Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 410

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 405

←

Archive 408

→

The reliability of the book Enigma Valtorta

I would like to start a discussion on the reliability of the book "L'énigme Valtorta : Une vie de Jésus romancée?" by J. F. Lavere, published in 2012 [1]. This is due to the use of several quotes from this book on Poem of the Man God article. I have tagged these quotes as "unreliable". The book'a level of support for the extraordinary features of Valtorta's writings is extreme and exaggerated.

Here, I would like to state that this book is not WP:RS on scientific or theological matters, given the author's lack of track record on the subject.

There are a few issues:

1. The back cover of the book states that J. F. Lavere is a retired engineer in France. I have read elsewhere that he was a chemical engineer, but let us just assume that he was just some type of engineer. Did he publish any books on engineering? Not that Amazon knows about. [2] In fact this was his frst book ever for all we know. He wrote other things later, but here he was fresh from the engineering field and his lack of experience is obvious.

2. Would J. F. Lavere be even a WP:RS source on some type of engineering? Obviously not, gven that he has no track record we know of. So he is certainly not an authority on theology. But he is being used as such. That must stop.

3. His book is quite open about the fact that many items he quotes come from web sites and blogs. For instance, he mentions quotes from Roman Danylak and bases them directly on Danylak's personal website. That issue is currently being debated on this noticeboard. And there seems to be no support for the reliability of that.

4. The book includes unsourced and clearly contradictory statements are being quoted in Wikipedia, e.g.

"In January 1962, Fr. Berti was given an authorization to publish by the Vice Commissioner of the Holy See, Father Marco Giraudo: “You have our[who?] total approbation to continue the publication of this second edition of The Gospel as revealed to me by Maria Valtorta," concluding with, "We shall see how it is received."

It is absolutely impossible for Giraudo to have written that, given that in the book Lettera a Claudia, the publisher Emilio Pisani states that the title "The Gospel as revealed to me" was invented in the 1970's with the publication of the French translation. TThe title did not exist in 1962, and Lavere gives no indication of where ho obtained that quote. But the quote is floating on all kinds of blogs. There are other obvious errors exaggerations in that book, too many to discuss, but it is largely a claim of exceptional origin for the writings of Valtorta, sprinkled with exaggerated theological claims.

5. In that book Lavere has walked out of the enginerring world and has commented on topics such as botany where he has no expertise. The book can not be considered reliable, unless it includes the chemical formula for a new shampoo. Lavere would probably know about that, but not the topics in this book.

The real problem is that unless this book is declared as unreliable, 30 more incorrect and exaggerated claims from it may be added to Wikipedia. This must stop. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Some information to provide additional context that has been missing thus far. From the book by Laurentin and Debroise, "Insagine su Maria" which is RS (reliable authors and publisher), we have the following excerpts:

pp. 66-67:

"If a good part of the seven hundred and fifty characters (for the great majority are unknown from history) is perplexing, two hundred and fifty have been identified historically, thanks to some unpublished works by Jean-François Lavère."(24)

Footnote 24: Cfr. François-Michel Debroise and Jean-Francois Lavere, Les Protagonistes de l'Évangile d'après l'æuvre de Maria Valtorta, in corse di pubblicazione

—

p. 67:

"For years, Jean-François Lavère has been dedicating the free time he has thanks to his retirement to recording and evaluating the set of material data contained in Maria Valtorta's story (places, historicity of the characters, archeology, arts and techniques, uses and customs, flora and fauna, and of course, chronological coherence). After verifying more than eight thousand data on the approximately ten thousand registered, it obtained a credibility rate of 99.6 percent."(25)

Footnote 25: Jean-François Lavere, L'enigma Maria Valtorta, "Bollettino Valtortiano", I semestre 2009.

—

The book also references this list of experts (p. 71) regarding the works of Maria Valtorta (last updated 2019), on the website www.maria-valtorta.org which was created and maintained by François-Michel Debroise, author of multiple books co-authored with Laurentin:

Footnote 29: www.maria-valtorta.org/Travaux/Experts.htm

One of those living experts is Jean-François Lavère.

—

Now, I'm not suggesting this automatically makes the book by Lavére, L'Enigma Valtorta RS given the issues with the publisher already mentioned (lack of editorial oversight), but it does show that Lavère is considerably more credible than some would have us believe, and quite respected in the community of experts, especially considering he has co-authored with heavyweight Laurentin and Debroise on similar material. In short, his research and opinions matter. To call him or his work "fanatical" or "fantastical", is patently absurd.

Regarding the concern that we must disallow the book entirely, because 30 or more opinions may be pulled out of that book, is not a valid argument. As always, there is WP:DUE, and it would make no sense to have an article with a total of about 50-60 citations, having 30 or more come from one book, RS or not. But a few selected references presenting an expert author's opinions should be acceptable. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Collapse trolling. IP blocked (for edits here and elsewhere). Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is you are using your original research to determine whether the book is reliable or not. You should provide a secondary source such as a review essay to determine the reliability. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not really the case, IP user. We can make judgments on reliability of sources based on other factors than reviews from experts. Of course, those help, but it's not the be all and end all.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue No, you can't. That's an explicit violation of WP:OR. If you don't understand this, you should read WP:COMPETENCE. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

IP 95.12.119.26, there is no WP:OR in saying this was the author's first book, and that he has no track record. If you have a list of his previous publications, please present them. If he was a professor anywhere, please say where. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yesterday, all my dreams... Do you have a secondary source documenting this is his first book? If you do have, make sure it is not from Rodong Sinmun; only reliable sources are allowed. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR is a restriction specifically and solely on article content. It is not a restriction on editing discussions such as this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

IP 95.12.119.26, the easiest way is to look at Amazon (I provided a link already) or worldcat, etc. See what he has published. You will see 2012 was the first date. That is easy. I will stop for a while based on the suggestion of Abecedare. But per WP:BURDEN more burden is placed on those who claim reliability. So please say why that is not his first book, and show which books he published before 2011. You will not succeed. I am sure. I have checked. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

IP 95.12.119.26, as stated below 90% of my argument was based on the lack of track record of the author. As for the statement by Giraudo I used the reference to the book Lettera a Claudia which contradicts the statement by Lavere. As for his use of blogs and personal websites, they are all over his book. It is not WP:OR by me, he states that he used those websites as his sources. Lavere does not directly say that "God personally told him" that Valtorta's book is divine, but if you read the book you will get that feeling. So I do invite you to read Lavere's book. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

IP, per WP:OR: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

Yesterday, you don't need to reply to each comment, especially to reiterate arguments you have already made.

Abecedare (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare @NatGertler That statement did not exist there before. It was stealth added in May 2023 by an old sleeping account, who is now blocked indefinitely. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation that WP:OR applies to talk pages and arguments over reliability is not a majority position anywhere on wikipedia. I'm not even sure if it is a minority position of more than one. What I do know is that suggesting a user lacks competence to edit is not just an insane escalation at this point, but it a violation WP:NPA. I will take this to WP:ANI if I see you do it again.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue Baseless accusation of PA is a personal attack. Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Thank you. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so would you like to confirm that when you advised me to read WP:COMPETENCE, you were not suggesting that I lacked competence? Because it read like that, and I find it hard to think of another interpretation of your comment. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, shall we try with the basics on this, we can look at the publisher and the type of stuff they normally publish, as well as the other published work of Levere. Do you know of any other publications by Levere? What is the publisher of this book? Boynamedsue (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, the publisher is a French publisher Rassemblement À Son Image [3] mostly a religious publisher. But 90% of my argument was based on the "author's lack of track record". This was his first book as seen here [4]. He may have learned a few things 5-7 years later, but in 2012 he was fresh from the engineering workshop. He has only ever published on one topic: Maria Valtorta. He wrote a few things later as shown in the link, but he had published nothing before this book. And no PhD, no professor, etc. And wondering off to discuss topics from botany to theology does not make that reliable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this is a lot easier than I thought. The publishing house generally publishes books on Catholic spirituality which reflect the opinions of the authors. It also publishes a lot of reprints of out of copyright religious books. I see no evidence of editorial oversight at a sufficient level that controversial facts can be supported, although it is obviously good for the author's opinion. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, not an acceptable source for statements of fact but could be used for the author's opinion if due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So sourcing material from books of this kind is acceptable provided it is presented not as fact, but as the authors opinion. Understood.

For greater clarity, this particular author, Lavere, has published with other authors, including Laurentin, and Debrois, in the same year (2012) which are also considered reliable sources. For example: Dictionnaire des personnages de l'évangile selon Maria Valtorta.[5]

It would seem somewhat strange to say that the author Lavere, is unreliable in once instance and reliable in another, especially when dealing with material that is closely related (generally to do with Valtorta's work) and published in the same year.

Further, the book in question includes a preface by the Bishop Johanan-Mariam Cazenave’s, the Secretary of the Syrian-French Synod, so it's not without some level of high-ranking ecclesiastical support. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

What does ecclesiastical support have to do with reliability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Peer review as in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Since we're not dealing with a work of physics here, but rather a work concerning religious matters, and specifically, religious matters pertaining to the Catholic Church, experts constitute high-ranking or respected members of the Catholic Church. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, experts constitute those with relevant academic expertise and publishing histories, many of whom are high-ranking or respected members of the Catholic Church. I'd also note that we're dealing with a matter of *history* here first and foremost. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Experts are domain-specific. Academics in physics, chemistry, or biology are concerned with empirical data, and while they are highly relevant in their specific fields of inquiry, they are generally irrelevant in matters of religious doctrine and faith (unless, for example, they are doing a carbon dating of a religious artifact, or doing mathematical or statistical analyses of some kind).

Church history is part of it, but not exclusively. It is also a matter of Church doctrine, and what is and is not contrary to Church doctrine, faith and morals, which requires experts in that domain, i.e., high-ranking or respected members of the Church who can weigh in on such matters. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Think of it this way: what would it do to a published work in physics, if the preface to that work was written by Richard Feynman, Neils Bohr, or even Einstein, praising the work? Same principle. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Johanan-Mariam Cazenave a renowned figure on the level of Feynman, Bohr, Einstein, etc? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact he's a Bishop means he's sufficiently high-ranking and knowledgeable to be able to weigh in on such matters. In any case, I said "same principle." I wasn't making an equivalence. Arkenstrone (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Lets start here... Who is Bishop Johanan-Mariam Cazenave? What is the Syrian-French Synod? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstone, I did have a good laugh at your reference to Richard Feynman, Neils Bohr and Einstein. But Johanan-Mariam Cazenave is no Einstein. And given that Lavere makes a large number of fantastic scientific claims across multiple fields in his book, Cazenave (as a theolog) was in no pisition to evaluate them. It woud be like a physicist trying to evaluate a book on dentistry - he would not even know what types of drills the dentists use. So the argument about Cazenave is vacuous. And recall that the fact that the publisher has no serious editorial oversight on these issues, renders the whole argument pointless. Please accept that this is a book by a publisher with no serious oversight on scientific or historical issues, and an author (Lavere) who directly references blogs and personal websites as his sources. This is not a WP:RS item. And recall the inherent asymetry in WP:BURDEN. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Cazenave a theologian? I'm having a hard time tracking down a Catholic Bishop of that name. Perhaps its a pseudonym or pen name? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

<Sigh> I said, "same principle." And I repeat, it wasn't an equivalence.

Care to elaborate on "fantastic scientific claims" since you brought it up (on the Poem talk page please, not here)? This work isn't being used in the article to support scientific claims, so why are you focusing attention on that?

