts were not quoted directly back then, except for their abstracts, and therefore my argument above provides new evidence and perspectives. Everything else in your message constitutes an ad hominem WP:PA (and I already forgave you for last year's identical one). What I have written hereabove is just my proposal building upon Firefangledfeather's one, takes into consideration all the views which have been expressed by both critical essays and editors in our discussions, and in any case I am not going to close the discussion myself. Æo (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum regarding your addendum with the quote from Hsu et al. and the consideration about census data: the WVS is not a survey specifically about religion, and it is a survey of relatively small samples (of few thousands in about 100 countries); the CIA and the US SD are not survey organisations, they collect data from some other sources (cf. Brierley himself where he states that it is not guaranteed that the CIA website is reliable); the Pew's own views are quoted in my comment above. You have to use other sources by default to compensate — yes, there is plenty of neutral statistical sources to fill gaps where we don't have data from censuses and surveys from national statistical organisations, and therefore we don't need the WCE/WRD/WCD or any other sources produced by Christian missionaries. Æo (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I also noticed the following recently. The ARDA page for the Republic of the Congo https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=58c#IRFDEMOG has the WRD estimates as Christians making up 89.32% of the population and then breaks the Christians down as unaffiliated 9.97%, Orthodox 0.01%, Catholic 61.62%, Protestants 11.42%, and Independents 10.87%. Unfortunately adding the subdivisions up yields 93.89% which is considerably more than 89.32%. Also 89.32% fits better with the figures for other religions so it is the 93.89% that is wrong probably at least in part by overestimating the percentage of Catholics (other sources claim Catholics at 32% or 55% [taken from the State Department religious freedom report https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/republic-of-the-congo/ which also states which 2012 government sources it got the figures from [a census and a survey]). The 2022 State department report had 47.3% Catholic and used a 2010 Pew Research Center report. The WRD database itself, which I have access to, lists 89.32% as Christian. Finding the subcategories took some work but it shows that the Christian subdivisions overlap (i.e., some people are counted in two or more Christian groups though not which groups overlap, my guess is many of those who were baptized Catholic and became something else later are counted in both which would explain why the Catholic figure is so high). However this is a guess because nowhere I can find does WRD describe their methodology (And ARDA dropped the overlap category). The list of what I assume is the sources for WRD for the Congo includes the 1960 and 2007 censuses and a 2005 survey but not apparently the 2012 government census and survey. A check on Angola also shows the double counted category missing on the ARDA listing of WRD results though it does show in the actual WRD database; however, most wiki editors do not have access to the latter. Note stuff like simple pie charts require no overlap in their data. This is even when assuming the WRD data is otherwise good data which I don't. So one can make a pie chart for the Congo using WRD data for the major religious categories (Christian, Muslim,...) but not one trying to show Catholic, Protestants, etc as well because the numbers will add up to more than 100%. Erp (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Erp. Hope you are doing well! Glad you were able to use WRD data on the Religion in Republic of Congo page. Yep, that is demography. Did you see Voas and Bruce (2004) "Research note: The 2001 census and christian identification in Britain" [16]? According to them, the British census may have overestimated Christians (71.7%) vs a common British Social Attitudes survey (54.2%). Aren't they all British who took both? Why the difference? The way a question is asked, the way a person interprets and responds play a role in differences we see in the numbers. Its more complicated with sub-divisions like denominations like "Catholic" or "Pentecostal". So I expect the variation on "Catholic" you mentioned (61.62%, 47.3%, 32%, 55%). Makes sense. With all of these numbers, it is best to let experts do the calculations than us wikieditors. They know how to use these databases better than us. In particular, sociologists of religion. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I used it in the Congo article only because the previous editor used it and I didn't want to make too radical a change in one step. First show that the WRD data is inconsistent with itself so drop the Christian subdivisions which at least removes the inconsistencies. Then look for better sources. I'm not sure there is any really authoritative source in this case so it might be better to remove the pie chart (pie charts look nice but they lend the patina of authoritativeness which may be misleading) and discuss the different sources in the article (note some editors use multiple pie charts but that clutters up the article).

And yes how the questions are asked will affect the answers and how the survey or census is done (only resident citizens, all residents, only those with land lines...). However, the WRD isn't doing surveys or taking a census instead it is more a meta study using multiple sources (surveys, censuses, self-reported numbers, other projections) then projecting. My objections to it are several. First, it isn't clear what its sources are. The actual WRD data has a section called "Survey List" which I'm assuming is the list of sources; I have noticed in some cases that later sources than those on the list exist. Second, nothing describes the methodology it is using for a particular country; how is it calculating the projections when did it last update the projections (one can take a stab by looking at the latest item in the "Survey List" for when it likely last updated). Third there is no indication of how accurate they feel they are. Every percentage is to 4 significant digits (or counts to the individual person even when the sources aren't that precise, such as 386 people practicing Chinese Folk Religions and 237 Buddhists in the Republic of the Congo but no Daoists or Confucionists) even when that level of precision is impossible given the sources (projections should not become more precise then the sources). Another fault though common to many other sources is little account for religious syncretism such as in countries like Japan where many practice both Buddhism and Shintoism. Less important there are the oddities of definitions which make them seem not exactly neutral (for instance Confucianists have to be non-Chinese which might explain how they only get 1.8 million Confucianists in China). On another note given the use of the World Religion Database in Wikipedia for better or for worst, it is high time it had its own article complete with critiques from reliable sources so the reader can have some chance of evaluating it. Erp (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what the standard is in social science but in my field metastudy results should be reproducible by others, not shrouded in methodological mystery. That's another big knock on the WRD. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Erp,

The problems you have encountered regarding the "double counting" and "inconsistent estimates" in WCE/WRD/WCD data are addressed in some of the papers we have discussed. For instance, in Hsu et al.: p. 688, analysing WCE/WRD/WCD data about US Christians: The WCD reports the total adherent count within Christian denominations and movements is 226 million, of whom 20 million are estimated to be doubly affiliated, leaving 206 million unique adherents. An additional 46 million claim to be Christians but are not affiliated with a church, for a total of 252 million affiliated and unaffiliated Christians. The 2005 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches’ tabulation of official church membership is 163 million. In contrast to the WCD, the Yearbook does not count members of independent churches or adjust for doubly affiliated adherents. This difference of 43–63 million adherents between the Yearbook and the WCD warrants further examination. ... The WCD adjusts for “doubly counted” adherents, who may be on multiple membership lists, when aggregating up from denomination level statistics to religious blocks and total religious adherents. However, we do not know how the WCD derives its estimate of 20 million doubly counted U.S. adherents. Current WCD estimates of American Christian populations are generally higher than those based on survey evidence and denominational statistics. The WCD estimate of the total Christian population does not sufficiently reflect the recent downward trend in the percentage of Americans professing Christian identity in surveys.; pp. 689-691, analysing inconsistent estimates of Christians in other countries: We find two major groups of countries with inconsistent estimates: African countries with religious syncretism or a history of social disorder, and formerly Communist countries. ... African countries with very inconsistent estimates for percent Christian (Angola, Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) have some populations that mix religious practices. ... For India, which others have cited as problematic, the WCD has a higher estimate for percent Christian than the other data sets ... the difference comes from Christian believers in high and low castes identifying themselves as Hindu for various reasons, ... and the existence of “isolated radio believers” who do not affiliate with particular denominations. The WCE does not explain how it estimates the number of isolated radio believers, presumably a particularly difficult population to measure.. Æo (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Further criticism of the WRD is expressed in the following paper:

• Christopher Claassen & Richard Traunmüller's "Improving and Validating Survey Estimates of Religious Demography Using Bayesian Multilevel Models and Poststratification", Sociological Methods & Research, XX(X): 1-34 (Sage, 2018). On p. 4, we read: A number of data collection projects have arisen to meet this demand, including the World Religion Database ... Although the scope and comprehensiveness of these databases are admirable, and while they provide perhaps the only source of data for some regions and periods of time, there are nevertheless a number of limitations with their estimates. ... Although these databases rightly respect the adage that some data are preferable to none at all, we have no way of ascertaining the degree of uncertainty attached to any particular estimate because none are provided. Without uncertainty estimates, analysts are led to treat census measures and expert opinions as equally valid. Second, the methods used to adjust sample survey data, combine data, and obtain estimates when no data are available are less than fully transparent. Adjusting, combining, interpolating, and extrapolating data require modeling. Yet neither the assumptions underlying the model nor the exact methods for doing so are fully specified. In addition, the uncertainty induced by modeling is again ignored.. --Æo (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: WCE-WRD/WCD

The #World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database are currently used in many Wikipedia articles (cf. 1, 2, 3, 4) to cite statistics on religion demography, and finding a consensus on the reliability of these sources in the discussion above has been difficult. Foregoing discussions on the same sources include one in 2018 and one in 2022-2023 (with RfC).

In this request for comment, it is possible to:

• Option 0: Express a comment without choosing any specific option on the reliability of the sources.
• Assess the reliability of the sources by choosing from one of the following options:
  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Additional considerations
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable
  • Option 4: Deprecate

Æo (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Option 3: There is abundant evidence, especially since the publication of Stewart's 2023 critical essay, but also in previous critical essays, that these are problematic, biased sources originating from a Christian missionary environment, and they have been questioned on methodological grounds. Moreover, the data they produce are based on speculative projection. Secondary sources that recommend their use often come from the same environment, and these secondary sources express some negative criticism themselves. Secondary sources that actually use them tend to be either outdated or uncritical in ther use, often merely citing them in footnotes and/or in lists of multiple sources.--Æo (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Even if somewhere there's an unresolved discussion of the use of a cite, that still would not justify a 4-way template with options including a blanket ban. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Peter Gulutzan: What do you suggest as an alternative to the four options? Æo (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  "[Name of source] has been used in [reference to Wikipedia article] for a cite of [fact], and attempts to resolve on [name of talk page thread] have failed, please comment here." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, both are possible. I am going to integrate the two formats. I think it is important to clearly assess the reliability of these sources, and in any case, as the rule says, "consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments". These are not votes and the closer will judge based on the merit of all the comments here, in the discussion above, and in the previous threads as well. Æo (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is the standard format of RFCs on this noticeboard. The inclusion of an option shouldn't be seen as any kind of endorsement for that option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. Regarding World Christian Encyclopedia (1st and 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1982, 2001; 3rd ed., Edinburgh University Press, 2019), World Christian Database (Brill, 2007, updated quarterly), and World Religion Database (Brill, 2007, updated quarterly): When I first saw it brought up on this board, I was inclined to encourage reassessing the sources as "Generally reliable". They are published with highly reputable university presses and have been improved across multiple editions and updates. However, after seeing the conversation between Ramos1990 and Æo, I concluded that these sources' current assessment as "Additional considerations" is fairest. Scholarly assessments of the sources evidently vary, with different perspectives about the extent to which the estimations and assessments can be depended on. As such, it makes sense to attribute these sources' projections and surveys and to be mindful of countervailing sources. However, I am not persuaded these sources should be considered "Generally unreliable". I recognize that Æo in their characterizes these sources as "originating from a Christian missionary environment". From what I have seen, that understates how the sources have emerged from an academic religious studies environment. Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, and Brill don't publish just anybody, and that the editors, authors, and demographers involved met those academic standards remains meaningful. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, Bad RFC, WP:FORUMSHOP These sources were assessed last year with the majority not supporting the same RFC poster Æo using the same arguments. I believe this may be WP:FORUMSHOP. He even tried to close the RFC himself with his own views highlighted over the majority.
  In any case, these databases come from academic publishers (Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Brill). And have been independently empirically assessed too, taking into account any criticisms, with 4 other common databases in demography (the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department)) and found to be generally reliable and highly correlated (very comparable) with correlation of .9 (note: a correlation of 1 would mean perfect correlation which never happens among demographic datasets) Becky Hsu et al :"We ran correlations of the five data sets with each other on the percentage of adherents to the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) as well as the nonreligious (Table 2). The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable". Furthermore, they note that "on the whole we find that WCD estimates are generally consistent with other data sets. The WCD is highly correlated with the other data sets, estimates for percent Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu" and even give a positive overall recommendation "In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups.”
  No sources have been presented showing the opposite on such a multiple global datasets scale. And the WRD methodology is available: "fully transparent to the scholarly community...based on best social science and demographic practices." It has census, surveys, polls too.
  Furthermore, these sources are notable for their data being commonly commonly used by high-quality publications. They are respected by a diversity of scholars and authoritative sources such as scholars of Islam (e.g. The Oxford Handbook of Politics in Muslim Societies (2022)), scholars of nonreligion / irreligion (e.g. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 7 (2016)), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007)), Pew Research Center's uses it in own methodology and database (see Pew's methodology, The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa (2020)) and also Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies (2022), Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe (2022).
  If it is good enough for independent demographers, Oxford University handbooks, Cambridge University handbooks, Palgrave Handbooks, Pew, Sociology of Religion, it certainly good enough for Wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I respond to Ramos' argument, which I find to be misleading and which once again relies upon personal attack, under Nemov's comment below. Æo (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 I was originally between option 1 and 2, but after looking at some points further, I looked around and found additional high quality sources that use WRD/WCDWCE data without any issues. For example, Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe [17] pages 793–798 uses the databases to summarize European demographics overall. I also found the same thing for summarizing demographics of Asia overall in Oxford Handbook of Christianity in Asia [18] at the very end pages 598–605. Two continents is quite good from my simple search. I think that the Becky Hsu paper on comparing WRD/WCD/WCE with 4 other secular databases with global statistics provides as good test of reliability for any given source. I was surprised such an empirical test was even done for any database at all. A .9 correlation is like an A grade for a student in school. That sociologist Robert Woodberry acknowledged Hsu's general conclusion of high correlation is a good second opinion by an expert, which is as good as it gets for global demography because demography is full of imperfections. I see no good reason for not seeing them as generally reliable at this point. Oxford, Cambridge, Pew and other unquestioned sources don't seem to either. I will lean on their expertise. After all, if WRD/WCD/WCE were unreliable, they would not even be used by them (Oxford handbooks are "Authoritative and state-of-the-art surveys of current thinking and research, from leading international figures in the discipline." [19]) The few clear criticisms I saw were minor and not significant enough compared to the positives and they were mostly Wikipedian opinions, not scholarly assessments. Pentecostalism is an informal denomination and it is hard to even get clear numbers for denominations across countries. Phil Zuckerman's struggle with atheism shows that censuses and surveys, may not be able to capture all religious groups evenly across countries and so any complaints about WRD/WCD/WCE seem to just be problems faced by demography in general, and not unique to WRD/WCD/WCE. I find it odd that the same editor opening this RFC is the same editor that opened the 2022 RFC with seeming repeat intent to depreciate again (WP:RSP entry). desmay (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 I'm mostly going on methodological grounds and also because in my last deep dive (from the previous discussion) I found very few peer reviewed articles using the WRD as a source that were not connected with the project itself (e.g., authored by someone in WRD). Even Pew uses it only when no other sources exist. Where we know it does correlate, other better sources exist which they are probably using. One article mostly on Pew though it also applies to WRD (Birdsall, Judd; Beaman, Lori (2020-07-02). "Faith in Numbers: Can we Trust Quantitative Data on Religious Affiliation and Religious Freedom?" (PDF). The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 18 (3): 60–68. doi:10.1080/15570274.2020.1795401. ISSN 1557-0274. Retrieved 2024-01-12. notes that "Numbers are not neutral. Behind any quantification of religion or FoRB there are a range of qualitative assumptions and decisions as to what constitutes religion, religiosity, a restriction on religious belief or practice, or a social hostility involving religion. It’s both an art and a science" and goes on to state "Pay close attention to what an organization is actually measuring and use the correct terminology when citing its data. As we have seen, religious “identification” is not synonymous with faith, belief, practice, or even formal affiliation" (page 6 of the pdf). Pew almost always gives us the methodology for their figures; WRD just presents the data but not what type of religiosity they are estimating (formal affiliation, self-identification, practicing). We should also be upfront that in some cases precise numbers just aren't there so, for instance, not use a pie chart which privileges one source well above others when no source is great. (As an aside I just looked at the WRD info on the United Kingdom, I suspect it would come to a shock to many in Scotland and Northern Ireland that the UK's state religion is Anglican [it is the state religion only of England].)