You are far too harsh on Lavere, especially considering the fact that he co-authored other works with Laurentin and Debroise, whom you seem to hold in high-regard. Though not relevant to this discussion, many of the scientific claims that are made in Lavere's book, are made elsewhere in other books or publications, by experts in those fields, which we will get to in due course (and you know it). So, "fantastic" would seem quite the exaggeration.

Perhaps Bishop Cazenave's praise and commendation is "vacuous" as it relates to scientific claims, but that's not what we're concerned with here. So please, let's stop conflating things.

Bishop Cazenave can weigh in on issues concerned with Church doctrine, and what is and is not contrary to Church doctrine, faith and morals. For those issues, his praise and commendation is pertinent and certainly not vacuous.

In any case, this discussion is getting longer than need be, drifting into tangential issues. Lavere's book can be used for his statements and opinions, but not for controversial facts. So long as statements and opinions are not presented as facts, we should be alright. Arkenstrone (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstone, a few points:

1. Regarding Einstein, you do have a technical way out, because you did not say "Albert Einstein" so can suggest that it was Eduard Einstein... smiile.

2. This discussion started for only one reason: because you kept adding this book to Wikipedia, although I told you that it is not reliable. You did do despite the asymetry of WP:BURDEN. And this discussion was dormant for several days and would have quietly ended with the final comment by Horse Eye on June 25th. But it restarted when you began huffing and puffing about the importance of Cazenave and how his statement contributed to the reliability of the book. I think the opposite is true, but I will let you explain yourself first. But we must clarify that this book is not reliable for facts and all statements you have added from it so far need to be deleted.

3. Given that you brought up Cazenave, in all fairness you must answer the question you were asked about him, namely Who on earth is Cazenave? Do you have any idea who he is? Why is there no trace of him on the internet? Does he even exist? How do you know? How do we know they have not tried to pull a Follieri here? As you may recall Follieri was Anne Hathaway's boyfriend and would get actors to "wear bishop outfits" and negotiate to sell chuch property that was not for sale. Do a Google on "Raffaello Follieri" to refresh your memory if necessary. So how do you know who he is? Perhaps you could call Hathaway and ask her if she remembers Cazenave as part of Follieri's old gang. Who knows, you may even get a date with Hatahaway...

This whole thing has turned into a joke because the book in question is a joke, and the recent attemptat defending it based on Cazenave is a joke. Let us accept that the book is unreliable, deleted the references to it, and then I will tell you about Cazenave. We may still have a laugh after that. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arkenstone: you keep ignoring the point so I want to make something clear: if Cazenave turns out not to exist I will be taking you to ANI and asking for an indeff/cban on competence grounds. Now perhaps you will take this seriously. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have any reason to think Cazenave doesn't exist. However, we have no reason to think he is an expert on what long-dead popes might or might not have said. A figure who claims to be a bishop in an extremely obscure Indian church (well, actually, a third party claims that online, but he certainly claims to be some sort of bishop) is not a reliable source just by virtue of making such a claim. A bishop might be a useful primary or even secondary source on the doctrines of their own denomination, but beyond that they are governed by the same rules of establishing reliability as everyone else. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: we actually do, Roman Catholic Bishops are important figures and always have significant coverage (at least from Catholic sources). They almost always have their own Vatican hosted web profile. I can't find a single mention of this Cazenave outside of the context of this book. Arkenstrone isn't claiming he's a member of an extremely obscure Indian church, he's claiming that he is a Bishop in the Roman Catholic Church. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Even the supposed "Syrian-French Synod" is only mentioned in the book and conversations about the book (reader's groups and so on). That such a synod exists without a mention anywhere else is simply unbelievable. Woodroar (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: "Very Rev. Jean Bernard de Cazenave" is Vicar General for France of the "Nordic Catholic Church"[6]. Apparently, he was at some point an archimandrite in a French Syriac Orthodox group, whether canonical or vagante, I don't know. This source seems to be entirely dubious. Jahaza (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Right last name, wrong first name and rank. We need a Bishop with the first name of Johanan-Mariam. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't take any form of threat seriously. If you wish people to respond to you, then try some civility WP:CIVIL. I see you have been warned regarding personal attacks previously. Your statement is hostile, and an accusation of malicious conduct and/or competency as per WP:NPA. I would remind you what @Boynamedsue recently said to an IP user above engaging in similar behaviour: "What I do know is that suggesting a user lacks competence to edit is not just an insane escalation at this point, but it [is] a violation WP:NPA. I will take this to WP:ANI if I see you do it again." You have been warned. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the part where you present reliable sources which indicate that Bishop Cazenave exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arkenstrone: have you uncovered any evidence that Bishop Cazenave exists and if not are you still assessing that they exist? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion started for only one reason: because you kept adding this book to Wikipedia, although I told you that it is not reliable.

No, that's not what you said. Your statements were filled with false assumptions and accusations, and extremely disparaging attacks rooted in some incorrect perception of what you thought was taking place (something about an Australian website?), a clear violation of WP:NPA, which I brushed off, asking you to focus on the content instead of the editor. You can review that part of the talk page if you wish.

"Huffing and puffing." Really?

The final sentence I added about Bishop Cazenave, wasn't the thrust of my argument. That was a statement to indicate that Lavere's work is not without some level of ecclesiastical support. So to call his work "a joke" is quite a stretch and not rooted in reality. It's also interesting that you ignored the main part of the argument about Lavere co-authoring other works with Laurentin and Debroise, in the same year (2012), having to do with similar material (Valtorta), whom you do consider RS.

Regarding Bishop Cazenave, digging a little deeper, he is a Bishop of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, the sister Church of Rome, and under the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, the Supreme head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church. You can read the details of the common declaration of Pope John Paul II and the Patriarch of Antioch of 1984, which should help clear things up.[7]

(Regarding your attempts at dry humour, you lost me. Suffice it to say, don't give up your day job.) Arkenstrone (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Some additional information on the Syriac Orthodox Church and its history here:[8] Arkenstrone (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstone, Yada, yada, yada. I think all keyboards here are getting worn out and none of this will change the outcome of this discussion. Jahaza's additional coment that the book is entirely dubious seals the fate of this discussion. This discussion should end by declaring the book as not reliable for any factual information, and references to it should be deleted. That will happen, regardless of additional pages of discussion. I will suggest that below. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You are ignoring my response and instead deflecting. And for the record, as per Wiki policy and the discussion resolved in the very first remarks, the book can be used for Lavere's statements and opinions, but not for controversial facts. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arkenstrone: it can be used for that, but on Lavere's page not The Poem of the Man God. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Cazenave isn't mentioned in the linked source, I can't find a Syriac Orthodox Bishop by the name of Cazenave either. Where did you find this information when you dug a little deeper? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstone did kind of make the claim Cazenave was a Catholic bishop, but I think he was more guilty of imprecision than anything else. Based on an unreliable website, I think some people definitely believe him to be a bishop of the Syrian-Orthodox church of the Indies of Malabar. As it goes, though coauthoring with people who have published reliable works does increase an author's credibility, it does not, in this case, mitigate for the problems with the publisher. There are many writers who have some reliable works and some which are valid for only their opinion. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did presume him to be a Bishop of the Roman Curia, instead of the Syrian-Orthodox Church. I had no compelling reason to doubt he was a Bishop, however. It seems absurd to me that an author would resort to such a ruse, risking their reputation and career on a preface commendation of a non-existant Bishop.

As it goes, though coauthoring with people who have published reliable works does increase an author's credibility, it does not, in this case, mitigate for the problems with the publisher

Fair enough. And for that reason, I understand that the book cannot be used to support controversial statements as facts, but only as the author's opinion. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a single reliable source which says he's a Bishop in the Syrian-Orthodox Church? Note that it can only be used to support the author's opinion on the author's page, there is no way to use it at The Poem of the Man God because the author's opinion is not due for inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What "reputation and career" was he risking? Haven't we established that this was his first book, and it was outside the realm of any existing career we've found sign of? (And if you think that aspiring authors would never think of pulling shenanigans, sit down with me and some fellow publishers at a bar at a convention sometime, and we'll have some stories to tell you.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

NatGertler, I assume those stories would include Nicolas Bourbaki and some of their pranks. At some point Andre Weil carried business cards with the name Bourbaki and was accused of being a spy when they found them along with his own cards in his wallet at a border crossing. Cartan and Weil had that game going for quite a while. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to close this discussion: This discussion seems destined to end in the book in question being declared not reliable for factual information, because there is only one user arguing for reliability and a few others supporting unreliability. In the sense of WP:SNOW this discussion has no chance of proving the book to be reliable in the context of WP:BURDEN regardless of any additional drama on this page. I therefore propose that this discussion should close with the conclusion that the book was found not to be reliable for factual information, so we can move on. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Read above. Lavere is credible given he has coauthored with others who have published reliable works. However, due to lack of editorial oversight of the publisher, the book cannot be used to support controversial statements as facts, but only as the author's opinion. Arkenstrone (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say he is "credible", I think the coauthoring lowers the odds against him, but on its own is not enough. The inclusion of its claims would be governed by WP:DUE and, to an extent, WP:FRINGE. I think the problem here is, at its root, the inclusion of claims of Valtorta's orthodoxy due to second-hand accounts of approval by senior church figures, and whether it's possible to include apologia from Lavere. That is a massive can of worms. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that all these "fanatical" statements from this Enigma book seem to suggest that the majority of the Catholic Church (if not the entire planet) support Valtorta. That is far, far from reality. This is a controversial topic. Only totally drunk people would suggest that the book is not controversial. I have not had any drinks today, so I would not suggest that. So a can of woems would be an understatement. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Which "fanatical" statements? Some of the things Lavere is stating is also stated by co-authors Laurentin, and Debroise, AND Lavere in another book of the same year, regarding similar material, and probably others. So that's hardly "fanatical". While many controversial statements may not be used due to the issue with the publisher's lack of editorial oversight, that doesn't make them "fanatical". Controversial does not equal fanatical. Your penchant for hyperbole and exaggeration is not helpful. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

René Laurentin and François-Michel Debroise would appear to be controversial figures in their own right due to their promotion of fringy Marian concepts like apparitions (ghosts to the layman). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, The problem with saying only "controversial" statements from the book should be excluded is that it makes the can of worms exponentially larger over time. Consider the statement that is already in the article:

"According to Lavère, in January 1962, Fr. Berti was given an authorization to publish by the Vice Commissioner of the Holy See, Father Marco Giraudo, and this statement attributed to Fr. Giraudo was added by Emilio Pisani, Valtorta's publisher, to volume 10 of the 1985 French edition: “You have our total approbation to continue the publication of this second edition of The Gospel as revealed to me [the Poem] by Maria Valtorta," concluding with, "We shall see how it is received.”"

Is this controversial? I think it is not only controversial, but clearly absurd, given that the Index was still active in 1962. And in the book Lavere gives no indication of the statement came about. This statement is tantamount to the Vice President of some country giving permission to ignore some of the laws in that country that are already on the books. These debates about what is controversial will turn that page into an utter mess. I agree with the position taken by Jahaza that the book is "entirely dubious" as a source. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if we need a formal close, but I agree that we have to consider the source unreliable or objectionable for any number of reasons. Whether it's dubious or a hoax or the author is careless about names and facts or it's factual but niche enough to be overlooked by every other reliable source, it really doesn't matter. The source lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we require. Woodroar (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Woodroar, Thank you. It was about time someone said that loud and clear as you did. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday, all my dreams..., yes absolutely, that is a highly controversial statement. Anything that can only be sourced to a book without sufficient editorial oversight could be challenged on that basis. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, So your definition of "controversial" is any statement that can only be sourced to that book and no other? If so, almost every statement from that book used in the article is controversial, because it has a single source, namely the book. And they are often sourced in the book itself to blogs and personal websites that would not be considered WP reliable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, and this is one of the problems at present. That statement was made by Fr. Berti, who was present at the meeting with Fr. Giraudo. He produced a signed letter and testimony attesting to that event. The problem is that while this signed letter and testimony exists on websites that host information and historical documents concerning these events, they haven't been formally published, and so there is some difficulty using them as reliable primary sources. There is plenty of evidence to indicate these events did happen, it's just that we are unable to cite reliable sources confirming this at present. In due course, this may change, but until then, we are forced to treat them as "controversial" statements whose primary source evidence can't be cited directly. But certainly not "fanatical".

So the question is, is it possible to reference such controversial statements, reworked or reworded, not as fact, but as something controversial, and as the authors opinion or view? For example, there is a line of text in the sister article Maria Valtorta that sites Bouflet's statement (a critic of Valtorta) that all we know about Valtorta is from her autobiography. But this is incorrect. At least 2 biographies have been written about her. However, the statement remains, not because it's factual, but because he's generally considered a reliable source, with reliable publisher, etc. even though the statement itself is clearly incorrect. So we say that "According to Bouflet…" or "Bouflet states that…" in order not mislead readers into thinking that his statement is incontrovertible fact.

Also, @Yesterday is misleading you. As I mentioned before, some of the statements made by Lavere are also made by others, including Laurentin and Debroise and Lavere himself as co-author with other RS authors in other books. For example some of the statements concerning Msgr. Tettamanzi, Fr. Allegra, and Cardinal Gagnon, appear in both books. I will acquire copies of the other books to see which other statements also appear in these books so we can stop attributing to "fanaticism" that which is simply controversial or even reliably sourced fact. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In search of Cazenave

Recently @Horse Eye's Back: asked about Cazenave again. Given that a few days ago I had said that after @Arkenstone: had had a chance to say his piece, I would tell you guys what I know about this man, I should do so. Hopefully this will end this discussion and we can move on. Two things we can be certain about: first that this is a very, very strange man, and secondly that he has not taken a vow of poverty, by any means. In fact Jahaza figured most of it out, as well except the part about his fancy bedroom. That place is in fact so fancy that it was featured in The Economist as one of the fanciest bedrooms around. There is even a picture of Cazenave in his Louis XVI bed, but given that The Economist is a family publication, he was alone in that picture at least.

What surprised me at first is that they never said he was "Bishop of A" with A as a city name. He was not the bishop of Paris for sure, and not even of an out of the way place like Annecy. So what did he do when the synod was over? The 2nd strange thing was that if had been a "usual bishop" he would have performed some weddings, funerals, etc. And there would have been pictures of him doing so on the internet. But there are none. So it must have been a "rent a bishop for a day" type of episcopus vagans situation just for the duration of the synod, and the front of the book focused just on that.

The third item was that if he had been to the Sorbonne, and was French, his name may not have been "Johanan-Mariam" but Jean-Marie. After a few seraches he turned out to be Jean Bernard Cazenave. The way we know that is the same man is that image searches show the same man. And the explanation for his not being at weddings etc. may be that he was monsignor amd an archimandrite tucked away in an monastery somewhere. But none of that is totally certain, and he may be a semi-Bourbaki character anyway. It is difficult to know who this man is, although we know that he exists and likes to drink in bars. There are pictures of him doing that.

So you can do a few Google " image searches" for Jean Bernard Cazenave and see him with his friends [9] etc. You will eventually also see him in bed, etc. as well. For someone who had been in a monastery, his taste in Louis XVI furniture is realy strange. Or maybe it was this monastery anyway.

Horse Eye, if you are thinking of going over to ANI about Arkenstrone about this, I think it will not succeed, given that The Economist is a reliable source and calls him a monsignor in that order. So you may save effort on that. Hopefully Arkenstrone will be more careful, and avoid that fate. Now, can we please end this discussion? Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Monsignor Johanan-Mariam (Jean Bernard) Cazenave giving benediction at Sunday mass at Saint Jacques de Compostelle Cathedral.[10]

Close up of Msgr. Cazenave.[11]

Saint Jacques de Compostelle Cathedral, September 2011, Msgr. Johanan-Mariam sings Hail Mary in the Aramaic language.[12]

Other sermons.[13]

Given that Msgr. Cazenave still appears to be alive, you might want to be a bit more careful about WP:BLP. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Would you agree that given that this person isn't a bishop but is described in the book as a bishop that Enigma Valtorta is an unreliable source for all things including attributed statements? PS, take a look at the subscriptions for that YouTube account... [14][15]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:, I had not looked at those funny subscriptions, but now the only remaining question is if "Jungle Tarzan" turns into a bishop after he puts his clothes on, or not. But jokes aside at this point in the discussion it does not matter what Arkenstrone agrees to or not. To include that book as a source for anything at all, per WP:BURDEN he would need proof/agreement/support that the book is reliable. He is nowhere near getting that because four editors namely you, myself, Woodroar and Jahaza consider the book utterly dubious, and useless as a source. A fifth editor namely Boynamedsue is somewhat lukewarm on the issue but does not fully support the book. So Arkenstone can type on here for a year and a half and repeat the same things again and again, but that will not affect the outcome of this discussion. There is no agreement at all here that the book is reliable for anything at all. So the book fails WP:BURDEN and can not be used as a source at all. End of story.

@Arkenstrone:, you may have heard the saying: "if you are in a hole, it might be a good idea to stop digging". So it would be a good idea to take a look at WP:HEAR before any more digging takes place. And just today you claimed on the article talk page that the "take away" from this discussion is that the Enigma book can be used for all non controversial facts. In my view that is a "take away" delivered to an incorrect address. So explain why that is the take away from this discussion given 4 users who oppose you on that. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Bishop Cazenave

Jungle Tarzan

I presume you are referring to Bishop Cazenave's headdress. The headdress is part of the standard vestments of the Orthodox Syriac Church, different from the headdress worn by Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.[16]

"The liturgical vestments worn by a Bishop during the Order of Aaron in the preparatory prayers is similar to that of a Priest along with some additional vestments. They wear a phiro, a small black cap which the bishop must wear during all public prayers, under the Eskimo, a hood worn by monks at all times. It consists of seven sections which indicate the full priesthood of the celebrant."

The 2nd strange thing was that if had been a "usual bishop" he would have performed some weddings, funerals, etc. And there would have been pictures of him doing so on the internet. But there are none

• I posted a link to a video of Msgr. Cazenave giving the benediction for Sunday mass at a highly prestigious Cathedral in Spain, as well as a video of him leading portions of the service in song/prayer. The subscriber count for those videos are irrelevant. I provided evidence for which you said there was none. Furthermore, any visiting Bishop would need to be vetted by the clergy and Bishop assigned to that diocese before participating in any public service. They would certainly know whether Cazenave was an authentic Bishop or a fraud. Their verdict? Authentic, of good standing, and good character.

• Given this evidence, as well as the evidence provided by the sleuth-work of other editors in this discussion, Msgr. Cazenave appears to be an authentic Bishop in the Syriac Orthodox Church (as Johanan-Mariam Cazenave, Secretary of Syrian-French Synod), and also in the Nordic Catholic Church (as Jean-Bernard de Cazenave, Vicar General, France). It appears he is a graduate of the "Institut Catholique" of Paris and of the Paris-Sorbonne University.

• I think the "dubiousness" of Msgr. Cazenave has been largely shown to be unwarranted. The original confusion came from the fact that he is a member of the Syriac Orthodox Church, a sister Church of the Church of Rome. And if Msgr. Cazenave's "dubiousness" is the only reason for saying Lavere's book is inadmissible, then those opinions are based on wrong information.

Credibility of Lavere

• Now, let's remember why Msgr. Cazenave was originally brought up. He is not the focus of this discussion. His name was brought up because he provided a forward to Lavere's book. That forward adds some credibility to the book given his domain expertise. That's all. In the same way any other high-ranking prelate writing a forward would tend to lend greater credibility to a work. And in order to attack the credibility of the book and author, some editors chose to attack the credibility of the Bishop giving his endorsement of the book.

• Also, since Laurentin and Debrois single out Lavere and his work in their book "Insagine su Maria" (from a reliable publisher) pointing out the quality of Lavere's work and contribution over the years, that further adds credibility to Lavere and his work.

• Lastly, since Lavere has co-authored a book with Laurentin and Debrois (from a reliable publisher) that once again adds additional credibility to Lavere and his work.

• Therefore, Lavere appears to be a reasonably credible author. All that being said, the fundamental issue has narrowed to using Lavere's book as a source in very specific circumstances. Given the issues with the publisher (lack of editorial oversight), it has been reasonably pointed out that the book cannot be used for controversial statements of fact. This was established early on in this discussion, and was squarely based in Wikipedia policy. For this reason, I removed the material and citations that offended this policy. I will look for other, more reliable sources for this material. It was also established that Lavere's book can be used for Lavere's own words, views or opinions provided there isn't an over-reliance on them as per WP:DUE.

Uncontroversial Words of Bishop Danylak

• The remaining two citations from Lavere's book do not reference controversial statements of fact. Quite the opposite. They quote a high-ranking Bishop of the Catholic Church, Msgr. Roman Danylak, a subject-matter expert with a doctorate in Canon and Civil law from Pontifical Lateran University, as well as a Licentiate of Sacred Theology from the Pontifical Urbaniania, which grants the holder the right to teach in Catholic seminaries and schools of theology.

• Why is Lavere's reference to Msgr. Danylak's words not controversial? Because Msgr. Danylak established a personal website, where he self-published articles on various topics, including one or two related to Valtorta. These are his own words, the words of a subject-matter expert. It is a fact that Msgr. Danylak did indeed say these things. Lavere is simply referring to those words which are verifiable by anyone with an internet connection. Nothing more than that. No controversial statements of fact are involved. (Msgr. Danylak passed away in 2012 and his website has been archived but remains accessible).

• This is why Lavere's book should be admissible (but, I concede, limited in what we can take from it) and why those remaining two citations should be allowed to stand.

If you disagree, please address the arguments you disagree with above directly and in substance, without being dismissive or distracting into tangential or peripheral issues. I've sectioned and bulleted them so they can be more easily addressed. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Jungle Tarzan refers to this account[17] which the YouTube account you've presented as Cazenave's follows. Does this effect your analysis? I also seem to have missed the source that supports the idea that Cazenave is a bishop at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

But all that is beside the point, given that Arkenstrone is singing such a lonely tune here and is about to run over WP:HERE. He can sing that lonely tune for another year, but that will not change the outcome here. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Not relevant. I've presented video evidence of Msgr. Cazenave giving benediction and leading mass at a prestigious Cathedral in Spain, plus giving a few sermons, with bolded supporting arguments. Other editors have presented some evidence as well. Substantial, pertinent, and well-reasoned arguments only please. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've watched the videos, nothing in them supports the idea that Cazenave is a bishop. Do you really feel that the patently homoerotic material is not relevant to your claim of "Authentic, of good standing, and good character." given what we both know to be the moral teachings of both the Roman Catholic and the Syriac Orthodox Church? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• The video actually supports the idea that Cazenave is a bishop, and at least an upstanding member of the clergy, administering blessing, leading portions of mass, and certainly vetted by this prestigious Roman Catholic Church. From his headdress, it is difficult to see if he is wearing a 'phiro' undereath the 'eskimo' which all Syriac Orthodox Bishops wear during public mass. He is wearing a 'batrashil' (narrow front and back vestment) which only Bishops wear. And then he appears to be wearing the cross and icon, which only bishops wear. Then he takes a larger cross in hand, which only bishops do. So this visual evidence suggests he is a Bishop of the Syriac Orthodox Church.[18]

• Apart from your own personal interest or curiosity, why should the bizarre material you reference have anything to do with this discussion? How is what another user posts on youtube in any way relevant? It is not. And what relevance does the identity of the owner of the youtube channel itself have? None. It may not even belong to Cazenave, but it may be a fan page or created by one of his followers. Who knows. The video stands on it's own as video evidence of Cazenave leading mass.