Erp (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Deep dive. Looking at an article that is comparing the WRD/WCD and several other sources (note WRD and WCD overlap on who is running them, in particular Todd Johnson) (McKinnon, Andrew (2020). "Demography of Anglicans in Sub-Saharan Africa: Estimating the Population of Anglicans in Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda". Journal of Anglican Studies. 18 (1): 42–60. doi:10.1017/S1740355320000170. ISSN 1740-3553. Retrieved 2024-01-14., btw the article goes into depth about why the numbers can vary including why censuses and surveys can vary). Broadly they match other info until they hit Nigeria. "Relative to any of the other cases we have considered here, WCD estimates differ most dramatically from any of the four surveys in terms of the proportion of Anglicans in Nigeria. The WCD estimates a dramatic proportional increase in Anglicans in the 45 years leading up to 2015, from 5.2 per cent to 12.1 per cent. The highest proportion of Anglicans on any of the surveys is found in the R5 Afrobarometer survey, where Anglicans comprise 5.3 per cent of a nationally representative sample". The author continued "The WCD has arrived at its estimate for the proportion of Anglicans in 2015 by taking the last reported figures provided by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) itself to the WCD.... In correspondence with the author, Todd Johnson of WCD has noted that, collectively, the churches and denominations of Nigeria claim 25 million more members than the best estimate of the Christian population would allow". After evaluating all the information the author concludes that there is at least 4.94 million self-identified Anglicans in Nigeria and no more than 11.74 million (the Church of Nigeria claims 18 million). BTW the ARDA report of the WRD figures (https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=166c#RELADH) which most Wiki editors likely use does not include or mention the subtraction (under the guise of multiple affiliations) that WRD uses in its own database to make the various percentages add up; the WRD total percentage of Christians is 46.18% but adding up the WRD subtotals as reported by ARDA yields 56.29%. Erp (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Ramos1990 who makes a compelling argument. Nemov (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ramos' argument is opened by an ad hominem WP:PA (in which she falsely accuses me of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, manipulates the facts of the 2022-2023 discussion as she already tried to do in January 2023 and on 6 January 2024 in the discussion above, and accuses me of using the same arguments whilst I have presented plenty of new evidence, starting from Stewart's 2023 essay), which would be enough to make her argument fallacious. Then, she builds upon a few lines, already reiterated again and again in the discussion above, excerpted from the 2008 Hsu et al. paper which, however, is overall mostly critical of the source under discussion. Regarding the CIA and the US SD, they are not statistical institutes, and they collect statistics about religions from other sources, often from the WCE/WRD/WCD itself (e.g. US SD 2022 India report)! The Pew's very restrictive criteria in its use of WCE/WRD/WCD data have been thoroughly explained by JoelleJay and by myself in the discussion above, and once again by Erp in her comment hereabove. Then, Ramos continues by stating that no sources have been presented showing the opposite on such a multiple global datasets scale, which is misleading: various scholarly sources presented (even Hsu et al. itself!) found a systematic overestimation of Christianity and underestimation of other categories in WCE/WRD/WCD data, and various other problems, but Ramos chooses to completely ignore all the critical problems highlighted by such scholarly sources. Anne-Marie Kool's Revisiting Mission in, to and from Europe through Contemporary Image Formation (2016), another essay which is highly critical of the source under discussion, already quoted in the 2022-2023 discussion, warns that: widespread caution is raised with regard to the accuracy of the figures and not to engage in statistical analysis with the data. Æo (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Questions of forum shopping or any other editor behaviour should be taken elsewhere, equally editors comments should be centered on sources not each other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure about Kool. She is not a demographer and she even says on the sources, "I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades." The Becky Hsu et al. source was not a source I found. It was Æo that cited it in the 2022 discussion and tired to use it as a main source against reliability. But after I read it, I noticed that it said the opposite and even included Christian data in the list of generally reliable data (see my blue text for quote). She is explicit on this. Furthermore, Table 2 has correlations on Christians among the 4 data sets and WCD correlates with the 4 datasets better (.9188, .9251, .9581, .9346 - all above .9 correlation) than how the other 4 datasets correlate with each other (.9146, .8979, .9365, .8468, .8538, .9408 - some are below .9 correlation). On overestimating, it is not unique [20]. Plus I found another authoritative source explicitly saying "A scholarly analysis of the World Christian Database was conducted by sociologists at Princeton University in 2008, confirming its reliability. See Hsu et al., 2008." (Bloomsbury Handbook to Study Christians (2019)) and in p. 23 acknowledges that these are "the best scholarly resource we have for documenting religious affiliation in the world today". For Pew, see my responses above. WRD is the second most used primary source after censuses, by country. Population size wise, WRD usage was comparable to large scale demographic surveys (12% of the population) - but Pew used 2,500 sources overall so it was never one source per country. Seeing that China and India alone account for 38% of the world population and all of Europe is only 7% of the global population, objections based on population size are not convincing not carry any weight. Pew goes by # of countries instead. See Palgrave handbook link for more info. Pew would simply not use WRD if it was so unreliable. Period. Numerous other authoritative sources that are commissioned specifically to leading experts in their fields (Oxford handbooks, Cambridge handbooks, etc) easily use these. Net positive, all things considered. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  You continue to manipulate facts, potentially misleading readers and commentators, probably expecting them not to read the essays and the past discussions. The full paragraph of Kool (2016) in which the line you excerpted is contained is the following (underlined: your excerpt): It might well be that the great quantity of details easily silenced possible critical voices. It is peculiar that hardly any serious critical interaction and discussion of the underlying methodology of the Atlas has taken place, neither of its two data providing predecessors (footnote 65: Except for a not very convincing study: BECKY HSU et al.). The data are simply taken for granted, as I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades.. It is a statement of repentance for having used the highly problematic WCE/WRD/WCD data in her past works.

  Similarly, Hsu et al. (2008) itself (n.b. my links are always to the full paper, while Ramos' ones are always to the paper's abstract only), from which you continue to quote a few selected and decontextualised lines, is actually very critical of the sources under discussion, and I provided relevant quotes from it in the 2022-2023 discussion and others in the discussion above. It is also true that Hsu et al. is from the mid 2000s, and age matters in this case (as Doug Weller correctly pointed out in the discussion above), and therefore the excerpt you keep quoting about "high correlation" may have been true for the data of the 2000s, but no longer be true for the data of the 2010s and 2020s.

  The full paragraph of Hsu et al. from which your excerpt is taken is the following (underlined: your excerpt; highlighted: critical parts): We ran correlations of the five data sets with each other on the percentage of adherents to the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) as well as the nonreligious (Table 2). The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable. However, the other data sets often do not have information for all countries, so the correlations only represent the countries where other data sets record percentages for those religious categories. Most notably, the nonreligious data are not highly correlated between most of the data sets. While all of the data sets have mostly complete data for percent Christian and percent Muslim, data on percent Buddhist, percent Hindu, and percent nonreligious are incomplete in various data sets. The nonreligious category has few observations in State Department and CIA data and is best represented in the WCD, WVS, and Pew. The estimates for Hindus and Buddhists are especially problematic in the CIA data. Figure 1 shows that the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y - x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. This suggests that while the percentage Christian estimates are closely related among the data sets, the tendency is for them to be slightly higher in the WCD.

  Regarding the handbooks that you keep citing, they are not written by statisticians and demographers and are not essays about statistics/demography and its methodologies. They are just "handbooks" that uncritically use the WCE/WRD/WCD among many other sources. Æo (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Key word in Hsu - "Slight". Nowhere does she say significant, nor does she isolate Christians away from the list of "generally reliable". Table 2 shows WCD had higher correlation (greater than .9) with all 4 datasets than the other 4 datasets with each other (some were below .9) on Christians as well. High correlation verifies general reliability. Overestimates/underestimates occur all the time in demography because all sources are limited. Example on census overestimating Christians too [21] and also some censuses like Soviet or Albanian censuses underestimated Christians. If WRD was as unreliable as you keep saying, high quality publications obviously would not use them even on Christianity at all, and yet they do. Among other recent ones I cited above (in my vote), here is one someone else found on summarizing Christianity in Asia [22]. These publications use experts in demography. Neither you or I are experts. I will leave it here. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 or at least 2. Like Erp, I am concerned with the methodology used in compiling these databases, particularly the opacity in what questions are even being asked of respondents. Pew uses WCD and other databases for only 5% of the population. That that 5% is divided into a larger number of countries than the percentages allocated to surveys etc. is about as meaningful as the observation that Trump won 2,497 counties while Biden "only" won 477. The only utility would be when discussing religious representation in the particular 57 countries that Pew used "a database" for, but in those cases we have a better source in Pew itself, which has secondarily filtered and interpreted these data. Perhaps professional demographers can extract the substantive information from WRD, but given how uneven it is in reliability and all the special considerations that one must make for given groups, we should treat it as essentially a primary source. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

AP News with plagiarism

So if you don’t check the news often (like me), you might have missed it. Earlier this morning, the Associated Press (AP News) ran a story where they stated the following: Harvard president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism (via post on 𝕏). The news article’s headline today originally was titled Harvard president quits: Claudine Gay resignation highlights new conservative weapon, which has since been changed to be titled Plagiarism charges downed Harvard’s president. A conservative attack helped to fan the outrage.

This isn’t an RfC as one isn’t warranted, given AP isn’t a source on the plagiarism article. Per very clear Wikipedia consensus combined with actual academic study consensus, AP News is widely considered to be accurate. That said, given the development today, I think we need a discussion about whether or not AP should be considered unreliable on the topic of plagiarism (i.e. no future usage on that article only).

Several sources have posted articles on this AP News headline as well: Fox News (considered unreliable), Daily Wire (considered unreliable), Independent Journal Review (No discussions on WP:RSP), New American (considered unreliable), Pipa News (Nothing at WP:RSP), Disclose.tv (On 𝕏), Elon Musk commenting after the AP News post on 𝕏 linked above was community noted.

If you haven’t followed the Harvard President’s topic over the last month, there is a lot of articles (from RS sources) about the plagiarism. Here are the ones linked in that Community Note: PBS, Axios, NY Times, The Hill, Harvard University.

Given the weird article from AP News, I personally think we (Wikipedia) should consider them unreliable on the sole topic of plagiarism, as they seem to be the only RS source considering it to be political. Even sources known to be on the American “political left” (NY Times is an example) don’t make it political and just say she was wrong. Again, this is not an RfC as AP is not currently even a source on the plagiarism article, but the discussion is better to have now for the future. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't consider the Claudine Gay situation to be "political"? Here's an RS, Politico, with the headline yesterday "Republicans claim victory for Harvard president’s resignation". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I do. However, even Politico says, “Republican lawmakers welcomed Harvard University president Claudine Gay’s resignation after weeks of calling for her to step down over her response to antisemitism on campus — and her testimony on the topic at a fiery House hearing in December. That is about the antisemitism remarks. That aspect is political. Until the AP News article today, I had yet to see RS about the plagiarism (not antisemitism) to be political. That is what I mean. AP News made the plagiarism independent of the antisemitism political, which was a first. That is what this discussion is for. Ignore the President Gay/antisemitism controversy for this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the AP article has it completely right. NY Times calls it a the plagiarism a "proxy fight", and Politico (different article than the above) sees it as well. This was the work of Christopher Rufo, who used the idea that Gay committed plagiarism to erode faith in an Ivy League university. Time magazine refers to this as Rufo's Alarming and Deceptive Crusade. Rufo has admitted to all of this. "We launched the Claudine Gay plagiarism story from the Right. The next step is to smuggle it into the media apparatus of the Left, legitimizing the narrative to center-left actors who have the power to topple her. Then squeeze." (tweeted on December 19). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu's summary of this. I think AP News remains reliable, including for the topic of plagiarism. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I, too, have no problem with APs reliability regarding plagiarism. In my view, this entire matter has been thoroughly politicized and weaponized from the very beginning. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good y'all! Amid the political dispute then, I thought it best to bring it up here at least. Consensus remains that AP is reliable in all topics. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a good example of why we disregard headlines... Especially in the modern era when multiple titles can be A-B tested in real time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As originally published the article read: "On X, formerly Twitter, he wrote “SCALPED,” as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans." Later on "and also used by some tribes against their enemies." was added. Whether this was changed because of the ridicule on X or someone at AP independently realising what ahistorical nonsense this was would be interesting to know. The authors would have done well to glance at Scalping. —Simon Harley (Talk). 10:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That isn't "ahistorical nonsense," both statements are true one just has more context. What the heck are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, headlines are unreliable. It should also follow—in my opinion—that social media posts by an organisation promoting an article are unreliable. Only the article itself is what we should be using for factual claims. — Bilorv (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't find the AP article weird. I see nothing in it to make us consider it unreliable. The headline and tweet is never the source, so I see no problem here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As a general and unfortunate principle, anything can be political - e.g. Climate Change. I don't see anything exceptional about AP's report. BilledMammal (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There's usually a shortcut for all instances, and it's true in this case WP:HEADLINES. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to reinforce what others are saying - a headline isn't a source, and reputable organizations routinely tweak headlines for a variety of reasons. Absolutely no reason to consider discouraging use of AP on any topic as proposed in OP. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with most other comments, the headline is questionable, but AP should be still be considered a reliable source for plagiarism. FortunateSons (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Land Transport Guru and SG Trains

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear and overwhelming consensus to regard Land Transport Guru as an unreliable source for Wikipedia, based on strong and evidence-based arguments. (non-admin closure) --Brachy08 _(Talk) 23:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Why it matters?: LTG is a self-published source, as stated by previous discussions regarding it. And as me, @ZKang123 and other users opined (I will not mention their usernames), it is an unreliable source. It has been used in multiple articles, and there was a period of time where exit information (a no-go, as it treads into travel guide territory) was added with LTG as a source. I mentioned SGTrains as it is a similar source, albeit more reliable in my opinion.