• There is also the other evidence of Cazenave occupying a position in the Nordic Catholic Church as Vicar General, France.[19]

"As Vicar of the Bishop, the Vicar General exercises the Bishop's ordinary executive power over the entire diocese and, thus, is the highest official in a diocese or other particular church after the diocesan Bishop or his equivalent in canon law"[20]

Arkenstrone (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Its evidence that someone who someone on YouTube claims is him was at a Church once, thats it. Your willingness to do deep dive analysis on some things but not others is interesting. Is he the Vicar of the Bishop or is he the Bishop? Both can't be true at once. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of the discussion so far

Given that the discussion seems to circular, here is the summary of the discussion so far as I see it:

Four users believe that the book Enigma is unreliable and dubious as source and can not be used for statements of fact. These are:

Horse Eye: "not an acceptable source for statements of fact but could be used for the author's opinion if due"

Jahaza: "This source seems to be entirely dubious"

Woodroar: "we have to consider the source unreliable or objectionable for any number of reasons. ... The source lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we require"

Myself, Yesterday, all my dreams...: "The book is totally unreliable."

A fifth user, Boynamedsue is lukewarm on the subject:

Boynamedsue: "I see no evidence of editorial oversight at a sufficient level that controversial facts can be supported, although it is obviously good for the author's opinion."

The sixth user Arkenstone seems to fully support the book.

Hence the clear conclusion so far (4 users vs 2 users) is that the book is unreliable and cannot be used for statememts of fact. And in any case, there is no consensus for the book is reliable, and hence the book fails WP:BURDEN. Hence the book is not be used for statements of fact at all. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The more "evidence" I see, the more I smell a hoax—or at least grasping at patently unreliable straws. This whole thing is ridiculous. Woodroar (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

[Notified by an article talk page alert] As someone who has reviewed hoaxes regarding alleged Syriac Orthodox in an academic setting, I feel somewhat qualified to weigh in: I'm convinced something is too fishy to allow this book as a source. Bishop scams are as common as Nigerian prince ones and predate them by many centuries (though perhaps Prester John myths offer a shared origin). In any case, I think we have enough doubt to permit any real use of this text on Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

MoneySavingExpert.com

Source: Credit Unions & Community Banking by Amy Roberts, Edited by Hannah McEwen

Article: Credit unions in the United Kingdom

Content: various statements on the nature of credit unions.

Hi, MoneySavingExpert is a consumer website (similar to Which?) with an edited and very high quality descriptions of various financial products, government schemes, etc. It is used as a source by The Guardian [21] [22], and The Telegraph [23], and its comparison tools are recommended by The Guardian, [24] and the BBC. [25] Martin Lewis, the site's chairman, runs a weekly podcast for the BBC.

For some reason it has been spam blacklisted without a discussion here, and discussions on the spam blacklist forum indicate users seem to think that it is entirely forums (which it isn't) or a personal blog (which it has not been for a long time, it has an editorial team (indeed the piece I want to cite was edited by Hannah McEwen who previously spent a decade at Which?), a editorial code) or somehow run exclusively as advertorial (which it isn't, it just has some affiliate links, which plenty of news sources listed as reliable on WP:RSP do, and this particular article doesn't have any, anyway).

Unless there is a blanket ban on consumer media that has somehow escaped my notice, this seems to have been designated generally unreliable by proxy and without those doing so having a proper knowledge of the facts.

Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, obviously the forum section is not an RS (as it wouldn't be for any other website), but the main website itself should not be blacklisted. MSE is probably at least as influential as Which?, and Lewis is the "go to" expert for the BBC and other media when they need someone to explain financial issues. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess you're referring to the spam-blacklist threads in December 2018, March 2019, April 2021. If so, it's indeed evident that in each thread somebody supported the blacklisting because it's a blog or unreliable. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, in the most recent one (two years ago) they appeared to oppose it because of the affiliate links. Also, as the OP points out, whilst it might have started as a blog-like website, it now has editorial staff, so the arguments from the previous discussions (certainly the 2018 and 2019 ones) may not still apply. Probably the best thing is to have another discussion. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The news section (https://www.moneysavingexpert .com/news/) of the site is absolutely a reliable source. They have both an editorial team and editorial code (see https://www.moneysavingexpert .com/site/editorial-code/), as Black Kite has said Martin Lewis is a "go to" expert for UK media on financial issues, and the site has strong use by others in general for this purpose. With respect to the spam-blocklist if there's still a concern about the non-news articles containing affiliate links, all of the news articles on the site use a URL schema that includes /news/ within the URL (eg, https://www.moneysavingexpert .com/news/2023/07/martin-lewis-urges-link-money-mental-health-services/), and as the blocklist seems to be regex based, I think we could allowlist the news articles, while leaving the rest of the main site and the forum subdomain blocked. That's probably a discussion for MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Irony of ironies, making this comment was difficult because of the blocklist, which in turn makes linking to specific parts of the website demonstrating reliability difficult. If you want to check those URLs, remove the space before .com. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I ask here because the response to any unblocking has been that it is unreliable, while in my opinion, the guides for consumers are reliable (on say what a regular saver is or what a credit union is). Obviously MSE should not be used for statements like 'X is the best/cheapest/highest quality Y', but that's not a reliability issue, that's because Wikipedia is not a catalogue or price comparison website.

Whitelisting news would help, but item I want to link to (https://www.moneysavingexpert .com/loans/credit-unions/) isn't under the news subdomain. Perhaps only the forum would be blacklisted, but even that seems excessive - the spam blacklist is not an exhaustive list of every forum, and WP:Spam blacklist states that blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers, looking through the discussions, I see no evidence that the alternatives that are suggested by the guidance were tried or even that there was any spam in the first place. Indeed Aldaden asked for evidence of such a campaign, and got nothing back (though now I am straying into the topic that should be dealt with by a discussion on the blacklist's board).

Thank-you and best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It was added on 4 December 2018 by Beetstra after a request by Newslinger who made the original proposal saying "egregiously spammed" and "... not a reliable source". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

And for the second time in this thread, that was the site in 2018 (which was mainly a financial blog), not the site as it exists today (which is an influential website with multiple editors). Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the original proposal. I can't speak for the site in 2018, but at present, it has a paid and experienced editorial team. The only blog I can find on the site is that of Martin Lewis and I would suggest that he qualifies as a subject matter expert, given that the BBC has given him a weekly podcast (https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/). With respect to Newslinger, I do not think that WikiProject Spam is the right venue to determine if a source is reliable. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Support removing the blacklist per others. The source is reliable wrt facts about UK financial consumer issues. -- Colin°^Talk 10:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

O'Keefe Media Group and Project Veritas

Overwhelming consensus to deprecate James O'Keefe personally, the O'Keefe Media Group, Project Veritas and future O'Keefe outlets as sources, due to O'Keefe's documented history of deliberate fabrication. There was also a strong minority for adding O'Keefe's works to the spam blacklist and barring even WP:ABOUTSELF claims. It is unusual to deprecate the entire body of work of an individual, but the consensus in this case was strong and reasoned. Citations to O'Keefe's work and claims based on any such citations should be removed - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Now that James O'Keefe has split from Project Veritas and is continuing his stings under O'Keefe Media Group, should the entry on the RS list be updated to include O'Keefe Media Group [26] underneath Veritas's entry? I reverted an IP edit that attempted to cite his website as a source for a BlackRock sting [27] but was wondering if this needs to be mentioned as it would seem unlikely that O'Keefe has changed his journalistic practices since leaving Veritas. Mfko (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Unreliable. A new entry at RS is probably appropriate. Woodroar (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. No corrections policy that I can see. Tone is not that of an RS. No reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Couldn't find any WP:USEBYOTHERS either. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised he's not deprecated as a matter of course; setting up an RfC below to correct that. Sceptre (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC (James O'Keefe)

What best describes James O'Keefe (including, inter alia, Project Veritas and O'Keefe Media Group) as a reliable source?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated.

Sceptre (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (James O'Keefe)

Option 4, and blacklisted where possible: this should be pro forma, but I think we need an RfC to formally deprecate a source, no matter if such a course of action is blindingly obvious. Since the death of Andrew Breitbart, O'Keefe is the undisputed King of Fake News. Anything he touches is fruit of the poisoned tree. However, the entry at RSPS where we've said it's GUNREL is, I feel, too high; if I met O'Keefe in the middle of the Sahara and he told me it was scorchingly sunny, I'd make sure I had an umbrella and a parka on my person just in case; he's that much of a bullshit merchant. Sceptre (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 Back to basics. No reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Stories do not have the measured tone that is typical reliable source, and as mentioned elsewhere on this page, his latest outlet lacks a corrections policy. I'm unaware of any spam campaign from O'Keefe, which would be the usual reason for blacklisting. I don't see colorful prose such as "undisputed King of Fake News" as sufficient reason for deprecation. Ditto selective editing, as every source edits, and every source is selective. So just plain not reliable. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 with a caveat Obviously generally unreliable but I'm wary of adding an individual to the RSP list as this seems to stretch its purpose beyond what's appropriate. And until his new publishing venture is actually getting used or asked about here a lot, it is premature to call it "perennial". BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 4, and nuke any references from orbit, as it is the only way to be sure While it is true that Mr. O'Keefe and his former workplace Project Veritas are not legally identical, they are in many ways synonymous and there can be little doubt that he was the animating spirit for at least much of the time he was there. I don't believe his reputation should be laundered by starting a new venture. Not only does Mr. O'Keefe not have a track record for fact-checking and accuracy, he has one of using underhanded and sometimes tortious or even criminal tactics to get information. He then explicitly uses such information in the style of a provacateur, going well beyond reporting bias into naked propaganda. Perhaps Mr. O'Keefe's new venture will be different--anything is possible. If it is, we can reassess in due time. But for now, I can see no good and quite a bit of bad from citing him anywhere on Wikipedia. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 - The truth value of anything he writes is basically unrelated to reality. Veritas is known to be entirely fake, and the reason for that is primarily due to O'Keefe. Use of his works as a reference is pretty much equivalent to not having a reference at all. The only time I could see it appropriate to cite him is as a primary source for what he himself has published, and even then I wouldn't even trust him as a source for what he himself has previously said, as he could decide to change his mind about the facts regarding himself at any time. Fieari (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 As not only does he (or PV) not have a reputation for fact-checking, they actually have a reputation for faslefication. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 and blacklist/purge everything from it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 4. I wouldn't even trust any ABOUTSELF claims, as they'd probably be edited out of context. Woodroar (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 - Nothing coming directly or indirectly from James O'Keefe, or from anyone who chooses to be associated with him, should be given any credence whatsoever. Nevertheless, I would characterize the deprecation as being of Project Veritas and O'Keefe Media Group, rather than James O'Keefe personally. John M Baker (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 4, but honestly on a scale to 1-4 this person is at 9000. An agent provocateur and purveyor of disinformation should never be cited for anything in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 Andre🚐 00:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 Not even a close question. Deliberate serial fabrication and falsehoods. Blacklist. Banks Irk (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 Pure garbage. Volunteer Marek 21:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 per nom (Sceptre). I wouldn't even trust ABOUTSELF claims. -sche (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 - I haven't seen anyone try to use this source -- I'm presuming others have, or we wouldn't even bother with this? -- but it appears to be the same garbage as before. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 if we're actually doing an RFC, since he has a long and well-established history of using deceptive editing to produce disinformation. I'm not sure it was necessary to spell it out (was anyone trying to use it as a source?) but since we did end up having to actually add Project Veritas itself after numerous people tried to use it in various contexts I suppose it can't hurt. --Aquillion (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 Stay far away from using this as a source, blacklisting seems appropriate. Oaktree b (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 - history of editing videos to spread disinformation. starship .paint (exalt) 03:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 - I would be weary to put an individual as a whole as a deprecated source. Is there any precedent for this? Grahaml35 (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 O'Keefe's work is devoid of journalistic credibility. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 O'Keefe has a long decades old list of scandals relating to cases of deceptively editing videos. I do not see a single spec of redemptive content made by O'Keefe. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 Bobfrombrockley raises a good point, but any outlet's willingness to publish O'Keefe is itself a demonstration of unreliability. The burden should be on him to rehabilitate his reputation, not on Wikipedia editors to justify removing a garbage source on a case-by-case basis. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Genealogy source at Kalhora (tribe)

This is a pdf of a book published in 2002 by the Institute of Sindhology, associated with the University of Karachi in Pakistan. It is being used at Kalhora to support some rather obscure genealogy relating to what became, well over 10 generations later, the Kalhora dynasty that governed most of Sindh ca. 1701-1783.