But my justification is now over, so here are the options

Option 1: Reliable

Option 2: Situational (it will be good if you can lean towards 1 or 3 if voting Option 2)

Option 3: Unreliable

Option 4: Deprecate

Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Land Transport Guru is clearly unreliable, I would limit this discussion to just that source rather than to try and shoehorn SG Trains in their as well (they're also most likely unreliable but it helps to have separate discussion especially if as you say they are of differing reliability). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Option 3. Both source are clearly unreliable. Search through both usages, majortive are used to source materials that are unsuitable for Wikipedia regardless of sourcing, while for some like #52 on East West MRT line are replaceable with similar reporting such as this by The Straits Times. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussions in case anyone is interested: September 2023, December 2023 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I might lean towards deprecating, but I'm fine with Option 3. Both LTG and SGTrains are user-based blogs and wikis.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3/4 per ZKang. SPS, should be fairly cut and dry. The Kip 23:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Marking as unreliable on WP:RSP Brachy08 _(Talk) 23:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Using unreliable/semi reliable source on a contentious topic

I would like to explore the possibility of using a semi reliable/unreliable source like WP:TOI in a contentious topics such as Ram mandir, especially in the controversies section of it. I got into a disagreement with an editor who used it ans I don't want to invoke 1RR. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Always down to explore, what would be the rationalization? That Times of India publishes a significant POV even if it isn't super reliable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is not under 1RR. Times of India is semi-reliable according to WP:TOI, and it can be used for statements which are simply undisputed or unlikely to be disputed. Ironically, you are asking me to avoid using TOI for the statements that they have reported against the ruling Indian government[23] contrary to WP:TOI which urges against using the TOI articles that have "bias in favor of the Indian government". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional considerations apply to Times of India, specifically bias towards the current government of India and undisclosed promotional reporting. If neither is involved then it is still generally reliable (questions could still be raised about specific articles, but that is true of all sources). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested If Trump wins, would that apply to WAPO, NYT, CNN etc? Doug Weller talk 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It would depend on how those sources react to a Trump victory, and the results of any RSN discussions. My comment is based on the Times of India's RSP entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Damn, misread earlier post. Being pro Hindutva is like being pro MAGA. My bad. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think for basic reporting (accepted facts) TOI is still good. But I think what @The Herald is referring to is something specific to the controversies section, which is contentious. It is a good practice to use very reliable sources for contentious topics. SpunkyGeek (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, the only time TOI can be a questionable source is for things like WP:BLP because it's been known to web scrape. It even says here to not use it for details such as a DOB since many of them turned out to be incorrect.[24] Kcj5062 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

militaryhallofhonor.com

This website is WP:SPS and WP:UGC and I think that it should never be used. See https://militaryhallofhonor.com/membership.php

• It is a self-published source: "Who is responsible for the Military Hall of Honor? Charles A. Lewis, a veteran that honorably served in the U.S. Army, is the founder of MHOH. With a hobby as a military researcher / historian, he has compiled thousands of biographies ..."
• When it is not a self-published source it is UGC: "MHOH limits editorial rights for Honoree Records to Registered Members only. ... A community of users interested in honoring those who have honored us will ensure that these records are as accurate as possible." Further, on the homepage: "Here we provide members a place to create Honoree records that are available for anyone to view, free of charge"
  • See user profiles:
    • "Deemax"
    • "bakerd13"
    • etc.

So Charles A. Lewis has created some entries, various registered users have created others, and the commuinity of users works to ensure accuracy. It is used in dozens of articles, but perhaps not that many for me to start an RfC. What do you think? —Alalch E. 18:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears clear from their membership FAQ that this is user generated content, Joining is easy, simply click on the register link above and enter a first and last name, a user name, password, and e-mail address. An e-mail will be sent to you with a link to follow for verification purposes. Now just log in and start entering an Honoree record! I can't find evidence that Charles A. Lewis meets the requirements for WP:SPS either. This is another hobbiest/enthusiast sites that falls short of being a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Seconding AD, this appears to be another dime-a-dozen milhist enthusiast site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Third for AD., I would strongly recommend against using it a reliable source. FortunateSons (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the Carnegie Foundation reliable?

It is sourced in the article on Hamas-Russia relations. StrongALPHA (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you mean Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the use of this article in Russia–Hamas relations. It looks to be reliable for the content it's supports in that article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Fairly solid thinktank that uses subject matter experts to write for it. I'd say yes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree on reliability, but as always, take care to attribute as required by WP:Biased when necessary FortunateSons (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this source reliable? (Aromanian language)

ShockedSkater, pinging in case they want to participate, has added a 2024 source to Aromanian language presenting a new oldest known text in Aromanian [25]. I am excited about this since I am active in this topic area, however, from what I see, the paper [26] is not from any journal, if I understand correctly what that means it would look self-published to me. The author is Edion Petriti, I can't find much information about him, I did find some articles by him in Albanian newspapers [27], also this paper [28] which seems to be published in Hylli i Dritës, which might be the magazine we have a Wikipedia article for (Hylli i Dritës). I'd rather not delete this source and information as it would represent an important discovery, but the fact that the 2024 paper is not published in any scientific journal from what I see is a bit worrisome for me. Also, when searching in Google the paper's title, only the Wikipedia article on the Aromanian language shows up to me, not even the paper at academia.edu. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you learn Albanian, or at least try Google translate. The original manuscript can be accessed here: [29]; the manuscript was dated by Peter Schreiner, German Byzantinologist [30], to the 16th-17th centuries, and is probably correct, if you have a look at internal evidence. The paper also offers a transcription and certain linguistic conclusions. It's all there, links, bibliography, references. ShockedSkater (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This looks to be analysis of a primary source plus one or more self-published papers on a pre-print site. Unless I missed something, I'm not seeing peer-reviewed scholarship published in a reputable journal. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, there's no way we should base an "oldest known text" claim on primary and self-published secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Woodroar that this looks like a situation where WP:EXCEPTIONAL would apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, maybe we should remove the claim and just state the (sourced) age of the manuscript, dated to the 16th-17th centuries. ShockedSkater (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I consider the chain of sources sketchy. Right now, the source is Cristina Neagu in the Christ Church Library Newsletter citing Peter Schreiner speaking at the Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Despotate of Epirus in 1990. (Thank you, Google Translate.) What do we know about the Schreiner source? Was the symposium well regarded? Were its presentations peer-reviewed or based on working papers? And even then, Schreiner is a single source, which raises questions about due-ness. I would suggest waiting until multiple peer-reviewed sources directly date the manuscript. Woodroar (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Cristina Neagu's article, from the Christ Church Library Newsletter of the Oxford University, cited above seems more reliable to me. Could we use it as a source to briefly mention in the Aromanian language article that there is a document dated to the 16th-17th centuries as ShockedSkater suggested or is it better to completely remove this until more sources appear? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The manuscript was in England already in 1727, meaning it had finished being written, a couple of years before the Ardenica Engraving was published, in 1731. I do not think it's an entirely exceptional claim. ShockedSkater (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I still think it's probably UNDUE until there's more coverage in reliable, secondary sources. We can't cite Peter Schreiner because we don't have that source, right? What we do have is the Christ Church Library Newsletter. That's from Oxford, yes, but it's a newsletter, not a peer-reviewed journal article. Its author, Cristina Neagu, doesn't appear to be a subject matter expert because she cites Peter Schreiner rather than her own analysis. Then we have Neagu's comments on page 22 of the newsletter, where she comments on the lack of scholarship on MS 49. If our best near-source is saying "look, this needs to be studied more", that should be a red flag to us. Woodroar (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe @Super Dromaeosaurus can help us; if he is presently in Greece, he can go in a library and find Peter Schreiner, Το αρχαιότερο χειρόγραφο του Χρονικού των Ιωαννίνων, in: E. Chrysos (ed.) «Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτου της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27-31 Μαΐου 1990)». Arta, 1992, 47-51. Some photos of the pages in question are more than welcome. ShockedSkater (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am in Spain, so that is simply not possible. I can however get the paper by requesting access to it at WP:RX. But this could perfectly take months and I am not guaranteed to receive it (or I might after waiting three months). ShockedSkater, would you agree to removing this info from the article and readd it if I receive the paper considering the long wait, so as not to drag this for months? I can also send it to you if I receive it if you want. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've requested the document, but it is hosted in few libraries, so it is unlikely that I will get it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do I have to agree on something that has to do with a digital manuscript of the 15th-18th centuries, that is available online? I mean, if you have doubts regarding the discovery and lack of peer-review, there is still the manuscript itself, and various sources that state it was already in England in 1727, years before the Ardenica document (1731). You can add "a transcription of the material can be found here"... pointing to Edion Petriti's paper etc. If you send me the article, that would be most welcome. ShockedSkater (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. We don't analyze primary sources, and we don't synthesize sources to support claims that neither source makes.

The only source currently supporting this claim at Aromanian language is Edion Petriti's paper at academia.edu. As mentioned by Super Dromaeosaurus above, this source does not appear to be published in any peer-reviewed journal, and, as far as I can tell, Edion Petriti does not appear to be a subject matter expert. I'm also concerned about an apparent conflict of interest here.

If someone can get their hands on the Peter Schreiner source, that would be a starting point. In particular, I'm interested if it goes into whether the paper (or the symposium itself) is peer-reviewed or if the source is simply a working paper. At that point, we can (hopefully) answer questions about reliability and discuss whether or not the claim is DUE. But until then, the claim should be removed from the article. Woodroar (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want to remove the "oldest", fine by me. ShockedSkater (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I just received the paper in PDF. The citation is there, on p. 49: 16ο ἢ 17 αἰώνα. Meaning, of the 16th or 17th century. ShockedSkater (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I received it as well, and I see that statement about the 16th or 17th century.

The paper suggests that these were minutes of the symposium. I'm still unable to find any information about the symposium itself, whether or not its presentations were peer-reviewed, or if the Schreiner portion was based on a working paper or should be considered his final version. (Those questions may seem frivolous, but they're critical factors of reliability.) Policies like WP:SCHOLARSHIP would have us look for citation counts or evidence of scholarly influence, from the symposium, publisher, and author. Any thoughts on this? Evidence that we should consider this source reliable?

If the source is reliable, we also need to balance Schreiner's findings that this document is from the "16th or 17th c." with other scholars' findings that the oldest text are from 1731 and later. NPOV would have us attribute Schreiner's findings (as an outlier) at least. (But I may be jumping ahead here.)

Another question that I had: the text at Aromanian language is about the "oldest known written text in the language", which uses a Latin alphabet. Now Oxford's description of the primary source says it was written in "Greek" and "Aromanian (in Greek alphabet)". Is that important? Or that we're discussing a glossary and not a "text" as most would understand it (i.e., some words strung together in that language). Woodroar (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

"[O]ldest known written text in the language" is still written in Greek characters, the Ardenica Engraving of 1731, also found in a book published in Venice in 1732, called Βιβλιάριον καλούμενον πίστις, which can be found online.

This being said, probably you should have a look at WP:Peter Schreiner in German, so you get to have an opinion of the scholar in question. Maybe you are splitting hair here, Schreiner bases his conclusions on the type of handwriting used in the document. Even if it were not of the 16th-17th century, as Schreiner states, the history of the collated manuscript positions it as the first written instance of the language. I'm not sure though why Schreiner uses Romanian instead of Aromanian in this paper.

Internal evidence is consistent with the dating, there are certain internal developments that require quite some time, like 2 or more centuries to show up, for example. In Albanian, we had this consonant cluster kl- & gl- shift into q- and gj- in the 17th and 18th centuries. That is, it took approximately 2 centuries to get from kl- < q-. The same can be said for the document at hand. Kavalliotis presents some consistent vowel changes that take quite some time to develop. I think I made myself clear. ShockedSkater (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that we can't cite Schreiner for something he doesn't say. He doesn't call this the first or oldest written instance of Aromanian, especially when he doesn't even name the language. We also can't combine one source on handwriting analysis and another source on linguistics to make claims that neither source makes. Sources need to explicitly state what we're citing them for.

I did read de:Peter Schreiner (Byzantinist) but it still doesn't resolve the reliability issue. Scholars can be wrong, especially in an expansive field like Byzantine studies. Scholars can also present working papers at conferences, which doesn't make them peer-reviewed or cited. Our Neutral Point of View policy also requires that we balance Schreiner's views against other scholars in this field; if he's the only person making this claim, that's a sign that we should consider waiting for others to confirm his analysis. Woodroar (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look at the document yet, but I think we could include a mention of the document as long as it is attributed, and without the "oldest" claim, even if it was "technically" true, we need more sources backing that. There's another claim of an Aromanian old inscription from the 14th century (which would not be verifiable anymore as it would have been destroyed) and I was planning on mentioning it on the article one day. It's not like Aromanian studies are too big anyway, such claims are and will remain scarce, so I think short mentions are due, specially considering they come from notable scholars with Wikipedia articles. If anyone is curious this is the other claim I mean [31] (I wouldn't cite that link though).

By the way, clarifying Woodroar's doubts (if I understood them correctly), the paragraph at Aromanian language we're discussing deals with old Aromanian inscriptions of any type in any script, Aromanian is not standardized even today, and indeed, the oldest inscriptions used the Greek alphabet, as they mostly lived, and still live, surronded by Greeks. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely add the "according to" clause, and the Christ Church MS 49. ShockedSkater (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC) I remember having read something about the Odyssey of the manuscript, how and when they were brought to England. I'm copy-pasting the whole conversation on the talk page.

I reverted and added a link to this discussion. I see no point in duplicating a long discussion. Better and simpler to keep it on the place it started. Here more editors can leave their opinions too. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for writing a page for Schreiner by the way. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Much to my surprise I received Schreiner's paper already. ShockedSkater, send me an email so that I can send you it through Special:EmailUser/Super Dromaeosaurus, I'll attach the paper in the reply. I can also send it to anyone else interested. Unfortunately I do not have much free time right now to look into it so I would appreciate it if this thread was left open for a few more days to a week. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• I've mentioned the inscription in the article of the Chronicle of Ioannina [32] and on the Aromanian language [33] (here I also mentioned the other claim I mentioned, I will work on it more in the future). I think it doesn't contain any exceptional claim. This would conclude the issue I believe, but voice any problems you may perceive with the edits. Thank you all for your participation here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable sources? FirstPost /TimeNow

Are these two sources Times Now and FirstPost reliable for stating the following in wikivoice?

In August 2023, large-scale demonstrations erupted in the region of Gilgit-Baltistan, currently under Pakistani control. Protesters are fervently chanting 'Let's go to Kargil' and expressing a desire to unite with India

None of these news sites have a reputation for fact checking per their own pages and may have an apparent conflict of interest w.r.t. the Govt of India. They also have a history of reporting latest events in Pakistan based on social media posts that later turned out to be fake. (Also noting that this is about a viral twitter video, not actually verifiable per any news websites in Pakistan or other reliable and independent international media sites.) Codenamewolf (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Per their About Us page, Times Now is part of the same media conglomerate as The Times of India, which RS/P describes as biased toward the Indian government and somewhere generally toward unreliable. It's not quite as clear-cut for FirstPost, but with their usage of "Pakistani-occupied" rather than "disputed" or similar for the regions in question, I'm not sure if I'd trust them as an objective source on Indo-Pakistani territorial disputes.

In short, I wouldn't consider them reliable for this topic. The Kip 23:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

FirstPost is at best weakly reliable, use with extreme caution due to sensationalism and pro-Modi bias.[34][35][36][37] On this particular topic, one solution would be to say something like “media supportive of the Indian government reported that—-“? There was lots of fake news circulating about these protests.[38]BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"Readers Say"

I cannot determine the reliability of Boston.com's "Readers Say" articles. The site earns some cachet as a sibling of The Boston Globe, and the quality of material seems acceptable, but I can't tell what the editorial rubric is for these articles. Are they unvetted authors getting to write amok, or are they developed by the site from prompts or comments sent in by their readers? Can I get a ruling on this? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The authors of those pieces seem to be staff writers, but I wouldn't lend too much weight to the opinion surveys and quotes of random people — that is best left for specialized pollsters. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks so much! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but would be extra careful wherever WP:BLP is involved, up to and including using a different source. It’s probably also best to cite the actual source in the text, not just in a footnote. FortunateSons (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability of Mondoweiss?

What is the reliability of Mondoweiss?

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

WP:RSP has 8 discussions on Mondoweiss, but not an RfC I can see. It is cited somewhat frequently in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Mondoweiss)

• Option 4 I’m starting this RfC because since the October 7th attacks on Israel, Mondoweiss pushes extremism and disinformation. Like WP:COUNTERPUNCH or WP:UNZ, it has published extremist opinion pieces; in this case acclaiming attacks on Israeli civilians (typically considered to be war crimes). In terms of disinformation, the main propaganda narrative Monodoweiss pushes is that there is no evidence that Palestinians raped Israelis on October 7th. [39] [40][41][42]

According to The BBC, NBC news, The New York Times, AP news, The Washington Post, and Human Rights Watch, mass rapes were committed by Palestinians against Israeli civilians on October 7th. The consensus of all reliable sources is that this happened, and that there is verifiable evidence to show this. Mondoweiss is the outlier here with rape denialism against the vast majority of overwhelming sources. This is typical historical negationism; these are disingenuous claims that there is 'no evidence' for well-documented atrocities akin to Holocaust denial tactics.

Mondoweiss also published extremist opinion pieces glorifying the acts of terrorism on October 7th. Counterpunch, Unz, and the Electronic Intifada [43] were declared unreliable for similar reasons, so I believe this is fair game to criticize the source on. This also provides the 'why' as to Mondoweiss' denialism of atrocities in the ongoing war. So I’ll just grab a few choice quotes from opinion pieces to show my point.

• From the moment those fighters flew in on paramotors, disrupting the parallel reality that was this music festival, they accomplished something profound (one must wonder what it felt like for these fighters to see a party just outside where they have been trapped under a suffocating blockade). in reference to the Re'im music festival massacre. [44]
• In some ways, then, we can see the attack on the festival as the most violent of anti-colonial refusals — a refusal to let the children of a nation that ethnically cleansed one’s family party on that stolen land in peace. It violently reasserts that this land is stolen and that it can only be returned to its rightful owners through bloodshed. [45]
• Nothing can hide the determination and courage of those young people who returned to their land on October 7.[46]
• They have failed to mention that those targeted were, are, colonizers, settlers, the primary agents, actors, impellers of the colonization and genocide of Palestine. They have failed to mention that the resistance targets colonial settlements, established atop ethnically cleansed and razed Palestinian villages; it targets colonial settlers that live in stolen Palestinian houses, on stolen Palestinian land, urinate on our corpses and dance on our graves. They have failed to highlight that the term “Settler-Colonialism” is not without reason, and that a colonizer is a colonizer, in uniform or out.[47]
• The inhuman and annihilating excess of organized state force, whose untold destructive powers are now unfolding in total violence on the helpless people of Gaza, can never be morally equated with even the most atrocious acts of the colonized committed in the hope of liberation from an unbearable colonial regime. Any demand that the colonized desist from the use of armed force, a right in any case guaranteed to them under international law, becomes arrant hypocrisy in the face of the technical storm inflicted by state powers. [48]

To summarize, Mondoweiss is extremist and encourages hatred/terrorist attacks against Israelis. It argues that the killing and raping of civilians is not only justified, but actively heroic if done to advance Palestinian interests. Any of these opinion pieces, if posted by an editor on Wikipedia, would probably result in an indefinite block for racism per WP:NONAZIS. We can and should ban racist publications as sources as they have a tendency to fabricate information to fit their viewpoints. Mondoweiss proves this by publishing disinformation about the well-evidenced mass rapes committed on October 7th and repeatedly alleging that there is no evidence for these war crimes. Using it as a source would be giving credence to WP:FRINGE viewpoints. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through all your evidence so I picked the first link, read it entirely, followed through to the Hebrew links and used machine translation to verify that Mondoweiss is indeed correct. At no point did I find the article said what you claimed it did ("pushes is that there is no evidence that Palestinians raped Israelis on October 7th"). Instead, it cast doubt on the rape of one particular victim: Gal Abdush. Their reporting is corroborated by Channel 13 (Israel) quoting that Abdush's brother-in-law says "No one knows if it [rape] happened". VR _talk 16:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Gal Abdush is the woman in the black dress filmed with her groin covered in blood. Virtually every reliable news outlet agrees that the video shows evidence of rape. Mondoweiss, which admits it has not seen the video, says the video proves nothing. Do you want me to post the video here? You can find it on Yandex in a few seconds. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, Mondoweiss article doesn't say "the video proves nothing". It says, "The newspaper did not link to the video but released a distant, indistinct image from it that revealed nothing". This is the image from the NYT article (article reproduced here). Indeed the image is quite unclear.VR _talk 20:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3, though would not oppose Option 4. Even in its news articles Mondoweiss has published false and misleading information, and when we consider its lean towards antisemitism it is not a source we can rely on.

For example, it has stuck to the narrative that Israel is responsible for the al-Ahli explosion. This is most obvious in opinion articles but it also occurs in news articles. They have explicitly stated that Israel is responsible in:

1. Do not dismiss the Gaza genocide allegations from November 19. It makes the indisputably false claim that Israeli claims as to complete Palestinian culpability have been largely debunked.
2. ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 39: Health official says Israel ‘sentencing Al-Shifa hospital to death’ as doctors dig mass grave from November 14
3. ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 15: Gaza aid trickles in amid uninterrupted airstrikes, West Bank arrests continue from October 21
4. etc

They have also implied it in a number of other articles, such as by referring to the explosion as a "bombing" and by linking to an article from the immediate aftermath of the explosion which is headlined "Massacre: Israel kills over 500 Palestinians in Gaza hospital attack" and describes an airstrike as being the cause.

1. Activists hold Israel responsible for drive-by-shooting at homes of detained demonstrators in Umm al-Fahm from December 13
2. Israel’s criminalization of Palestinian protest from November 23
3. ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 36: Al-Shifa hospital at epicenter of Gaza fighting as fleeing civilians are killed by Israeli strikes from November 11
4. etc

Their falsehoods aren't limited to that topic; they also present them on others, such as the tunnels beneath Al-Shifa. For example, in ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 46: Israeli tanks besiege Indonesian Hospital as bombardment of Gaza continues from November 21, Mondoweiss says The claims [that Hamas has tunnels underneath the Indonesian Hospital] mirror previous allegations Israel made about Al-Shifa Hospital that it has yet to provide concrete evidence of. This is false; on November 19 independent media had confirmed that tunnels existed beneath Al-Shifa.

Elsewhere, they misrepresent their own sources. For example, in Western media’s reference to the ‘Hamas-run’ Health Ministry is another dehumanizing tactic enabling Israel’s genocide they say that Reuters says that three Al-Shifa employees were abducted; what Reuters actually says is that three are missing.

In addition, I have concerns about antisemitism at Mondoweiss. For example, in "‘Atlantic’ rebrands new editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, leaving Israel, Jews, and Iraq off his resume" Philip Weiss, who is the founder and co-editor of the website, makes the problematic statement The word Jew made no appearance in the Atlantic announcement; while most of the piece is acceptable criticism of a new editor, with this line it swerves directly into antisemitism by suggesting that ones status as a Jew is relevant to ones position as the editor-in-chief of a major news organization - see Antisemitic trope#Controlling the media. Reliable sources have also documented this, such as in this Atlantic article. BilledMammal (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Exploring the source more generally, I find:

First, they widely use deprecated sources; see #Discussion (Mondoweiss) for details.

Second, I've found additional evidence of them misrepresenting their sources, going beyond their sources, and even making basic errors with their sources.

Misrepresenting sources:

1. In "Sadness and anger as 4 Jewish victims of Paris attack are buried in Jerusalem" they claim that The bodies of the deceased were interred in a Jerusalem commemoration after an invitation to host the burial was extended to relatives of the slain by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which later sought payment from families of $13,000 each for the ceremonies. The source they link says something very different; that the Hevra Kadisha burial society demanded Tuesday that the families of four Jewish men killed in a Paris terror attack and buried in Jerusalem each pay NIS 50,000 ($12,500) for their burials.
2. In "How the Taliban chased the West out of Afghanistan", they attribute the statement They tried to stuff another part of the money into a helicopter, but not all of it fit. And some of the money was left lying on the tarmac to Reuters; Reuters is careful to avoid saying so in its own voice and instead attributes it to a Russian spokesman.
3. In the same article, they cite an ODI report to say that Surveys regularly found Afghans saying that they believed corruption levels were lower in Taliban areas. However, the source makes no such claim; the source doesn't even include a survey regarding corruption.
4. In "Israel’s national airline El Al is an intelligence front for the Shin Bet" they claim that Israel uses its airlines as an intelligence front, in which Israeli security services work for the airlines as undercover employees. As evidence for this, they cite an undercover investigation conducted by Aljazeera. In doing so, they make a significant misrepresentation of the source, which discusses no undercover investigation, and avoids saying in its own voice that the airline is used as a front, instead attributing that claim to specific individuals and leaked South African cables.
5. In "Palestinians bid farewell to journalist Khalid Amayreh". It claims that he urged the Palestinian people to reject the two state solution. However, in the source provided he makes no such claim; instead, he reports that Palestinians consider it to be dead.

Going beyond their sources:

1. In "Arms, oil and Iran – Israel’s role in Nagorno-Karabakh" they say Around 75,000 ethnic Armenians fled their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh – more than half of the population. The source they use, DW, provides that number - but attributes it to a Artsakh spokesperson and does not put it in their own voice.

Making errors with their sources:

1. In "Gulf crisis could push Hamas closer to Iran, or cause it to fold under the Palestinian Authority" they say Moreover, Qatar has paid the salaries of 40,000 Hamas employees in 2016, a bill that totaled $20 million and required careful coordination between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. What their source says is that Sheikh Tamim bin Hamd al-Thani will pay $31,030,752 for the July salaries of Gaza’s public sector employees - these are significant errors, getting both the period and the value significantly wrong.
2. In the same article, they say Last week Egypt gave 220,000 gallons of fuel to Gaza’s power plant, raising daily electrical supplies to eight hours, up from four the week before. Their source states the opposite; Despite the plant's partial resumption, residents will continue to receive four hours of electricity followed by about 14 hours off.
3. In Netanyahu bolsters Sudan’s military leaders in attempt to save normalization they claim that 72% of Sudanese oppose normalization; the figure their source gives is 68%. It's a minor mistake, and in a more reputable organization would be something we could safely ignore, but it's another piece on the pile of evidence against Mondoweiss. I misread their source BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Third, they have defended deprecated sources such as Russia Today and The Electronic Intifada:

1. They defend RT in a number of articles; in "The Russiagate farce" they go beyond defending it and present the claim that Russia influenced the 2016 election as conspiracy theory.
2. In "A salute to ‘Electronic Intifada’", they describe EI as a source that continues telling indispensable truths.

Fourth, they have published misinformation:

1. In "Palestinian Authority blocks dozens of websites critical of Abbas government". This source claims that QNN is an independent news source with no political affiliation. This is false; it is affiliated with Hamas (The Guardian, Al Jazeera, JNS, US State Department, VOA, ToI, etc). Bizarrely, they originally got this correct; they issued a "correction" to say that their initial statement that QNN was affiliated with Hamas was incorrect.
2. In Inside the “Wasps’ Nest”: the rise of the Jenin Brigade they claimed that Israeli attacks killed 51 people. The actual figures for the conflict is 49 killed overall, with 30 killed by Israel. See also Al Monitor.

This is not a source I am familiar with, so most of the issues I could identify were when they were contradicted by their own sources. I suspect an editor better versed in this source and the topics it writes on would find far more falsehoods.

I still prefer Option 3, but given all this I would support Option 4 as a second choice. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

An overall problem with this approach is treating as "sources" what are merely links. They refer to other coverage, but that's not to say it's the sole basis of their reportage. And in any case, many of these are either cases of semantics, cherrypicked/selective quotation, or not errors at all, e.g.:

2. The Afghanistan article: I don't think it's necessarily a misrepresentation; you've quoted selectively. MW also sources the information to the Russian embassy in Afghanistan: When he fled the country, press secretary of the Russian embassy in Kabul Nikita Ishchenko told RIA Novosti, his people drove four cars filled with money to the airfield. “They tried to stuff another part of the money into a helicopter, but not all of it fit. And some of the money was left lying on the tarmac,” according to a Reuters report. It's clear they're quoting Reuters' coverage of Ischenko's remarks.

3. The report you link says (p. 17): "most [Afghans] pointed to government interference and corruption and occupation of and theft from clinics by Afghan security forces and militias as being more problematic than Taliban interventions." The fact that this came from interviews rather than "surveys" is semantic ("survey" also means To investigate the opinions, experiences, etc., of people by asking them questions which is what that report was about)

5. The Khaled Amayreh article: MW says Amayreh urged Palestinians to refuse its [the two-state solution's] false promise. In the AJ article, Amayreh says: There is just no time left for a Palestinian state. How can a state be a viable proposition when it has no control over its borders, when there is a military occupation, and when towns are cut off from each other by a system of roads and checkpoints? The two seem entirely consistent.