The book has no footnotes, although there is a bibliography comprising 53 items. It has list of errors comprising four pages of mostly single-line entries. It was written by someone whose day job appears to have been practising law but who was also considered to be a dramatist, short story writer, journalist & publisher of 20 or so books, as well as being a researcher.

The book seems to agree with Sarah Ansari's opinion that one Adam Shah Kalhoro was a dynastic ancestor but, unlike her, believes the line can be traced back a further 10 generations, seemingly using what we generally consider here to be extremely dubious older documents. In extending that line, it seems to supports an origin claim (to the Abbasis) which Ansari says is almost certainly untrue - a myth of origin. I don't think the book's primary focus is dynastic matters, being really about a poet. And in tracing the line back it skips nine generations, noting that Adam Shah Kalhoro is the first person who "stands clearly out of the mist of history" (p. 7).

The first seven pages cover the issue. For Ansari's view, see Sarah F. D. Ansari (31 January 1992). Sufi Saints and State Power: The Pirs of Sind, 1843-1947. Cambridge University Press. pp. 32–34. ISBN 978-0-521-40530-0.

We could show both opinions, indeed I have done that for now, but I'm quite concerned regarding the general shoddiness & apparent lack of academic rigour of the 2002 book. There is some discussion at Talk:Kalhora. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the book may be a posthumous publication - see here. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks indeed somewhat questionable. The first individual of this dynasty, who stands clearly out of the mist of history is Adam Shah can just mean that he is the first person for whom more than minimal information is available. However After Ibrahim or Kalhore Khan, nothing is found in the history about this family or tirbe for the nine generations, till the coming of Adam Shah on the scenery of the horizon of history. suggests that there is no information available for those nine generations. That would make it impossible to establish any relation between Kalhore Khan and Adam Shah. That combined with the lack of information about sources makes me think that this should at most be mentioned as an opinion or as speculation, not as in any way reliable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

So it appears to be pure speculation or wishful thinking. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this book specifically (yet) but commented on another publication of the Institute of Sindhology, which makes me extremely doubtful of any publication originating from there that has not been independently and critically reviewed by experts in the area. Abecedare (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I have been editing Institute of Sindhology since filing the above. I have just made this edit using a source that was already present but which supported nothing of what it was being used to support. It is an excoriating criticism, including of their publication program; I have yet to find a rebuttal other than what the newspaper shows in its article. (I'm also a bit concerned about a sort of walled garden effect being created - see my note on the related Talk:Sindhology.) - Sitush (talk) Messed this up: there is criticism of the IoS but the bit about publications relates to the Sindhi Language Authority, which is independent of it. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

SB Nation-staffed sports editorial blogs

Sources: Defined as blogs under the Vox-owned SB Nation brand, with paid but not full-time staff and freelanced content. This explicitly does not consider SB Nation's volunteer, amateur, or semiprofessional-run fanblogs, which already fall more clearly under WP:SPORTCRIT's guidelines against fanblogs and similar works.

All for XI, a women's association football blog, is being specifically debated on WP:Articles for deletion/Dakota Mills by @JoelleJay and @Newimpartial). It's cited in numerous articles. Its initial, past, and current editorial staff includes current or former freelancers who work for RS non-Vox publications; its initial managing editor Steph Yang is now a full-time staff writer for The Athletic, and her successors Kudzi Musarurwa and Erica Ayala are freelancers for The Athletic. Its current authors include Jenna Tonelli, an active freelancer for the New York Post's sports RS carveout and for RS New York Magazine, and Sophie Lawson, who covered the 2022 UEFA Women's Euro and 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup for ESPN (1, 2). Other similarly staffed blogs include Outsports, Secret Base, and SB Nation itself.

Per @JoelleJay:

The All for XI source is a group blog with content submitted by contributors, not journalists, and administered by "managers" and "authors" whose names just link to their SBNation user profile. It is not RS.

Per @Newimpartial:

I don't know what your issue with SBnation is; some of the best journalists covering women's football may be found publishing there.

Per @Jogurney, emphasis mine:

The SBNation article has a few useful sentences about Mills' performance in three Olympic qualifying matches (probably a little more than "routine"), but I'm unsure of its status as a reliable source versus a host for All for XI's blogposts.

Articles: The above Dakota Mills AfD; if All for XI is not a RS, then Jenna Bike, Jennifer Cudjoe, and Domi Richardson might not meet WP:GNG based on their current citations. It's the sole cited presumed-RS source for WP:BIO statements in those articles, as well as in Martin Sjögren, Manuela Zinsberger, and Taylor Aylmer, and if All for XI is not a RS then those statements should be flagged, differently sourced, or WP:BLPREMOVEd.

Content: In Dakota Mills, All for XI 's status as RS is debated toward the subject's potential notability in its AfD because one of its articles included a biographical detail about her, but that detail is not used in the article. The same article is cited for a biographical detail in Cloey Uddenberg.

In Jenna Bike:

In 2022, NWSL club NJ/NY Gotham FC invited Bike to its open tryouts, and she stepped away from her doctorate program to pursue a professional soccer career. ... In January 2023, Chicago Red Stars coach Chris Petrucelli contacted Bike about the team's need for a winger. The team subsequently signed Bike from the NWSL waiver wire to a two-year contract with an option for a third year, where she returned to playing as a forward.

In Domi Richardson:

Richardson suffered a medial meniscus tear during practice in 2022, ending her season. Gotham FC did not exercise the club's option on her contract, releasing her in 2023.

-63.224.250.203 (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) — 63.224.250.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This IP made this filing immediately after placing prod notices on about 100 articles about female footballers, including ones profiled by The Guardian or awarded national Player of the year honors. Those were the only previous edits from this IP. Template added by Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment. The only previous discussion of a SB Nation property not specific to a team is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#bloodyelbow from 2013, where @Mtking makes the same assertion as @JoelleJay in the Mills AfD suggesting the website's author-page functionality pointing to a user-profile page indicates that the site cannot be a RS. -63.224.250.203 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of any policy support for the idea that a profile page link invalidates the reliability of a source, FWIW. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Just for reference, the articles to which the last two statements are sourced were both written by Jenna Tonelli, respected soccer journalist for The Equalizer. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned Tonelli's more mainstream work above. If All for XI is not RS, The Equalizer arguably has even less to stand on for reliability. Equalizer, and particularly co-founders and site operators Jeff Kassouf's and Dan Lauletta's work there, is even closer to WP:SPS than XI; at least XI is ultimately accountable to Vox. The Athletic, the Post, and NY Mag appear to be more meaningful in this scope. -63.224.250.203 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

SBNation team blog contributors and managers are not held to the standards that professional journalism demands; while their content must abide by the general Vox ethics guidelines, there is no evidence of direct editorial oversight for the 300+ community blogs. Contributors and managers are amateur part-time freelancers; some of them are only identified by a pseudonymous SBNation username with the only means of contact being Twitter (and only if they share their Twitter account). In other discussions, like this one started by @Hog Farm, editors have even been leery about using SBNation proper as a source for non-controversial (and obviously non-BLP) statistical content, with possible exceptions on articles authored by extremely well-known experts.

That a freelancer writes for other publications that do have acceptable journalistic standards is irrelevant, in the same way that an expert with a blog is still prohibited as a source on BLPs: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

To start, I lean in agreement with you that XI isn't inherently reliable. I also think it's not inherently unreliable; I disagree that it isn't "content submitted by contributors, not journalists," by pointing out that the writers and editors involved are journalists but for other publications, and are not self-published, but by a narrow distinction that could mean similar sources are also unreliable by association. (At a minimum, how we're using the terms "contributors" and "journalists" may also differ, leading to confusion.)

I also don't want the discussion on the Mills AfD about the reliability of XI to be limited to that AfD. If a source is inherently unreliable, it benefits everyone to confirm that via consensus so we don't have to re-litigate each time they're removed, or articles that rely on them are in AfD. And if the consensus is that such sources should be judged case-by-case, that should also be made clear so they aren't eliminated from contention without discussion on the specific piece's own reliability.

XI is in the middle of publishing a significant amount of Women's World Cup content that will likely be cited in articles about players and managers, and if we can establish consensus on its reliability, we can point to that sooner than later.

As a point of order and not in contest to your assertions, All for XI is not a team blog, and I'm trying very intentionally to not include team blogs in this discussion because they're already covered as unreliable by WP:SPORTCRIT. I want to make sure the edge cases of SB Nation "community" works like, and not limited to, XI which aren't built around a specific team are also covered.

In the linked discussion with @Hog Farm, they also state: "However, distinction should be made between (Jon Bois's) serious reporting and satirical let's-break-video-games output. I think a lot of it depends on the site, especially with the team-specific sites." Is this a worthwhile distinction? If so, is there such a distinction that can be made for XI, and should that distinction be made universally or case-by-case for "serious" reporting by recognized experts, per @Mackensen and @Walter Görlitz in that discussion? (It at least sounds like, on that point, you don't agree.) -63.224.250.203 (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I am approaching the "contributors" issue from the consensus position at numerous other RSN discussions that treat contributed pieces (keeping in mind that "contributors" are typically also compensated but are distinct from the full-time paid staff hired by the main publisher) as generally unreliable or at least questionably reliable even when they're published in sources with defined editorial processes. See, for example, the RSP entries on Encyclopaedia Britannica, Entrepreneur (there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes.com contributors), Forbes, HuffPost, WhatCulture (WhatCulture is considered generally unreliable. Contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications"), etc. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

And I don't think there is any distinction between the team sites and the other community blogs. JoelleJay (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I know you don't think there's a distinction, but the wording in WP:SPORTCRIT, which calls out "fan sites and blogs" and "team sites and governing sports bodies", makes something like XI — which also doesn't look WP:SPS to an untrained (and some trained) eyes — that shouldn't pass look like it could. WP:NEWSBLOG doesn't serve well here, since associations with SBN or Vox can make people think that applies instead of WP:SPS.