"Going beyond their sources": this is just a case of MW willing to say in its own voice what another source decided to attribute. It's inclined to believe the official from Nagorno-Karabakh, no different from how Israeli sources frequently parrot IDF talking points without attribution.

"Making errors with their sources"

2. The "Gulf Crisis" article: the BBC article was published four days prior to the MW article, and it's linked for the "220,000 gallons" point (not the hours of power point). An engineer interviewed by BBC stated his hope that the remaining two generators could be made "operational before the festival of Eid al-Fitr", which, in 2017, began on June 25 (the day before the MW article was published).

3. The 72% figure comes from Figure 27 of the linked article. You might have gotten it confused with Figure 26, "Attitudes towards the Palestinian cause". There was no error, minor or otherwise.

Regarding the attempt to tether MW to deprecated sources, I don't think that's compelling reasoning. As you concede below, this is only grounds for Option 3 or 4 in the context of the other evidence [you] have presented, which is amenable to various interpretations.

"Published Misinformation":

1. None of the sources you provide explain exactly how QNN is "affiliated with" Hamas; is it "affiliated" in the same way the Health Ministry is "controlled by" Hamas?

2. The Russiagate piece is presented as "Media Analysis" which is different from its News section; it has the cadence of an op-ed. I doubt this could be cited for statements of fact even if it was published in an RS, per WP:RSEDITORIAL.

So this alleged evidence is not particularly damning in any case. WillowCity^(talk) 12:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

First, you're right about Sudan; I have struck that, thank you for the correction.

Second, you've only addressed about half the issues I raised. Even if you were right about all of them that still leaves too much to allow us to consider this source reliable - it is relevant to point out here that these are just the tip of the iceberg; I found them in only a couple of hours.

However, you weren't right about all of them; half of the issues you raised could go either way, but the other half your argument is very weak (eg, arguing that Mondoweiss is right and everyone else is wrong), or I have found additional sources to disprove your interpretation.

Specific responses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Misrepresenting sources 2. I can see how you can interpret it that way, but the sentence structure leads me to believe that it is attributed to Reuters. Reasonable minds could differ. 3. It's not only that there wasn't a survey; its that that source doesn't support the claim. It makes no statement about the level of corruption in Taliban areas, and it makes no comparison in their beliefs as to the level of corruption. 5. He's not urging anything there, in my view, he's stating his own view. Going beyond their sources: Then the correct thing to do is source the official directly. Making errors with their sources 2. Possible, but I felt it was unlikely, so I looked into it. Reliable sources from around the same time as the Mondoweiss article also gives four hours; New Arab, Al Jazeera. 3. Fair point, I misread; I've struck that line. Defended deprecated sources 1. Your point seems to be "Mondoweiss is right, every other reliable source is wrong"; that isn't a good argument. Published Misinformation 2. Their articles explicitly labeled "news" also tend to have the cadence of an op-ed. I don't consider this distinction a defense.

As you concede below, this is only grounds for Option 3 or 4 "in the context of the other evidence [you] have presented", which is amenable to various interpretations.

I don't think you understood what I was saying there. If this source was otherwise impeccable, the reliance on deprecated sources would still be enough to make a valid argument for Option 3 or Option 4, but it would be possible to argue for Option 2 - and as you implicitly concede, this source about is far from impeccable as you can get. BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. Mondoweiss is primarily a publisher of op-eds. Since there is no evidence that Mondoweiss interferes with what its authors write, the reliability of each article depends on the author only. Our rules for citing opinions are perfectly adequate for dealing with it. If the author is a subject-area expert, there is no reason to exclude him/her from citation. We cite op-eds in the Israeli press which are no less biased on average. The concern being expressed here is not really about reliability; note how the two comments before this one quite openly emphasise that articles in Mondoweiss don't follow a pro-Israel line. Zero^talk 11:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  note how the two comments before this one quite openly emphasise that articles in Mondoweiss don't follow a pro-Israel line Unless you consider "not antisemitic" to be equivalent to "pro-Israel", I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of my comment. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's true that I ignored the weakest part of your argument, which quotes out of context and avoids mentioning that Philip Weiss is Jewish. Zero^talk 12:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

While not disagreeing with parts of your vote,

avoids mentioning that Philip Weiss is Jewish

The idea that being Jewish automatically precludes one from holding antisemitic views is a false one. The Kip 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

What about Wall Street Journal, which published an editorial "Islamophobia isn't real", calling Islamophobia "normal human reaction to terror"? Even RS sometimes (unfortunately) give space to prejudice. VR _talk 04:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That’s not an editorial; it’s an opinion piece. Opinion pieces shouldn’t be used as a source for facts, and WSJ publishing bad opinion pieces is irrelevant to the reliability of this outlet. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2: Per the above, it is only a host, so IT may not (technically) be an RS, the stuff its hosts might be. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  FYI, that’s inaccurate; it publishes op-eds, but it also publishes its own news stories, such as most of the articles I linked in my !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Technicaly my comment still takes that into account, it is not an RS what it hosts (hosts, not publishes) maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  If I have understood you correctly, you are saying Option 2 for the opinion articles it hosts (ie, consider self published with reliability dependent on the author), Option 3 for everything else? BilledMammal (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  So it can be treated as a WP:SPS? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 but also wouldn't be opposed to option 4. The alleged falsehoods, at least to me, seem to be more based out of strong POV rather than outright fabrication (ex. multiple Palestinian and/or human-rights groups still blame Israel for the hospital explosion as well, and claim that the sources (mainly western intelligence/media) attributing blame to PIJ are inherently biased against Palestinians). The op-eds are also subject to author reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a result, deprecation seems a tad strong of a response.

All of that said, however, and while I understand WP:BIAS doesn't inherently make a source unreliable, the opinions expressed in the above pieces (primarily, the glorification of terrorism) and Mondoweiss' willingness to publish them strikes me as WP:FRINGE and make me heavily question the reliability of their own content and its usefulness as a proper info source on Wikipedia. The heavy usage of especially inflammatory rhetoric ("a colonizer is a colonizer, in uniform or out," "[the land] can only be returned to its rightful owners through bloodshed.") backs this up; as the nom stated, an normal editor expressing these views would more than likely find themselves the recipient of a WP:HATESPEECH complaint. Considering its in-practice status as Philip Weiss' personal blog, the news pieces seemingly amount to a WP:SPS as well, which further decreases any possible reliability. Finally, the limited overlap with Ron Unz (as described below) doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. The Kip 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Reading the perennial sources list, this overall seems like a pretty similar situation to Counterpunch; effectively an SPS with little oversight of opinion pieces, and some entries promoting extremist content. That one is currently listed as WP:GUNREL. The Kip 23:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

And further, as noted below; like the recently-deprecated Electronic Intifada and The Cradle, it appears Mondoweiss also has considerable reliance on multiple deprecated sources, especially Al Mayadeen and RT, as well as hosting articles from Max Blumenthal of The Grayzone. This makes me a bit more sympathetic towards deprecation. The Kip 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, those are highly concerning FortunateSons (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 They primarily produce opinion pieces and the poorly articulated arguments above for deprecation seem to come down to bias arguments because of opinionated statements and not issues of actual falsehoods being produced as news. BilledMammal's is especially egregious in this regard, trying to use articles saying that Israel has some responsibility in events prior to and after October 7th (which is a longstanding topic of consideration in both the news and more academic settings) as some sort of negative factor, when it is not.

Then using the 500 dead argument, which the entirety of the news media got wrong (largely because the original health ministry reporting in Arabic said 500 casualties and the first breaking news reporters in English of that mistranslated it as 500 killed, an unfortunate case of inter-lingual telephone and why breaking news pieces should be sparingly utilized). Then BilledMammal tries to use the discussion about tunnels under Al-Shifa, which are again a matter of quite public debate, especially considering the tunnels we know Israel themselves built under there in the 1980's.

Lastly, the piece about the Atlantic is quite clearly focusing on how the Atlantic editor is extremely biased toward Israel (and promotion of lies helping start the Iraq war) and uses that bias on Israel and their cultural identity as a reason to point out said person's unreliability. Now, the article may possibly be making a very oblique reference to the nonsense conspiracy about Jewish people owning the world, but that is very unclear from just a single line like that and the article itself just seems to put that in context of the editor's massive Israel propaganda supporting in the past, including in their own book publication. So, again, the Mondoweiss article seems biased against Israel and such information, but I'm seeing no evidence of anything outside of opinions being made, because it's an opinion-publishing site. Meaning that what matters is who is making said opinion in regards to WP:RS policy. Silverseren^C 00:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

trying to use articles saying that Israel has some responsibility in events prior to and after October 7th Can you clarify where you got that impression, because that's not my argument?

Regarding the specifics, I also did not use the "500 dead" argument; the closest I came is noting that they continued to refer to a "Breaking News" article that uses that figure months after it stopped being breaking news - although, I would note that we normally consider failing to correct inaccuracies when the inaccuracies are identified evidence of unreliability.

Finally, the existence of militant tunnels under al-Shifa is no longer a matter of debate - specifics of them are, such as whether they housed a command and control center and whether they connected to the hospital wards - but their existence was confirmed by reliable sources two days prior to the publishing of the article where Mondoweiss claimed Israel had presented no concrete evidence that they existed. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Most news articles didn't correct the figure across all media, though some did flip flop across multiple different claims afterwards as statements by both the IDF and Hamas were debunked back and forth (such as the IDF originally using the video of a missile from a year prior). Nothing about the hospital blast is a negative for a specific source, because everyone got it both wrong on numbers and no one still knows who exactly is responsible, particularly after the New York Times investigation showing the missile came from the direction of Israel and not the opposite direction as originally claimed.

The usage of the tunnels is very much a matter of debate. As noted, the tunnels already existed, made by Israel in the 1980's. Whether they were at all used in a militant manner remains up for debate and is still debated in the media. Especially since those tunnels in question aren't connected to the hospital complex, but to a separate set of buildings nearby. The Washington Post continues to point out the lack of actual evidence presented by the IDF in an article from December 21st, a full month after the Mondoweiss one.

So, again, you're not bringing up anything of actual falsehoods, but open points of debate in the media in general, which only present Mondoweiss as being biased against Israel by their articles. Silverseren^C 01:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if you want to argue that it's reasonable to argue that Israel is the culprit despite reliable sources being in consensus that this is extremely improbable, Mondoweiss goes beyond doing that. Specifically, they claim that the evidence of complete Palestinian culpability has been largely debunked - that, at the very least, is indisputable false.

Regarding the tunnels, you're right that the usage is very much a matter of debate - but Mondoweiss' claim was not about the usage but the existence. BilledMammal (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. The nom raises what are essentially accusations of bias, but this does not address reliability. Essentially, a variation of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT (so it should never be used as a source for anything, ever)". The fact that some coverage may be distasteful to certain sensibilities does not make the source as a whole unreliable. It is hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to stifle or deprecate sources that depart from a preferred POV. In-text attribution is likely appropriate to address concerns regarding bias (as has been the community's conclusion in numerous prior discussions). Advocates for deprecation should familiarize themselves with what WP:RS actually requires. WillowCity^(talk) 02:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect, while the original complaint has elements of IDLI, I feel as if though the nominator has since raised genuine concerns of fabrication/exaggeration in responses to Silverseren, and more importantly, as elaborated below in response to my own question, a worrisome degree of overlap with a wide variety of already-GUNREL and/or deprecated sources. This latter issue played a significant role in why Electronic Intifada and The Cradle were recently deprecated, and I would encourage you to take this into account.

  Also, regarding the sentence beginning with "It is hard to see..." I recommend you reword or strike so as not to violate WP:ASPERSIONS. Remember to WP:AGF. The Kip 03:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Did you actually read through nom's evidence? If so, please respond to my comment under theirs. VR _talk 16:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment you're referencing under my !vote starts with I don't have time to go through all your evidence, so I'm not sure what the point of accusing other people of not having read the evidence is. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think The Kip may have confused me with the nom, given I was the one who had the discussion with Silverseren and replied them them below. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  That would be it, my bad. The Kip 04:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 for NPOV sake, and because bias complaints like this would knock out basically all sources in the I/P area (as is well known, for example, one large German news publisher requires its European employees to take an editorial stand on Israel). All sources have bias, all sources are wrong sometimes, and all sources fail in their job from time-to-time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. What I'm seeing in the OP's diffs can be addressed by Wikipedia's policies for op-eds/opinion pieces, rather than by total blacklisting or deprecation. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the same isn't true for the pile of diffs that I have provided; most of those are labeled "news", and they have considerable inaccuracies - they are also the result of only a couple of hours of research, I have no doubt that are more detailed search would reveal far more. BilledMammal (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Listed on RSP as NoCon after a bunch of discussions. Walls of text notwithstanding, this RFC appears out of the blue, rather than being referenced to some particular usage or ongoing discussion? Has MW been cited on WP for something alleged as fabrication? Biased certainly but that is not a reason to deprecate and deprecation should usually follow GU first. Its another of those news sites that mixes opinions with news so attribution will usually be necessary.Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I thought now was a good time. We haven't had an RfC about this yet and it's cited heavily in the topic area, so I'd rather get consensus before I start ripping citations to it out of BLPs/articles. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. The website used to be essentially a blog, first a personal one and then a group one, and older articles should be judged through that frame. In more recent years, it has professionalised to some extent. It now includes content it calls "News", most of which is summarised from other sources (both reliable and unreliable, including deprecated sources) but with some original content. The latter may be occasionally useful with attribution, but I'd say if this is the only source it's not reliable enough to use alone and if there are other sources why use this one. Then there is content it calls "Opinion", and on the whole I'd say the fact it's published at this outlet is an indicator that it is not likely to be sufficiently of note for us to include it per due weight. However, some contributors are more significant (e.g. Mitchell Plitnick is a fairly significant voice that often publishes there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 while a few articles may indeed covered by “just” WP:Biased and/or a concerning proximity to Hate Speech, the regular presentation of things that are WP:Fringe at best and intentional misinformation at worst is worthy of depreciation, particularly in combination with the frequent use of sources that are depreciated by Wikipedia really does not help either. I am uncertain whether it can really by fully considered WP:SPS by someone who isn’t a subject-matter expert, but if it really is, that would just be the a secondary problem. In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best. While the concern regarding a lack of pro-Palestinian RS brought up by some is understandable, there are definitely better and more reliable sources that have the desired political leaning without the habitual misinformation.FortunateSons (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I'm against deprecation which should be an exceptional measure reserved for sources regularly publishing deliberate falsehoods. My !vote is mostly due to the list of errors from u:BilledMammal's comment above (most of these errors are in news rather than opinion pieces). If they had been meticulous with their reporting, we could've lived with their extreme bias and other issues, but they aren't, and I'd rather not have to recheck their sourcing each time their articles are used. The association with and financing by Ron Unz doesn't help either. Alaexis_¿question? 12:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. I've read through the evidence, thought on this for a while, and this is where I land. I had no previous familiarity with this site, FWIW. I'm seeing evidence that a lot of Mondoweiss's content is verging on advocacy, and that a lot of their Op-Eds contain views are widely considered unacceptable and/or that contain factually inaccurate information. I'm not seeing evidence of their publishing, as news, information known to be inaccurate at the time; and that's really what we need if we're looking at deprecation. Their Op-Eds might be dreadful, but that's true of any number of news organizations, and has never been considered enough to deprecate; opinion pieces should just be treated as such, that is, unreliable for factual information and only usable at all if the author is considered a subject expert. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 A lot of different accusations have been made about the source. I have not looked at every reference but will comment on a few:

On its coverage of sexual violence by Hamas:

"In terms of disinformation, the main propaganda narrative Monodoweiss pushes is that there is no evidence that Palestinians raped Israelis on October 7th" - The first source provided is an account of how the family of Gal Abdush reacted to the NYT story about her. It includes links to her families responses which cast doubt on the NYT story. Editor VR has responded appropriately to this first article. The Mondoweiss story "CNN report claiming sexual violence on October 7 relied on non-credible witnesses, some with undisclosed ties to Israeli govt" was given as an example of Mondoweiss “cast[ing] doubt on the allegations of sexual violence” committed by Hamas. The Mondoweiss article examines the evidence cited in a CNN article about the violence. There is nothing wrong with a news source doing that type of journalism. At the end, Mondoweiss states "The analysis presented here is not meant to deny the possibility that sexual violence against women may have occurred on October 7. It is about fair reporting and about ensuring that there is sufficient and reliable evidence to support these serious allegations". Since then The Intercept has revealed that CNN runs its stories about the conflict past the IDF censor prior to publication so Mondoweiss’ scepticism about the CNN article may have been well founded.[49]

On Mondoweiss' treatment of the al-Ahli hospital explosion.

Our own article on the explosion provides no definitive apportionment of responsibility. The Mondoweiss source links to articles in NYT, Forensic Architecture and Channel 4 news which cast doubt on Israel’s evidence that Hamas was responsible.

Attempted bootstrapping of Mondoweiss based on the deprecation of sources such as RT and Electronic Intifada.

One of the cited articles does not defend RT as claimed. It says: "No doubt both Russia Insider and Russia Today are trying to make the US look bad and presumably, Kirby might be right in saying RT reporters don’t go after the Russian government when it bombs civilians" and "No doubt Russia Today is a slanted news source ...". Afaict Mondoweiss does not say Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. It may have implied that the NYT’s claim that Russia used an “adorable puppies” page on Facebook as part of its scheme was a "fringe conspiracy theory". Where do we stand on the “adorable puppies” story? 

On misinformation published by Mondoweiss.

The Mondoweiss story "Inside the “Wasps’ Nest”: the rise of the Jenin Brigade" was cited as an example. It is difficult to know whether the figure of 51 Palestinian killed by Israel is accurate. Our own article on this, Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022, quotes the UN, OCHA Protection of Civilians Report as saying that Israel killed 41 Palestinians in the period 2 August to 15 August 2022. So the Mondoweiss figure is in the right area. Burrobert (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Continuing from Burrobert's examples, BilledMammal also wrote "They make frequent reference to Al Mayadeen", with four examples. Note first that there is nothing at all wrong with referring to Al Mayadeen with attribution and mainstream news sources do that all the time. Here is a random selection from the Washington Post: [50] [51] [52]. Looking at BM's examples, the third doesn't mention Al Mayadeen at all(?), and the other three use correct attribution. The second and fourth one even use "allegedly" in respect to Al Mayadeen's claim. The fourth one was an Al Mayadeen scoop: the 2017 Hamas charter before Hamas published it. MW cite a confirmation from Hamas, and the charter does match what Hamas published later. So, contrary to what BilledMammal claims, these examples show MW in a good light. Zero^talk 03:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Zero (and my own comments scattered throughout this section).VR _talk 15:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Mondoweiss)

• With the caveat that I've never read Mondoweiss in my life; the vast majority of links I'm seeing above are to opinion pieces, already covered by WP:OPED. Is there evidence that Mondoweiss's journalistic pieces contain misinformation? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: These opinion pieces are cited in talk pages in the topic area to support claims about the conflict. [53] [54] [55] [56] They are also cited in multiple articles. [57] [58] [59] [60] Ditto for their "media analysis" pieces. [61] WP:RSEDITORIAL is a guideline and you can say that it should cover this, but in practice it has and does not. An WP:RSP entry would make it clearer. How would you feel about deprecating their opinion pieces? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  More examples of their opinion pieces being cited in Wikipedia articles. [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] These are all 2023. I can find more if you'd like. I think 'media analysis' should also be deprecated if that is a workable compromise. I think we should be explicitly deprecating Mondoweiss opinions in order to prevent their improper use in articles. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to adding an RSP entry about their opinion pieces assuming there is sufficient discussion here, but what would that achieve? Bad sources that are marked as such at RSP are frequently used in talk page discussion and in articles, and deprecation won't stop that, only blacklisting would. I don't yet see evidence of the need to deprecate media analysis pieces. The one you link [67] appears to be based on an opinion piece in Haaretz; certainly it shares a POV with that opinion piece. Are we talking about deprecating Haaretz too? I assume not; we just treat their OpEds with caution as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  It would achieve a blanket rule that Mondoweiss opinion pieces are bad and make them easier to remove in a very contentious topic area. I don't think we should treat Mondoweiss OpEds with caution, I think they're so extreme and contain enough disinformation that we should be blanket discouraging them from articles. Sort of like how WP:COUNTERPUNCH had to be explicitly declared as unreliable despite exclusively being a vehicle for opinion pieces, as it was heavily used in this topic area as a source. [68] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  “The one you link” is a little confusing here as Chess linked multiple examples and I can’t actually see where this one is cited on WP. But this particular example is a good example of why a MondoWeiss opinion piece (blog post) is rarely due. It’s Philip Weiss’ personal take on an op Ed published in Ha’aretz. Why would we cite this fringe person’s opinion rather than the more noteworthy Ha’aretz op Ed? Designation as generally unreliable wouldn’t stop that, of course, but it would create a red flag that would lead to it being replaced or removed more quickly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I’m opposed to deprecating their opinion content. I think there could be times when opinion there might be due (eg if by a notable commentator or received secondary attention). Designation as generally unreliable is sufficient signal that opinion there can be presumed not to be due, while allowing for exceptions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Their efforts to cast doubt on the allegations of sexual violence extends beyond their opinion articles; for example, CNN report claiming sexual violence on October 7 relied on non-credible witnesses, some with undisclosed ties to Israeli govt BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to share something I found while researching this. Mondoweiss has received grants from Ron Unz. This comes from a conservative think-tank but I checked one of the 990 forms and Mondoweiss is indeed there. Of course he's a well known Holocaust denier whose Unz Review has been deprecated. Interestingly, Mondoweiss stopped disclosing their donors lately [69]. Alaexis_¿question? 10:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That same 990 shows a $10,000 donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. The UNZ Foundation was dissolved in 2017 and Mondoweiss did not receive money from it in that year or since. Zero^talk 13:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation to my knowledge has not acclaimed the killing of Jewish people. Mondoweiss on the other hand shares that with Unz, so it's a more plausible they've been financially influenced by neo-Nazis. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Speculation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Both Mondoweiss and neo-Nazis agree that murdering Jewish people in Israeli is OK. They have a lot more in common. Weiss has also cited Unz News before, [70] including noted Holocaust denier Philip Giraldi to say that Jews control the United States. [71] [72] Weiss is a fan of Unz on a personal level as well and published opinion pieces supporting him after the big donation. [73] Columnists such as John Mearsheimer have published in both Mondoweiss and Unz. [74] [75] People in this discussion are going to bring up that Philip Weiss is Jewish, but so is Ron Unz. That didn't stop Unz from creating a news site with columnists like Andrew Anglin denying the Holocaust and it doesn't mean Philip Weiss' site can't be part of the same antisemitic network as well. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Putting Mondoweiss and neo-Nazis in the same basket is really quite disgraceful. But anyway this is just a distraction. Do we investigate the writings of the editor of the NYT to decide whether the NYT is a reliable source? Zero^talk 07:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The editor of the NYT also has considerably less power over what the paper doesn’t and publish as opposed to Philip Weiss and his personal blog. This also again leads into (in my opinion) one of two genuine issues here that present an argument for GUNREL, rather than just bias - Mondoweiss is in many ways a WP:SPS, rather than a proper media outlet.

The other issue is its considerable overlap with other GUNREL and deprecated sources, but BilledMammal’s entry below elaborates further on that. The Kip 08:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You have no evidence that Weiss changes the content of articles that Mondoweiss publishes, except those he writes himself. He probably chooses which articles to publish, but that concerns bias and not reliability. The bottom line is that authors are responsible for what they write and there is nothing written so far to challenge that. Zero^talk 12:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, your position is to treat it like we treat WP:COUNTERPUNCH? BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I suppose this is somewhat covered with the above information on Unz, but one thing I do have a question about: one of the key things that led to the recent deprecations of The Electronic Intifada and The Cradle, which covered the same topic area as Mondoweiss, was their overlap with/reliance on other already-deprecated sources, such as RT, Sputnik, The Grayzone, Al Mayadeen, and others. Is there any similar overlap between Mondoweiss and other deprecated sites? The Kip 23:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  It seems they do.

  They cite Electronic Intifada regularly, in both news and opinion articles (eg. 1, 2) and in 2021 published this salute to ‘Electronic Intifada’, where they described their activities as "truth telling".

  References to the Grayzone are less frequent but they do still happen (eg. 1). They also share a number of authors with that site, including Dan Cohen (Mondoweiss profile, Grayzone profile), Hamzah Raza (Mondoweiss profile, Grayzone profile), and Max Blumenthal himself (Mondoweiss profile).

  They make frequent reference to Al Mayadeen (eg. 1, 2, 3, 4)

  They republish works, both in whole and in part, from Counterpunch under their "News" header (eg. 1, 2, 3)

  They make frequent reference to Press TV (eg. 1, 2, 3)

  They make frequently make use of Russia Today, including through extensive excerpts, and have defended the source (eg. 1, 2, 3)

  Effectively, it seems if we have a deprecated source that aligns with their bias, they have almost certainly have a connection to it; for example, it seems they also use Telesur and The Unz Review - this last one is particularly relevant, given the evidence Alaexis presented above them receiving donations. I wasn't able to check for Sputnik or The Cradle, as both of those terms returned too many irrelevant results when searching for them.

  I will note that I haven't checked the accuracy of the claims they are using these sources for - but I don't think that's overly important as relying on extremely problematic sources is a huge red flag. BilledMammal (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that’s rather concerning. The Kip 01:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, that reliance is highly concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how this calls for deprecation. I really dislike this daisy-chaining approach. This doesn't seem like grounds to deprecate the source as a whole; rather, an editor could simply go to the MW source that's cited, see if it relies on/cites to a deprecated source, and then, if so, use that as a basis to remove individually-offending pieces. We're all grown-ups here who shouldn't be afraid of a little legwork. WillowCity^(talk) 18:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Part of being a reliable source is knowing how to identify sources which peddle misinformation; if you’re unable to do so then that raises serious questions about your own reliability, as it suggests that the editorial process behind all your articles, including those that don’t explicitly rely on such sources, is flawed.

  On it’s own, perhaps this wouldn’t be enough to justify Option 3 or Option 4 - reasonable minds could differ - but when we consider it in the context of the other evidence I have presented, of Mondoweiss misrepresenting sources and peddling misinformation, it is. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying unreliable sources or deprecated sources are false 100% of the time? Of course not. So could Mondoweiss not be citing Press TV etc when these sources are true and not citing them when these sources are not? VR _talk 07:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  How do you know when a deprecated source, a source that peddles misinformation, is presenting factual information? BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  RS regularly cite Press TV: BBC News[76][77], CNN[78][79] (in both these examples, CNN bases the entire article based on Press TV reporting) VR _talk 15:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  It could be, but I don’t think it is here. Citing something critically can be done well, but based on the size of the org and what is linked here as well as the regular reliance on only one or two unreliable sources, it doesn’t appear to be good enough at determining truthfulness to be considered even close to reliable. FortunateSons (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of news reporting

Since a few editors have noted that many of the examples come from opinion pieces, I've looked specifically at news published by MW. They have reporters on the ground in Gaza and in Israel, and I'm sure that most of what they write is true (however that's also the case for RT). The problem is their news also read like a blog rather than a normal news source. In particular they are prone to making rather extreme statements in their news articles too. Here are some examples, I don't think this is something we'd want to add to Wikipedia based on MW

• all Zionist parties ... can be proud of ... converting Israel to a Full-Dictatorship [80].
• There is apparently intensification of fascist persecutions against critical voices in Israel [81]