Barring expansion of WP:SPORTCRIT, we can comprehensively and unambiguously judge many more unreliable sources through at least noticeboard consensus on non-team, non-fanwork "community blogs" and freelancer group blogs, like XI. And if XI isn't reliable, arguably neither are any publications run by semi-professional freelancers who publish each other's work and lack editorial departments that don't appear to pass RS muster, like those still hosted by SBNation and Fansided and arguably also independent ones like The Equalizer, now-dead but still-cited Excelle Sports, The IX, The Ice Garden, former SBNation blogs that've become independent such as Stumptown Footy, etc., many of which are run by and publish the same writers published by XI or SBNation group blogs with similarly few editorial resources. -63.224.250.203 (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, part of the reason I raise this is that I had interpreted the policies and guidelines in WP:SPS and WP:SPORTCRIT as allowing works like XI because it didn't appear self-published and the writers themselves had shown reliability. I don't doubt that @JoelleJay as a more experienced Wikipedia editor has a better-informed interpretation of the rules, but that interpretation is not clearly reflected in the rules themselves — it requires a degree of institutional knowledge that new editors don't have. Clarifying that via a noticeboard consensus that experienced editors can point to and say "this is why" without having to relitigate each time a non-RS source is used seems like it would help more editors make better decisions and reduce friction when removing non-RS statements from BLP or raising non-notable articles for AfD. -63.224.250.203 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I've always found SB Nation to be a decent source and have cited it a few times on gridiron football articles; additionally, as I pointed out in the AfD, its cited here over ten thousand times just as SB Nation, which does not include the countless references to the sub-websites. That would indicate there's a lot of other users who believe it has sufficient reliability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
its cited here over ten thousand times just as SB Nation, which does not include the countless references to the sub-websites. That would indicate there's a lot of other users who believe it has sufficient reliability. You know better than to use that argument... I couldn't say how many thousands of references to Pinterest (still has 1700+ links) and Getty images (2400+) and blogspot (78000+) I've removed. JoelleJay (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Widespread citation is a reason to raise consensus about reliability, but not a reason to consider the source inherently reliable. I agree with @JoelleJay here. 63.224.250.203 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I participated in a limited way in the 2020 discussion. I think evaluating SB Nation reliability is complicated and depends on the author and the context (also the time period; Vox gutted parts of SB Nation since then). I do college football and I'm unfamiliar with All for XI. I think the usual questions apply. Is there editorial oversight? Are the authors identified? What do other sources think of this source? What is the tenor and overall quality of what the source publishes? I would also draw a distinction between citing something on SB Nation for facts and using SB Nation to establish notability. Again, that would be a contextual inquiry. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Having been pinged here twice, here's my two cents: SB Nation should generally be used sparingly, as a WP:SPS source. The team-specific and other lower-level sub blogs usually have lower standards of editorial review to the extent that I would not recommend citing them. Vox gutted the overall site several years ago, and many of the better writers are no longer there; at one point I thought it might get up there to the RS bar, but it's very much a different trajectory since then. Aside from a few more recognized experts like the Jon Bois or Geoff Schwartz, the opinion pieces are going to be almost always WP:UNDUE, and any news of particular import is generally going to be covered by better sources. Unless it's one of the pieces by Schwartz or someone who can be pointed to establishing WP:SPS credentials outside of that publication, there really isn't much of a need to cite it. If you're having to base notability on these publications, you should probably be asking yourself "is this really that significant if other outlets aren't reporting on this". Hog Farm _Talk 02:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Hog Farm and @Mackensen. I think another context to be considered is whether these blogs can be used at all for BLP material, since even SPS from recognized experts is not permitted there. Without positive confirmation that content from these part-time freelance contributors is consistently high-quality and is edited to consistently high journalistic standards, I don't think even articles from Jon Bois would be acceptable (and I say this as someone who has watched his Pretty Good episode on the 222–0 Georgia Tech–Cumberland game probably half a dozen times and whose 2014 Twitter output was *cringes* almost exclusively BEEFTANK retweets...). JoelleJay (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a group blog so WP:SPS would apply, reliability would be based on who the author is and it shouldn't be used in BLPs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Article: Sherbet (U.S.), Sorbet, Talk:Sorbet

Content: [28],

In North America, sherbet (/ˈʃɜːrbət/), often referred to as sherbert (/ˈʃɜːrbərt/) in the United States,^[1] is a frozen dessert made from sugar-sweetened water, a dairy product such as cream or milk, and a flavoring...

I am in the middle of a debate with @Wikaviani and he claims that Merriam-Webster is unreliable due to being owned by Brtiannica. Comments on the reliability on other sources would also be welcomed. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 18:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC) ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 18:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"Considerations apply" is not the same as "not reliable". But as a general rule, dictionaries are not that helpful in determining article scope. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRITANNICA is about the encyclopedia named Encyclopædia Britannica, not about any other publications. That is, Encyclopædia Britannica, not Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. EddieHugh (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is definitely reliable for the history of the spelling of a term. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Merriam Webster is as reliable for American English as the OED is for British English; it is probably the most highly respected dictionary in an American context, and I would take everything written in it as reliable, or more so, than any other such dictionary. --Jayron 32 11:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Would Oxford still be reliable documenting AE and M-W with BE? ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 13:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
~~Yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)~~ Apologies, I misread your question. (More coffee needed.) I would say it depends. M-W generally documents AE, and OED BE, but sometimes they document the reverse, and they will generally indicate when they are doing so. Both publications are longstanding and have core policies regarding how they formulate definitons and track usages. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster is almost certainly reliable for something US related, I would attribute them for general statements about the English language but for something US related they should do a great job. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak specifically to Merriam-Webster, though I would imagine that they are reliable with regards to variant spellings in American English. The guidance on Britannica is largely based on their nature as a encyclopaedia (and partly based on issues relating to ensuring a large general purpose encyclopaedia remains accurate and up to date) as Wikipedia policy discourages the use of all encyclopaedias as they are tertiary sources, and as such not applicable to Merriam Webster as a dictionary and probably a secondary source (as it is collected from analysis of other works, as opposed to from other dictionaries, if you follow the opinion of WP:DICTIONARIES).

As regarding the exact definitions of what a sherbet is and whether or not it is a sorbet: I don't think there is a reason to prefer OED to MW, indeed as a sherbet is a American desert, I would prefer MW. However, I agree with Thebiguglyalien that I would rather use a source that specialises in food than a dictionary (more generally, I would generally sources specialising in a subject than a generalist dictionary).

Hope that helps ~ El D. (talk to me) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

References

^ "The Scoop on Sherbet vs Sherbert". Merriam-Webster. 23 June 2021. Archived from the original on 2021-04-20. Retrieved 23 June 2021.

Merriam-Webster is generally reliable for information about spelling, pronunciation, and definitions of words, at least in US English. On the specific issue at hand, it is certainly correct that in US English, sherbet and sorbet refer to similar but different frozen desserts. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Oryx (revisited)

I am fully aware that we have discussion about Oryx (website) before. (link to that discussion). Based on that discussion, my understanding are 1) everyone agree it's WP:SPS, 2) however it may arguably considered as SME, since its sometime cited by WP:RS 3) if we need to cite from Oryx, use caution and always state "According to Oryx" or something.

And then, I have discussion on the usage of Oryx, esp this article https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/11/far-from-finished-islamic-emirate-air.html on Afghan Air Force, whereas there is an editor who reject the usage of Oryx as it is WP:SPS even after I mentioned the previous discussion on Oryx.

So, can we use Oryx for that page? currently the article still cite Oryx as it's source and also mentioned "According to Oryx". Ckfasdf (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It's cited a lot by RS and so it could be considered a subject-matter expert. On the other hand, there are concerns about its biases, for example the Warsaw Institute wrote that there are concerns that there is a pro-Ukrainian bias as there might be more photos published about Russian destroyed equipment. [29]

I think that this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis taking into account the following considerations

Are there RS that cover the same topic? If yes, use them rather than Oryx
Is it likely that the coverage of a given area by Oryx is biased?
Are the alternative data sources even worse?
How important is it to include the data from Oryx? Can we wait until we have better sources?

Alaexis_¿question? 14:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis: The topics is about Afghan Air Force not conflict in Ukraine. And to answer your question: 1) No RS cover same topic atm, if RS available, we will use RS not Oryx, 2) unlikely, the data is provided by Oryx is based on visually confirmed aircraft, actual numbers could be higher 3) no alternative data source atm, so the option is either include or remove it, 4) given the situation in Afghanistan, we don't know for sure when better source will be available. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If this is indeed the case then probably it can be used with the proper attribution. It would be good to hear the arguments of the user who is against the use of Oryx. Alaexis_¿question? 21:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Only source(s) from Oryx are images (with no meta data) which by themselves is basically original research which is not considered a reliable. - Further the Taliban twitter feed is vague & ambiguous, it should be confirmed by an outside independent source. - FOX 52 ^talk! 02:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, no original research policy is only applied to us (WP:EDITORS), not the source itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It does, however, limit our ability to make statements about the content of such images. Interpreting images and extrapolating things like force strength and numbers of aircraft seems a bridge too far. If a reliable source, of subject matter experts, have analyzed such images and given their expert analysis, that's one thing. If we're doing that kind of work ourselves, it isn't. --Jayron 32 16:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support Oryx has earned its place as a reputable source, being cited by prominent mainstream media outlets, including CNN, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and BBC News. Given this widespread acknowledgment, it is reasonable to consider Oryx as a reliable source. It is worth noting that the notion of "western bias" is present in mainstream media as well, but it should not be used to diminish Oryx's credibility. Ecrusized (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I would recommend not to use, the author has offered little evidence of the force as properly active. Photographs alone should not be the standard, and there must be a second source to authenticate working aircraft.

As Jayron32 mentioned above If a reliable source, of subject matter experts, have analyzed such images and given their expert analysis, that's one thing. Also on Afghan, secondary sources/RSes often citing Oryx report. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

My opinion before - as a fan and reader of Oryx - is that it's a blog. Though a very good one. The use by RSes is swaying me a bit, though - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

So, it's still somewhat OK to be used in WP? since it is used by RSes and WP:SPS also states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert.Ckfasdf (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It isn't whether Oryx is a RS or not, my issue is with the source(s) they used for an article (regarding the AAF) - I personally cannot tell when these poor quality pictures were taken- (which are in flyable condition?) [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] - only found a few flying, but what is there status today? - flying, flying, flying – other sources mentions a C-130 fixed, but no where to be found flying - tolonews.com and finally 5 pilots came back. FOX 52 ^talk! 22:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's your analysis as stated in your comment above that can be considered as original research. However as Jayron32 mentioned above If a reliable source, of subject matter experts, have analyzed such images and given their expert analysis, that's one thing so it's not OR. Also regarding C-130, the disputed source didn't say that it is operational, mainly due to lack pilot. So I dont see why it need to be brought up in the argument.Ckfasdf (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

As I suspect you can not answer the question I pose. And that is at the crux of the matter. The authors have only presented what they have basically pulled off of various social media platforms. - FOX 52 ^talk! 07:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