They write that Mondoweiss editors select content for the site on the basis of our shared commitment to news professionalism as well as justice for Palestinians. This is more fitting for an advocacy organisation rather than a media outlet. Alaexis_¿question? 13:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• The full quote is When the last Netanyahu – Ben-Gvir government was established, they proudly labeled themselves a Full-Right government. Now, with full public unity between all Zionist parties for the destruction of Gaza, they can be proud of a much bigger achievement, converting Israel to a Full-Dictatorship.
• The second quote is an editor's comment explaining why the author of an article requested that their name not be published. Using the term "fascism" is provocative, but reliable outlets have published stories about the backlash against those outside Israel who have criticised Israel's actions. Some have termed it McCarthyism.[82] [83][84] The relationship between McCarthyism and Fascism has been remarked upon.[85][86] The Intercept has published articles about censorship/crackdown within Israel. It reported that there are "eight subjects the media are forbidden from reporting on in Israel". Also, "Since Israel’s war on Hamas started, more than 6,500 news items were either completely censored or partially censored by the Israeli government". Full censorship is not required because "People self-censor, people do not even try to report the stories they know won’t get through ... And that is really showing right now in how little regular Israelis are seeing in the press about what is happening in Gaza to Palestinians".[87] In November last year the Israeli Chief Military Censor "issued a complaint with senior IDF officers that sources close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have exerted extraordinary pressure on him to prevent publication of various events in the media".[88]
• The support for "justice for Palestinians'" is admirable and an indication of the outlet's bias, which editors would take into account when assessing its articles. A similar bias exists for Jewish outlets. For example, The Forward states that it "acquires and publishes informative, enlightening content that expresses its enduring commitments to social justice, Yiddish and Jewish culture, and the welfare of the Jewish people worldwide ".[89] Another admirable sentiment. The Times of Israel says "We aim for the site to serve as a platform for constructive debate regarding the challenges facing Israel, the region and the Jewish people.[90] Nothing wrong with that attitude, just a bias that editors would assess when using the outlet. Burrobert (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Re the first item, this is the full quote indeed, but my concern was with the characterisation of Israel as a dictatorship. This is a pretty extraordinary claim, as fascist dictatorships are not usually known for allowing courts to strike down the dictator's powers [91]. Of all criticism levied at Israel (human rights violations, apartheid, etc), this is pretty rare. I'm not sure whether they mean it as a rhetorical device or as a serious characterisation - but that's precisely the problem as reliable sources usually don't use such language without really strong evidence or attribution. And it's their reliability that we're discussing. Re the third point, fair enough. Alaexis_¿question? 19:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Burrobert, you're right that many reliable sources focus on a certain region or topic and it's perfectly okay. The issue here is that MW only focus on one aspect of justice for Palestinians. Having looked at dozens of their news articles I haven't seen any criticism of Hamas and the criticism of PA, when it does appear, is mostly about their collaboration with Israel. Alaexis_¿question? 09:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Burrobert’s third bullet point here. Partisan sources can be reliable. But the first two bullet points affirm the key issue Alaexis was raising: that items tagged as “news” are (at least sometimes) in fact opinion pieces. As a minimum, what we should take from that is that the site should be treated as opinion site and not routinely used as a source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What is interesting is that "news" and "opinion" are intermixed. For example, "Tracing my queer consciousness from Palestine to the US, and back again" is labeled as "news" but it is quite self-evidently nothing of the sort. I think at the very least we need to treat the entire site as opinion pieces. BilledMammal (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: plenty of news reporting is often biased and mixed with opinions. For example, Israeli newspapers (including Times of Israel) have been casually calling "terrorist" any Palestinian who acts violently (sometimes even said Palestinian is not affiliated with any group[92]). That's obviously POV language we wouldn't use on wikipedia per WP:TERRORIST. This is in contrast to more professional news organizations, like BBC News, which explain that using such words implies taking sides in a conflict. VR _talk 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order. FortunateSons (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

planecrashinfo.com

Hello all, After the consensus that Simple Flying is unreliable (I've summarized in an essay here), I've been slowly working on purging citations to the site. In the process, I came across information sourced to planecrashinfo.com which also does not strike me as a reliable source. I removed the citation but checked and saw that the site is cited over 300 times on Wikipedia. Given that, bringing it here for discussion to make sure others agree with my assessment of the source. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

planecrashinfo.com's disclaimer page:

While every effort has been made to ensure that the information on this website is correct, information in the database is compiled from numerous sources that may be in conflict or error. The data contained on this website should not be used for anything other than general interest information. PlaneCrashInfo.com makes no guarantees, stated or implied, regarding the validity of the information found on this website or any website linked to this site. Neither PlaneCrashInfo.com or its operator will be held liable for any information, omissions, improper use of the information presented, or any violations of any law which may occur as a result of utilizing this resource. Information contained on this web site does not necessarily reflect the conclusions, opinions or official position of any government agency, airline, aircraft manufacturer or organization. All images on this website may be subject to copyright. Upon verification, copyrighted material will be removed or credited when requested by the copyright holder.

Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be effectively a personal website run by one person, and as the disclaimer says, cannot be regarded as reliable. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Such disclaimer appear on most websites, so I wouldn't give it to much weight. However the website is self-published by Richard Kebabjian, and I can't find anything that would show that he has previously been published as a subject matter expert. So the site wouldn't be reliable per WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Unreliable and copyvio. What the disclaimer says. It is just a bunch of copyvio Internet scrapings. Definitely give this one a miss. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on the information provided, it appears to be unreliable unless there is any indication that it’s from a subject-matter expert, which I can’t find. FortunateSons (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Something strange is going on with ZDNet

Okay, here is a somewhat tangled tale. This (archived here) is a ZDnet article claiming to have been "Written by Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Senior Contributing Editor and Jack Wallen, Contributing Writer Sept. 20, 2023 at 1:53 a.m. PT". It's got significant errors -- first of all that it links to the distros' webpages with the ludicrous text "See price at", creating sentences like "See price at Linux Mint". As for the rest... I will have to excerpt (emphasis is present in the source).

Linux users who grew up with the GNOME 2.x style interface will also love Cinnamon due to its ____ and ___. Another worthwhile alternative for people who are fond of GNOME 2.x that is also integrated into Mint is MATE because of _____. While Cinnamon rests on the foundation of the GNOME 3.x desktop, MATE is an outright GNOME 2.x fork WHAT DOES 2.X FORK MEAN? Explain that. MATE is also available on Mint.
See price at Linux Mint

Yes -- it really says "due to its ____ and ___", bolded, in an article from September 20th last year which has not since been updated.

Additionally, when I was putting this URL into archive.is, I noticed something quite strange: it said that URL had already been archived... in 2022, over a year before its publication date. That article is here: it's a very similar article with somewhat different information. That one is "Written by Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Senior Contributing Editor and Taylor Clemons, Staff Writer on May 26, 2022, Reviewed by Elyse Betters Picaro".

The 2022 version of the article, which "was published" in May 2022 and archived in August 2022, doesn't have any editor notes in the body text, but it does have something very strange in the lead:

Today, the easiest desktop of all, Chrome OS, is simply Linux with the Chrome web browser on top of it. The more full-featured Linux desktop distributions are as easy to use in 2021 as Windows or macOS.

2021? What?!

Note that they did not just move the URLs around: a Google search for the headline and page title of the 2022 version ("The 5 best Linux distros for beginners: You can do this" and "The 5 best Linux distros for beginners in 2022", respectively) brings up nothing at all. This suggests that the article itself is just having its title and publication date changed every year.

Anyway, all of that aside, the more pressing issue is why they've had an article with TKTK filler text and editor's notes live since September (? - apparently the publication dates don't actually mean anything).

What could this mean? jp×g🗯️ 20:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: It means that ZDNet has also fallen victim to Red Ventures, which does this with every outlet they acquire including CNet and Healthline. [93] [94] I don't think the discussion we should be having is about ZDNet, it's about whether or not we should just list content published by Red Ventures as generally unreliable. This is the third time one of their publications has come here for becoming a blatant content mill and we shouldn't bother rehashing it when it's obvious what the common denominator is. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this would actually be the fourth time we've had to mark one of their pubs as generally unreliable or below. [95] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t know about that, but it is highly concerning regarding the quality. Would it be possible to have an RfC for an entire group, even if the editorial teams are formally unaffiliated? FortunateSons (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Red Ventures strikes again. At this point I would support listing anything owned by Red Ventures as unreliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If this is compatible with wiki rules (which I don’t know, to be honest), it sounds like a very reasonable proposal FortunateSons (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:Ignore all rules is also a rule, and there's a precedent for blocking spam networks. Dotdash is an example of a network of sites that are given special considerations. The difference with this spam network is that it has a revenue of $2 billion a year. It's pretty telling that none of their sources listed at RSP have anything above "unreliable" (CNET is only reliable pre-Red Ventures and the last ZDnet discussion was also pre-Red) and imho we might even want to deprecate the whole network so we have it in the edit filter for newer editors. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There are underlying issues of concern, such as blacklisted Healthline having brand websites - Greatist.com (recently pruned by me; 8), Bezzy (new; 19), PsychCentral (319), and Medical News Today (MNT, 914) - all of which have links to one another and back to Healthline (parentheses: number of WP articles containing the Red Ventures-Healthline brand links).

Removing the individual links requires an editor(s) to manually remove it, i.e., an onerous task for PsychCentral and MNT. Zefr (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is very unfortunate, I’m sorry to hear that. I am in favour of finding a functional solution to this, the status quo is clearly untenable FortunateSons (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure if a formal RFC is proper procedure, but I’d be in favor of a blanket deprecation of any Red Ventures-owned sites. The Kip 03:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC seems like a good idea given how impactful this'll be. There will be major concerns regarding implementation. One of the first questions is if we want to carve out Metacritic as it was briefly owned by Red Ventures but has since been sold. There might be a few other sites that weren't ruined. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Good point! FortunateSons (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think we'd probably just word the RFC to say that things published by a site owned by Red Ventures at the time of publication are unreliable. After all, they've purchased many sites that were previously reliable, and sites that ended up somewhere else should probably be evaluated on their own merits if the former owner was the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with that, but on a practical basis, we should still carve out Metacritic which doesn't have fixed dates for their summaries/review aggregation (it's continuous like Rotten Tomatoes). I think they're a special-enough case since review aggregation/summarization is algorithmic anyways. There could conceivably be a few more edge cases but that's the big one I would take out if we go with "publishing while owned by Red Ventures means generally unreliable" since applying this rule as written would mean digging through archive.org to see when the critic summaries were written and essentially getting rid of review aggregation for video games released from 2020-2022. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with both this comment and with Chess's caveat that Metacritic is an exception. I don't think we're at the point of deprecation here. That's for sources that are specifically anti-reliable: posting misinformation deliberately and the like. Red Ventures sites just don't appear to have much of a fact-checking process, which is what we assume by default for a random site on the internet and is why the average site on the internet is generally unreliable. Loki (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar: Two of their sites have been deprecated at WP:RSP already for posting misinformation. CNET got declared unreliable for posting AI generated content. If you go on ZDNet now the website is chock-full of questionable information like this undeclared advertisement for an AI book creation service [96] written by "StackCommerce". Or great deals on Costco memberships, which is so important they published two articles on it in 24 hours (you get a rebate if you buy them through StackCommerce). [97] [98] If you believe ZDNet, this isn't paid content as their paid content is designated as such in the URL and at the top of the page. Example: [99] Here are some other great deals offered by StackCommerce on name-brand products ZDNet is covering. [100] [101] [102] I don't think many legitimate publications let companies selling products write a dozen+ articles in a week on what great deals they are offering, especially without declaring those articles as paid content. I can see that the evidence presented here is kind of thin at the moment and I hope these sources convince you that deprecation is necessary. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Chess Ambiguity about sponsored content is again not a deprecation-worthy offense. Deprecation is not for your garden-variety unreliable source. Deprecation is for sources that are anti-reliable, who spread misinformation deliberately, who are actually worse than no source at all. Loki (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Deprecate ZDNet post acquisition by Red Ventures. That hurts to say but it needs to be done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Social Media reliablity

I know for the most part social media posts are not reliable sources, but what about if someone posts on their Twitter or Instagram account wishing someone a happy birthday and the person in question responds? Is that an exception or is that considered unreliable as well? Kcj5062 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just in case someone finds this later: In my opinion, this would be fine per WP:DOB: A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it. FortunateSons (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: NVM. I read the Instagram post I'm referring to wrong. It's actually the subject's account. Kcj5062 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

References

is there a list?

is there somewhere i can see a simple list of refillable vs depreciated?

Irtapil (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP, also linked near the top of this page. The Kip 03:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

RSP only includes regularly discussed sources, it doesn't include all reliable or unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am a big fan of this plugin, which visually color-codes sources based on reliability User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter and would also recommend reading WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

German Institute for Japanese Studies

Today 2 IP addresses, namely 43.224.233.204 (talk · contribs) and 150.249.219.26 (talk · contribs) added a lot of new text on various articles of Japan which universally cite journals from Taylor & Francis Online, within a short amount of time which raised my alert. I am also uneasy with the fact that the links provided by the IPs are shorthanded redirects, which I believe is a discouraged practice on Wikipedia. Due to the suspicious editing nature of the two IPs, I decided to do a blanket revert of all of their edits of today. However, I am interested to have a third party to investigate if their edits are problem-free and the sources they cited are reliable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked at one[103] which you reverted without comment. What exactly do you see as problematic from a RS perspective here? Bon courage (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

My issue is that the author of the source, Igor Prusa, is a rather unknown figure on the topic of Japan from Czech. His writing was never cited on English Wikipedia until today by the same two IPs on multiple articles. This led me to suspect self-publication and attempt to abuse Wikipedia as a platform to establish prestige for the author. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

But the cited articles are from diverse authors are they not? The journal is the journal of the German Institute for Japanese Studies, and reputable. Bon courage (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedian ja:user:Keeteria has detected that 150.249.219.26 is an IP used by the German Institute for Japanese Studies, so there is the concern of conflict of interest editing. Moreover, can you give me more info about the reliability of the said institute? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Material published in reputable journals is usually reliable, and certainly reliable for attributed statements of what it says. If there is an WP:UNDUE/promotional aspect, that is another matter, not relevant to this noticeboard. Bon courage (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid this is just circular reasoning (it's reliable because it's reputable). What I want is other reliable sources which cited articles by Igor Prusa/German Institute for Japanese Studies. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.dijtokyo.org/institute/

Not quite what you are looking for, but they are funded by a German ministry and a charitable foundation, so that is generally a positive indication (I.e. not self-published, not aggressively political). In addition, they seem to have a history of publications in reputable journals and with scholars from good universities https://www.dijtokyo.org/?hpcat=publications. Could you elaborate on what you are specifically concerned about? FortunateSons (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and I found a second source. I would call them reliable unless proven otherwise https://gerit.org/en/institutiondetail/55539458 FortunateSons (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

As I have pointed out earlier, there is suspicion of undisclosed COI editing. I believe it's acceptable to preemptively revert possible COI editing even if the source cited could be considered "reliable". A reputable source really doesn't require such mildly aggressive COI editing strategy to boost traffic of the organization. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, I do not believe that reputable source and COI editing are inherently contradictory. They are reputable by any reasonable standard (unless I missed something, feel free to make me aware of that). The indication of COI editing can be investigated, but the source is still reliable. If you are willing to take the time, I would encourage you to look over the reverted edits on whether or not they are actually harmful and restore those that aren’t. However, as @Bon courage said above, the issue of this noticeboard is unrelated to COI. FortunateSons (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my decision to implement blanket rollbacks of their edits. In one of their revisions on Shinzo Abe, it reads "(...)however observers have also noted that "Abe Shinzō represented religious nationalism in Japan (...)",[104] However, this point of view is attributed solely to the single author of the cited journal,[105] Ernils Larsson. It seems to be a somewhat deceptive attempt to present the perspective as an academically accepted idea. I find this approach unacceptable, and I feel no obligation to fix each of their edits individually. If you believe their changes have merit and consider my rollbacks unjustified, kindly fix their edits by yourselves before considering restoration. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t disagree with the questionable quality of the edits insofar as you have presented evidence for it; this is simply a question of the text, not actually of the source.

Unfortunately, while I am generally aware of the institutions and their reliability, I cannot make the changes due to the fact that I am uninformed of the general scientific consensus on the topics discussed. FortunateSons (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BonCourage and FortunateSons. I don't see anything about the journal Contemporary Japan itself that would make me think it's an unreliable source. If you have concerns about whether the sources were summarized properly, or if someone involved with the journal may have added the citations, that's a matter for different boards than this. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Health effects of microplastics

See the discussion here: are the sources cited in this section not reliable? Jarble (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

On a WP:MEDRS topic, news sources like The Guardian aren't reliable. Otherwise I don't see anything too bad on a skim. Loki (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible case of circular sourcing- thoughts?