And this author seems to dispute claims made by the Taliban - wriiten this past May - FOX 52 ^talk! 07:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus these don't look promising [40], [41], [42] for a wanna be functioning air force. - FOX 52 ^talk! 07:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion only to discuss whether Oryx can be used as source for number of operational aircraft in Afghan Air Force and you said we can't because it's SPS. Other editor argues that it can because its SME and RSes also use it as their source. You then argue, their analysis method is inadequate and cited WP OR policy, again other editor said that as SME, they can analyzed images and give their expert analysis. And lastly, you bring out other material which is unrelated to the topics. Please do not get off topic. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I never said "inadequate", but their sourcing is based off of images, and whether they are in flying condition is the issue. - This article, is right on target, as it displays an opposing view, that the Talian's efforts to erect a functionally Air Force is struggling. - FOX 52 ^talk! 08:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Again as mentioned by Jayron32 earlier, since Oryx is arguably SME, they are allowed to analyze based on images and provide their expert analysis, while we (editors) can not. Regarding your reference, IMO you can include it to the article as well, just keep it mind thay there were previous discussions on RFERL on RSN before as it also considered as propaganda media. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This is just going in circles, we have a responsibility to the readers, not our own likes / dislikes this is an Encyclopedia, not a news blog. - were just going to wait for something more concrete - FOX 52 ^talk! 06:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way oryxs is going bye-bye soon (created out of boredom) - FOX 52 ^talk! 07:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:SPS explicitly states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert and as SME they can are analyze based on images. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no way anyone expert or not can determine whether an aircraft is airworthy, based off of image(s) (of an aircraft sitting on the ground motionless). Thats a guess on their part and is no way acceptable as reliable. - FOX 52 ^talk! 04:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"There is no way anyone expert or not can determine whether an aircraft is airworthy" And you would be qualified to make that assertion how? And if you are not qualified to make that assertion please provide reliable sources which support this rather strong point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/Tips and tricks

This gives an overview of various citation tools out there, many related to source assessment. I figured many of you would get something out of this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

UnHerd

We currently have 180 uses of UnHerd per unherd.com . I've never been a fan of the website as a source of factual information, because it seems to an opinion magazine. Recently they published a piece that accused Wikipedia and UN of "censoring the climate debate", [43] which seems to be a very uncharitable interpretation of this wiki meetup. Wikipedia:Meetup/SDGs/Communication of environment SDGs. Like other opinion publications such as the Spectator, I think they should only be used sparingly if at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, whilst there is some good writing in there (notably in culture and sport), much of the political material is effectively opinion pices. To be fair, opinions and essays are generally clearly marked, although one could argue that some things, like this, marked as "Analysis" is simply opinion as well. Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Seems to consist (almost?) entirely of opinion pieces of one kind or another. Who is going to be the first to claim that this is just a "they said something mean about us, so let's declare them unreliable" discussion? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This is just a headline which we wouldn't use anyway (WP:HEADLINES) and should ignore for the purposes of determining reliability. You may not like their analysis and interpretations, but it's not sufficient grounds for considering them unreliable.Alaexis_¿question? 11:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but it's reflected by the tone of the piece, for example: This amounts to a concerted effort to police Wikipedia’s most viewed entries related to climate change, predominantly reflecting UN-approved perspectives and information on the subject. and Wikipedia editing is therefore just the latest front in the UN’s ongoing online climate change narrative control war. I don't think it's entirely unusable, but it's something that probably like The Spectator deserves a yellow rating if it were listed on RSP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a site for promoting right-wing centrist opinion, and facts are secondary. It has good writers! But it's not a site for facts. As above, it has often played fast and loose with the facts. I would say Unherd is generally unreliable and at best used with attribution and a justification for using it at all - I wouldn't consider it WP:DUE in general. I'm not sure I'd give it (or the Spectator) a yellow rating even - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
+1 to this. It's hard to imagine a case where we'd need to rely on a site that claims its goal to be "Challenging the herd with new and bold thinking" for the reporting of facts. Either the facts will have been reported in mainstream sources (i.e. "the herd") or they're not notable for our purposes. Generalrelative (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Uncharitable. Hemiauchenia only refers to one item, which has a headline containing the word "censor", but that word's not in the article so WP:HEADLINE means it wouldn't be used for that as fact anyway (indeed Hemiauchenia didn't point to any article-talk-page dispute about citing it). WP:CIRCULAR would be a good objection re citing this, but there's no claim that the article is inventing facts about the group or its funding, and in any case the gist wouldn't be a revelation, for example EMsmile has very properly disclosed being a paid editor in this realm, I don't know whether any others are. See also British Government Funds Campaign to Rewrite Climate Science Entries on Wikipedia. It will be comic if their next article is "Wikipedia censors UnHerd after UnHerd headline says Wikipedia moves to censor", eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC).

Thanks for pinging me. I am also pinging User:ASRASR who's also in this project. I have no opinion about UnHerd being reliable or not but if anyone is interested about the "accusations" levied there against our project, this is what I wrote back to my colleague when the first blog post (by David Icke) about this was brought to my attention (about 10 days ago): "Interesting indeed. In a way, it’s a little bit like a “badge of honour” if a climate change denier/wacko picks up our work on Wikipedia. It shows that he feels threatened by it and has realized its potential at having an impact. Also, every now and again it’s interesting to leave one’s own bubble of like-minded people and to listen to the rubbish that the deniers spew out. David Icke calls Wikipedia “Wokepedia” – I guess this says it all! Interesting also that he picked out this: “For instance, Kristie L. Ebi from the University of Washington has the curious notion that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are “affecting the nutritional quality of our food”*. Might not be possible for the small brain of a climate change denier to fathom the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere could reduce the nutritional value of some crops. This is scientifically proven though. We have written about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_agriculture#Reduced_nutritional_value_of_crops - It’s probably not worth wasting any breath on arguing with guys like him. EMsmile (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

UnHerd's news side is anaemic and generally unreliable, they primarily publish opinions which as always should be evaluated based on their author's notability and expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
What article is this article being used as a source for and how is it being used? I agree with Peter Gulutzan that we shouldn't ban the use of sources because they published an opinion piece critical of Wikipedia. Denaar (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this article is used for any Wikipedia article yet, as far as I know. EMsmile (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but another UnHerd article is currently being used in Salvadoran gang crackdown for factual information for example. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

For an attributed quote of Ioan Grillo. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinion columns, in my estimation. I've not been aware of this web site before being pinged regarding this RfC, but UnHerd.com appears to be in the same category as WP:FORBESCON. Their writers and columnists are given free reign to write whatever analyses or opinions that they have synthesized about a topic. The difference here is that, unlike Forbes, we cannot separate reporting from opinion by checking whether the piece was written by a staff writer or by a contributor. At UnHerd the staff writers ARE opinion writers. Is usage of UnHerd.com wide enough for it to be included at WP:RSP? Otherwise we're limited to manually reverting an edit based on one of their citations and trying to explain to the including editor why it's unreliable. Blue Riband► 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I've avoided citing UnHerd in the past, even when it would be convenient to do so. Looking at some of the current cites, it's slightly better than I'd remembered, but only because it's so extremely uneven. Some of it is okay, and some of it is terrible. It's mostly opinion, and could be usable for opinion content, but it's too lax about which opinions it publishes. The way it's being cited is a problem. For example, do we really need to use this source cite Douglas Murray, for both factual claims and opinion, five times in Sweden Democrats? Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Should be treated as a personal blog post, and really does not belong on a BLP whether positive or negative, good Lord - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I came here after reading the Signpost piece about it, and digging a bit more into links, they are actively publishing work that cites climate misinfo, and framing it as evidence for their other opinions (including the attack piece on Wikipedia). Clicking around a bit more, it seems to have really wide ranging, and variable quality of editorial review (if there is any), and I would err in the direction of generally unreliable, Sadads (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Red Flag (newspaper)

To be honest, I can't believe I'm here asking such a ridiculously obvious question but here I am. Red Flag is the official newspaper of the political organisation Socialist Alternative (Australia). The article for Socialist Alternative likely has more citations to Red Flag than any other sources combined and it is often used in a manner for self-promotion, to speak of the organisation in glowing words or to attack political opponents. Please refer to this recent diff in which an editor inserted "opposing Israeli war crimes and occupation" as an example. As I've written the Socialist Alternative article is full of citations to Red Flag and it would be helpful to get community input (as much as I think it's already blindingly obvious) on whether it is a reliable source in the context the article or for anything at all for that matter. AlanS^talk 10:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There appear to be three references to Red Flag on the page. The Red Flag articles are used to describe the aims of Socialist Alternative, to outline the issues around the de-registration of SA by the Monash Student Association and to provide the position of SA in the 2018 Victorian state and 2019 federal elections. In each case, the articles are used appropriately because the information is either uncontroversial or attribution is used to provide the SA's viewpoint. E.g.

[SA] describes itself as aiming to organise collective struggles ...

Socialist Alternative denied this claim, noting that the pro-Palestinian event's main speaker was Jewish (the term "noting" is not appropriate here since it is a WP:word to watch)

In general, since Red Flag is SA's newspaper, it is a great source for SA's views. We should not use it as the main source for the article but using it three times out of 106 references does not seem excessive. Burrobert (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My mistake when I wrote that "he article for Socialist Alternative likely has more citations to Red Flag than any other sources combined". I was probably subconsciously lumping together, citations to Socialist Alternative website and Red Flag magazine, which are for all intents and purposes the same organ. You are correct that there is content that is attributed but it is attributed in such a manner that it serves a particular bias and frankly it is irrelevant to Socialist Alternative discretely understood and only serves as a point to attack their political opponents. Red Flag used in this manner is not being used as a Reliable Source. AlanS^talk 12:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you happy to leave the three Red Flag references alone and discuss the use of the SA website as a source for the SA page? My comment about Red Flag being a great source for the views on SA also applies to the SA website. I think we can also consider the SA website as a reliable source for SA's viewpoints. We do need to be careful when using it as a source for matters not related to SA's positions. There are also other factors to consider which would be better discussed on the article's talk page. These include whether too much time is being given to SA's views in comparison to independent sources. I did notice a few phrasing issues on the SA page which should be addressed but these don't relate to reliability of the sources being used. Burrobert (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the main problem is the amount of citations which are either the website or the magazine. They're one and the same thing. Even though the Red Flag citations are only three as you correctly pointed out I don't believe they're reliable sources. You're probably very much correct that Red Flag is a good source for SA's views, however that doesn't necessarily translate to being a reliable source in the context of its organisations article particularly the articles cited have titles along the lines of "Accusations of anti-Semitism against socialist students are lies" and the editors citing it are misquoting sections which read "At Monash University, Socialist Alternative moved a motion in the Student Council, condemning Israeli war crimes and occupation." to read as "at a time when several Australian student unions were passing motions "opposing Israeli war crimes and occupation"" in the article. AlanS^talk 12:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like one of those phrasing issues that should be either discussed on talk or just corrected outright. If we use the source within its limits, there should not be a problem. If an editor has misused the source, go in and correct the text. Your point about whether there has been an overuse of the SA website in creating the page is separate to reliability but still significant. Burrobert (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not just a phrasing issue and I have brought that up in talk, as I mentioned in my previous comment the articles published by the magazine themselves can't be considered to be reliable when they have titles such as "Accusations of anti-Semitism against socialist students are lies" or "Political witch-hunt against Socialist Alternative on Australian campuses". Articles with these sorts titles are clearly problematic when they refer to the subject matter itself. AlanS^talk 13:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction, the second quoted article isn't a Red Flag one. the first speaks for itself. AlanS^talk 13:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