A while ago I was going through articles related to Antartica and came across an article about this small, practically irrelevant 10-man expedition to Antartica that caught my attention. Someone had edited the article in 2022 claiming the expedition is "the only documented breach of the provisions of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which prohibits any military activity on the continent..." citing an anonymous online newspaper article from 2012.

The news article didn't claim this at all, but it did describe the expedition as "...the only documented military land maneuver on Antarctic territory" (The news article isn't about the expedition by the way, and only mentions the operation in passing...) so I edited it to better reflect the source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_90

I looked into this some more and I think this might be a case of circular sourcing. The news article was published in March 7 2012. Back then, the wikipedia article about the expedition read: "To date, Operación 90 is the only documented military land manoeuvre on Antarctic territory." (no source given)

Link to the news article: https://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/07/argentina-to-demand-a-review-of-the-south-atlantic-fisheries-agreement

I think whoever wrote that article copied the claim from wikipedia. Years later a wiki editor came across the news article and decided to add it to wikipedia... circular sourcing.

I would like to remove this claim and source from the article. Would that be OK? Bob meade (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite so sure. Searching for Operación 90 on GoogleScholar yields hits from before March 2012, and from before that line about a "documented military land manoeuvre" existed (added to page in August 2011).

For a few examples (non-exhaustive):

- C. San Martin (1969), "Argentinos en la Antártida", Editorial Librería Mitre.

- Mirta Luisa Jurío (1984), "Argentina antártica", Revista de la Universidad.

- Rodolfo A. Sanchez (2007), Antártida: introducción a un continente remoto .

It looks like pre-2011, Operación 90 has coverage in Spanish-language sources. I would compare the "only documented military land maneuver on Antarctic territory"/ claim to what's in Spanish-language sourcing and make a decision based on that. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I will go through some of the sources and report back! Thanks for your reply Bob meade (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

update: I went through the sources

C. San Martin (1969), "Argentinos en la Antártida" - "An expedition of scientific character" pg 106

Mirta Luisa Jurío (1984), "Argentina antártica" - "First Argentine overland expedition to the South Pole" pg 43

Rodolfo A. Sanchez (2007), "Antártida: introducción a un continente remoto" - Devotes a large paragraph to comparing the expedition to other scientific expeditions from the early 20th century. It also says, "Leal's expedition was also the first Latin-American expedition to the South Pole" pg 124

None of these sources say it was the "first documented military land maneuver in Antarctica" like the wikipedia article used to imply in 2011-2012 (no source was given for that edit) I think the author of that Mercopress article simply copied and pasted this line in his article- which then found its way back to wikipedia as a source. Circular sourcing... Bob meade (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Jennell Jaquays

Is this a WP:RS to declare a WP:BLP subject as deceased?: [106] If not, can we find a better one? BOZ (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Jennell has died. The link may serve until later in the day when something comes out in a better source for BLPs. BusterD (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I trust your judgment. :) BOZ (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of the African Heritage Delegation to Palestine/Israel

This discussion is most likely covered by Israel-Palestine Arb. rules, just fyi.

This article, together with the depreciated [107]https://electronicintifada.net/, is used to source a subsection on Ajamu Baraka(Footnote 16). Based on the degree of partisanship, the lack of apparent editorial oversight, etc., I consider them unreliable.

Am I right? FortunateSons (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

EI was recently deprecated in an RfC, so yeah, finding a better source for the section would be advisable. The Kip 01:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@P-Makoto did, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In context, the linked article from the organization Interfaith Peace-builders is a citation for the statement (on the Ajamu Baraka page) The group [that is to say, Interfaith Peace-builders' African Heritage Delegation (AHD) to Palestine/Israel] specifically called the expansion of Israeli settlements "ethnic cleansing and 21st century colonialism"; called for an end to U.S. aid to Israel; accused Israel of apartheid; and praised the "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" (B.D.S.) movement as "an essential tool in the struggle for Palestinian liberation.".

To the extent that the question is asking whether or not Interfaith Peace-builders can be considered a reliable source specifically for sourcing the sentence I have quoted, I think the answer is yes. This seems to fall under WP:ABOUTSELF, insofar as Interfaith Peace-builders' website is being cited to warrant that the AHD did do the things the Ajamu Baraka page is describing the AHD as having done (i. e., it "called", "called", "accused", "praised"). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense; thank you for making the changes you did! FortunateSons (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving referencing using DOIs formatted as URLs

Hi all

I noticed a weird issue with some references I was using and I think I have a fairly straihtforward solution. Basically DOIs formatted as a doi.org url don't get expressed as proper DOIs by the VE citation tool, they just make normal web links. I've created a proposal on Phabricator to make this different so it converts the URL into a proper DOI. I hope this helps improve the quality of referencing without burdoning editors with knowing that they need to convert the DOI links, and not get into a situation where experienced editors are complaining to new editors to do it "properly" and they "should just know that they need to do it that way" etc.

Thanks

08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC) John Cummings (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

See also this and that. Basically, you just need to put <ref>https://doi.org/10.1086%2F599288</ref>, and then User:Citation bot converts them to proper citation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

comingsoon.net

Hi everyone,

Is comingsoon.net a reliable source? Because it is highly use as source/s in different articles (see this Wikipedia search results). It has also discussed here by an IP user in 2021 but there's no clear consensus about it. Regards, 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No clear editorial policy that I could find, and the "About" section only has an ad for the site itself. Not reliable in my opinion. Cortador (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Army Technology (army-technology.com)/Airforce Technology/Naval Technology

Army Technology [108] is a source that hasn't been discussed either on RSP or the MilHist Wikiproject page before. In several articles, it's tagged as an unreliable source (1 2 3 4 5), although their editorial standards page seems to indicate to me that they are at least generally reliable, but I'd like a second opinion. Pinging @Schierbecker as they originally brought this to my attention. Loafiewa (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Added Airforce Technology and Naval Technology. Schierbecker (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a B2B (business-to-business) website run by a marketing company and is largely written by marketers. I checked about a dozen news articles and their author bios listed no relevant education, training, or experience in actual journalism. Every article includes prominent advertisements for their Buyers Guides. I doubt we can trust anything they publish. Woodroar (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've been reading Army Technology for years and I use it as a source from time to time, very rarely really. I just noticed that they run low-quality syndicated content from their parent company Verdict. These articles (example) typically cite research by "GlobalData", which owns Verdict. This conflict is not disclosed in the syndicated articles. Also, undisclosed cross-promoting of their GlobalData tech/world affairs-focused Instant Insights podcast in this article. Schierbecker (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Fundamental Mathematics and Applications

Anyone have any information about whether the Journal of Fundamental Mathematics and Applications [109] (open source journal published by an Indonesian university) should be considered as a reliable peer-reviewed journal? I'm leaning yes based mostly on the fact that they claim to be diamond-model (no publishing charge) but maybe someone else has a better basis for a determination. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything immediately prompting suspicion of the journal. While lists like Bealls List and Predatory Reports aren't the end all be all, it's also encouraging to see that the Journal of Fundamental Mathematics and Applications appears on neither. With your own experience with mathematics and computer science, I think it's fair to be optimistic about this periodical.

Of course, as the top of this page states, Context is important. Is there a particular article in the journal, page on Wikipedia, or claim made on a page that you are wondering about? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's a local journal that passes every smell test for being a local journal published by Diponegoro University. I don't know about it being reliable or reputable, but there's no signs that it's crap. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. The context is some recent additions to Nine dots puzzle. They seem relevant enough so the only question was whether the source was reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors as a source for Rob Paulsen page

Hi, everyone, I am asking is https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/movies/Tiny-Toon-Adventures-How-I-Spent-My-Vacation/ a reliable source for Rob Paulsen Wikipedia article? Frostyibex (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Are 33 1/3 books reliable

Are the books from the 33 1/3 series reliable sources for album articles? Been trying to find some info on Blue Moves for instance, and saw that there is a book in this series which covers that album. On the one hand, the authors are tend to be completely separate from the artist or their label, I believe that in my cases people request to write a book for the series through the 33 1/3 site, which is the big red flag for me here. But – they are published books that seem to have a respectable reputation. I’d mainly be using these books for info on the recording of the album, and also to have cite-able descriptions of the songs’ musical and lyrical content. Personally, it doesn’t seem that different to me than citing a review of an album from a site like Pitchfork or PopMatters, but I wanted to make sure Elephantranges (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Elephantranges (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

33 1/3 is a series published by the academic press Bloomsbury. In its own words, 33 1/3 is a series of short books about popular music, focusing on individual albums by artists ranging from James Brown to Celine Dion and from J Dilla to Neutral Milk Hotel. As a monograph published with an academic press, and authored by a tenured professor in history and anthropology, Matthew Restall's Elton John's Blue Moves (Bloomsbury, 2020) is an ideal source to cite. To not cite this book—when it is possibly the most significant publication on the subject in the past decade—on the Blue Moves page would, if anything, be a tragic failure on our part as Wikipedians.

I'll add that I am confused by you considering it a big red flag that authors for the 33 1/3 series apply to have their books published with the series. That is very normal for academic book series. Most involve a process where publishers have a series and authors can submit book proposals for the series editors' and press' consideration. This is, in fact, part of what makes academic books such reliable, independent sources for both accurate information and general notability: multiple scholars are involved in the process of determining what is worth publishing and how to make it a quality product. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, I own several books in the 33⅓ series, and academic publisher aside, the few I have are distinctly non-neutral writing exercises that I would suggest to be particularly careful about before citing. The example right in front of me is the Sound of Silver entry, which is not written by anyone with a credible academic background but a former Stereogum reviewer. The book reads like an extended personal essay and is so far afield from ordinary academic writing that I'd suggest that anyone who claims otherwise hasn't actually read it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As Stereogum is a music review website, that seems like the kind of background that would be suitable for writing about music.

Additionally, I would be mindful that academic writing as a genre has become increasingly (though not universally) personable over the years. To speak by way of example, Harvard University Press' award-winning intellectual history of racism and religious prejudice, Heathen: Religion and Race in American History (2022), incorporates personal vignettes from the author. Qualities reminiscent of a "personal essay" sometimes find their place in scholarship as authors wrestle with positionality or consider the affective qualities of art and literature.

Of course, per Wikipedia policies about maintaining a NPOV, we wouldn't necessarily repeat the partial expressions of authors in Wikipedia's own voice, but an author interpolating their fondness for the music doesn't seem like it would, on its own, make other content (such as bout information about how an album was recorded, or what the musical or lyrical content is, which is what Elephantranges mentioned being interested in) un-citeable.

Lastly, series can contain internal diversity of approach. With 190 books in the series, maybe the several in your possession are unusually personal, or maybe Restall's will be unusually serious. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding series can contain internal diversity of approach, that's why I said to be careful, rather than exclude (or promote) the series altogether. In any case, writing about music is like dancing about architecture, which is why I try to apply due care to any music criticism, whether it comes from a tenured professor or not. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Publishing are not just, or mainly, an academic publisher. They made most of their money from being the first to publish the Harry Potter series, after bigger London publishers rejected it. They generally put out high quality books though - are these from the academic division? I think not, though a random sample of authors seem to be academics or at least experienced music journalists. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, Bloomsbury added academic publishing but not long thereafter stopped it, or anyway stopped adding to what they were already publishing, directing writers whose academic works were already in a Bloomsbury pipeline to this or that alternative publisher (definitely including Routledge). (No comment on the 33⅓ series: I know nothing of it.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Have they stopped? From what I gather, Bloomsbury Academic is still publishing. They have a six-volume anthology series on the cultural history of exploration scheduled for publication in September 2024, later this year. In the 33 1/3 series, Bloomsbury is publishing Dolly Parton's White Limozeen (2024) later this year as well, authored by published music critic Steacy Easton. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, they haven't stopped. (What made me think that they had? Perhaps just the departure from Bloomsbury of the commissioning editor of the particular book of which I have some knowledge. Hmm.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

According to the publication information page inside the book (seen using Google Books), Elton John's Blue Moves was published with Bloomsbury Academic. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The 33 1/3 series is published by Bloomsbury Academic (in this example, under "Product details" to the right of "Imprint", it says "Bloomsbury Academic"). The series is generally reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP ("Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.") and commands a higher weight than generally reliable music publications like Pitchfork, PopMatters, and Stereogum. I do not see the 33 1/3 series having a submission process as a problem, since academic journals also use a submission process. — Newslinger talk 04:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Netflix Life

I came across someone using this as a source for an actresses' DOB.[110] I was wondering if it's an acceptable source. Because I know when it comes to putting up sources for DOBs, there are very few that actually meet Wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources as there are tons of sites that either web scrape this sort of information from other sites or are user-generated. Kcj5062 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

My initial impression is that this is acceptable. The about page of Netflix Life casts the site as a news website and reports having editors and clearly identified staff. This would suggest Netflix Life is an entertainment publication focused on online streaming entertainment. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a reminder that per WP:BLPDOB, the issue is not simply is the source reliable but has it been "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". I would suggest a site which talks about stuff like "zodiac sign is Virgo" is more of a gossip site than anything. And so even if it is reliable, by itself doesn't count to much towards establishing it's widely published. So if the issue of the reliability of the source is resolved in favour of the source being an RS, it would likely still be helpful to check at WP:BLPN if the source by itself is sufficient since I quite doubt it is. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

JNS

Is this source reliable to use to prove demands for a Palestinian state in Jordan? There are those who refuse to use Israeli sources, even though they are highly reliable, and the evidence is the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Sakiv (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What do the words “prove demands” mean? What content are you proposing to support with this source, on what article? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I already gave you a link to the article concerned. I meant irredentist or unionist claims.. Sakiv (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

An opinion piece by a non expert that includes this "...a Palestinian state already exists east of the Jordan River; it’s called Jordan." Seriously?

The "Jordanian option", in so far as that was for a time, a thing, was not a Palestinian demand, but an idea to form a Jordanian-Palestinian federation and from time to time, it is brought up in Israeli propaganda as "Jordan is Palestine" and variants of that.

I see the article Greater Palestine is nominated for deletion, which on an initial examination of the article I intend to endorse (or perhaps merge).

To answer the question posed, no, it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah because Palestine is only from the river to the sea. You are not in any position to determine whether a source is acceptable or not. How did you know that he is a "non expert? Sakiv (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If he is an expert, then this request is unnecessary? Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What more do you want than that most of Jordan's population are Palestinians? There is a famous saying that everything in Jordan is Palestinian, except for the king. Sakiv (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

According to Jordan, 2,175,491 Palestinian refugees (most with citizenship) out of total population > 10 million. So that is rubbish, I think you are just wasting editorial time with nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)