A simple count of references doesn't tell you everything. The bulk of those cites are from the two paragraphs listing positions they've taken in a neutral tone (Socialist Alternative has organised or participated in campaigns and protests around issues including industrial relations,[20] student unions and higher education,[21] Aboriginal rights,[22] refugee rights,[23] women's rights,[24] LGBTI rights,[25] the environment,[26] and free speech.[27] They have been involved in anti-war,[12] anti-racist,[28] anti-Zionist,[29] anti-capitalist,[30] anti-corporate,[31] and anti-uranium mining demonstrations.[32] Socialist Alternative has been involved in organising within anti-war campaign groups such as the Stop the War Coalition[33] and has participated in demonstrations across the country, including the protests against the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting,[34] the 2008–2009 war on Gaza,[35] the 2007 APEC Conference,[36] the 2006 G20 Summit,[37] the 2006 war on Lebanon,[38] the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan,[39] and have been involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign[40] and solidarity actions with the Arab Spring.[41]) - that's a lot of individual citations, but it doesn't actually make up most of the article; neither is itself-serving or anything. And it's all pretty unexceptional, ie. the paragraph basically just says that it has taken the positions you would expect a modern socialist organization to take. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And then there is another citation published by SA that fails WP:ABOUTSELF which is used. The article fails because it involves highly contentious claims about third-parties. The citation can be seen in this diff having the title "Accusations of anti-Semitism against socialist students are lies" and its link is found here. The sentences following from the usage of this unreliable source read as "Socialist Alternative argued that similar meetings took place at campuses around Australia, at a time when several Australian student unions were passing motions "opposing Israeli war crimes and occupation" and large demonstrations were being held in support of Palestine. Matthew Lesh, Political Affairs Director of the pro-Israel Australasian Union of Jewish Students and a spokesperson for the Young Liberals, claimed that a group of Jewish students were denied entry to the Monash meeting based on their religion and assumed political beliefs. Socialist Alternative denied this claim, noting that the pro-Palestinian event's main speaker was Jewish, and a particular group of students were denied entry after they had refused to sign a petition condemning Israel's economic blockade of Gaza, and had attempted to disrupt the meeting." and given the use an unreliable source follows the quoted problematic material which would be different were reliable source used. This is primarily why have started this discussion. Would you agree this particular red flag article is not a reliable source for the purposes of this Socialist Alternative article, especially given a mainstream Australian newspaper which this noticeboard has determined to be reliable has an article on the material covered in the red flag article? AlanS^talk 04:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, published works by subjects of articles can be used as sources so long as most of the article is sourced to reliable secondary sources. In some cases, that means that self-reported views must be cut back. Readers can always go to their website, which should have a link in the article, to find more.

I see no problem with explaining their views without criticism. If we say for example that they are anti-capitalist, there is no need for us to provide views about how great capitalism is. In comparison, the numerous articles about various Christian religious denominations don't have extensive criticism by atheists.

TFD (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF would work here except the citations and the way in which they are used does not meet the criteria that:

1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

2) it does not involve claims about third parties;

3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

A close analysis of the citations, the way they are used and the subject lays that clear. AlanS^talk 13:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It is difficult to know how the text of the article breaches those rules without knowing the statements to which you are referring. You can't make a general argument that RedFlag or the SA website is unreliable because they breach those rules. You need to consider each statement separately and determine whether it is appropriate. E.g. the following statement is an appropriate use of Red Flag:

In the 2018 Victorian state and 2019 federal elections, Socialist Alternative campaigned alongside the Socialist Alliance to support the newly founded left-wing political party, the Victorian Socialists.

Burrobert (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Victorian Socialists pretty much is Socialist Alternative for all intents and purposes since Socialist Alliance separated from the party. AlanS^talk 05:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It can be used in a limited way via WP:ABOUTSELF, but as noted above ABOUTSELF has certain restrictions. Going over the usages... the sentence in the lead that begins with ...it describes itself as... might run afoul of WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT. We don't want to devote the first paragraph of the lead to their self-description if we can help it. That said, the other things in the lead are probably fine (and summarize the body) - it's probably usable for a brief mention of the simple fact that it publishes Red Flag, due weight permitting. The statements of its positions regarding Israel / Palestine could probably be condensed; but we also have a secondary source for one of them, so perhaps rely on that - it might require attribution, though. The final usage is for an endorsement they made stated in a neutral manner, which is probably fine. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Unreliable, considering the limitations of WP:ABOUTSELF. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Looks fine, just make sure to attribute and that they don't make any exceptional claims about themselves.--WMrapids (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

theodora.com

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

We have over 250 links to this site, mostly purporting to be CIA World Factbook data - that looks like a spamming campaign to me. I raised it once before, with no response - am I wrong about this? Guy (help! - typo?) 17:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the site is just republishing other sources. I can't see any reason why we would use this rather than e.g. the CIA World Factbook that they are copying. At best it could conceivably be a courtesy link giving access to a reliable source that is otherwise hard to access, assuming that the copyright situation checks out; at worst if the copyright situation is not above board then linking is forbidden per WP:COPYVIOEL Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Some of their pages are copyright violations. This page, for example, is partly plagiarized from this still-copyrighted book, so it cannot be linked to per WP:COPYVIOEL. In any case, this website inspires very little confidence in me and it definitely should not be used if the World Factbook or another reputable source is usable instead. Shells-shells (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Want to Create a Wikipedia page with the Reliable sources

As I got to know about reliable source, so please also confirm me from this list which are notable or not.

The Hindu Indian Express News18 Hindustan TImes Jagran Josh Livemint OP India Navbhratimes MID Day Newspatrolling PKBnews Rising Kashmir Daily Daily Excelsior The Logical Indian TFI Post Newsroom Post MP Breaking News News Track Live

thanks Infinityvision02 (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We're not doing your legwork for over a dozen sources, no. Scroll back to the top of this page and use the "Search the noticeboard archives" button to see if there has been past discussions, and WP:RSP for major ones to see if something has already been listed definitively. Zaathras (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Go to WP:RSP and click control + F, then type the names of the organizations there. Crainsaw (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Consider checking WP:ICTFSOURCES which may help depending on the type of article. —siro χ o 05:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky Research?

Any thoughts on https://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/ as a RS? Dying questioned my use of it in a DYK review. My take is that this appears to be a well curated research site with appropriate editorial oversight, and thus should rank as a RS. It's running MediaWiki software, but that doesn't mean it's WP:UGC, just that the site owners found the software package to be convenient to use. RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we wouldn't just use the actual sources as opposed to that site. At the end of the day they're just gathering and sourcing material, so in that case we should reference those sources and not this site. They don't seem to be putting opinion, interpretation or the like to things, just bringing everything together and referencing it like Wikipedia would do. I.e. they're not experts or writers but more akin to archivists. And I believe in the review you link above that's also exactly Dying's point, we would just use the source. Canterbury Tail talk 19:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

California Birth Index

I sometimes come across this being used as a source for WP:DOB. I was wondering wouldn't this be violating WP:BLPPRIMARY and be considered WP:OR? Kcj5062 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents,... This shouldn't be used at all in BLPs. WP:DOB even links back to that section when talking about misuse of primary sources, so it's doubly unusable for dates of birth. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone as a source for politics

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS says not to use Rolling Stone as a source for "politics and societally sensitive issues". User:Fred Zepelin did it anyway using nonsensical reasoning and stating that "this is a film article", when its obviously not: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Underground_Railroad&diff=prev&oldid=1168305820 Could someone please revert? The user is known for his edit warring and i dont want to get dragged into another pointless ANI --FMSky (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, with you constantly reverting me on that article AND the Sound of Freedom article with your hounding of my edits, it's easy to get confused. In any case, if you think Operation Underground Railroad falls under politics, you're way off. In any case "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters", on that same page. So here's the question: why are you reverting Rolling Stone as a source on an article that's clearly under that culture umbrella and not politics? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I clearly falls under politics and societally sensitive issues. Wikipedia:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE says, "Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.)"... Operation Underground Railroad is none of this --FMSky (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest removing the Rollingstone reference and using an attributed statement for the vice article, as the Tim Ballard article currently does. This is BLP territory, so Rollingstone isn't the best source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes thats exactly what i did but that change was reverted with above mentioned nonsense reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Underground_Railroad&diff=prev&oldid=1168305820 --FMSky (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry the reversion history is such a mass I can't see where you did. I will say it's use in the section about the film is fine, as it's about the film. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

HowStuffWorks dips a toe into AI-generated articles

A lot of new HowStuffWorks articles now have a note at the end: "This article was created in conjunction with AI technology, then fact-checked and edited by a HowStuffWorks editor." We have over 3500 article-space links to howstuffworks.com. So far Google only sees 55 articles with the AI text on them - but take caution for the future. (No, they weren't bought by Red Ventures. I'm assuming organic in-house foolishness. They fired a lot of editors recently, and seem to be seeing if they can get away with GPT glurge.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if they're directly stating that they are fact-checked by an actual editor, I think we can treat them as we would any other source. And if the articles end up having false facts or misinformation, then that counts as a ping against the reliability of the source as a whole. And if the articles made are fine, then fine. On their own heads be it. Silver seren^C 22:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

There is certainly a degree to which AI writing can be considered not greatly different from use of a spell-checker or grammar-checker. BD2412 T 22:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

These generative models simulate research and fact-checking, but it is a very superficial simulation. If HowStuffWorks has fired a lot of editors, and is also now using programs that require significantly more editorial oversight and more stringent fact-checking, errors are going to slip past. This is a bad sign for the outlet's reliability. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, it's enshittification - it was done to skimp on editors. So yeah, if it's not a problem, it's being done for reasons it's likely to become one - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I would consider AI writing to be a lot poorer than spell-checking or grammar-checker (as bad as that is) given there are well documented cases of GPT hallucinating. AlanS^talk 10:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this specific source, but in general, it gets a big step closer to self-published, as you may only have a single human involved, instead of a minimum of 2 with a normal author->editor publication. Unless it's actually AI-->"editor"-->editor which may be less unreliable. —siro χ o 10:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the actual front page [44] the fact is that it looks like a terrible source in the first place, regardless if it uses AI or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh. The site's about page mentions that the website's founder has written several books. His most recent one was self-published in 2015, and was about how "robots will soon be eliminating human jobs in startling numbers."[45] I guess he wanted to be ahead of the curve. The book is available for free on his website. It isn't good. It paints a picture of an author who, despite the best of intentions, is far to quick to leap to outlandish conclusions, and should not be trusted. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

We use AI a bit in my workplace in risk models and as you've already guessed, there is plenty of work for the humans to do. The bosses will always find plenty of busy work for us to do, it justifies their existence. AlanS^talk 11:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd have to suggest that there are very few subjects where HowStuffWorks would be an appropriate source to cite, regardless of how the content is written. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree. HowStuffWorks has pretty basic infotainment articles. Some of these look accurate at glance, but I'm confident that there will always a better source to cite instead. Cortador (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

We've been seeing AI content on the web for yonks, often in RS. Sports and financial reports are often written by computer around a set of known facts.

Some AI models just make stuff up; it looks plausible until you go tracking down the sources. Sometimes it's good, sometimes not.

And, I have to admit, often "AI glurge" is a lot more readable than Wikipedia house style, such as it is.

I've been tracking this stuff for a few years now ever since contributors began submitting AI content to the publication where I have an editorial role. At first it was very thin stuff, easily-spotted and full of ridiculous errors. Much like the first machine translation apps. Babelfish would often come up with howlers.

Nowadays, not so much. AI thinking and information sources are steadily improving. Along with emotional intelligence. I invite any skeptics to ask their favourite AI model the following: Write a New Testament story about Jesus offering advice and comfort to a trans person.

The faux-Jesus, at least in bog-standard ChatGPT, comes up with a response full of grace and compassion. Far more so than most human beings, I suggest.

AI is part of the landscape now, it is improving in quality at an unbelievable rate now that widespread user feedback is part of the mix, and as many have pointed out it is cheaper than employing people. Media outlets have been cutting back on skilled workers for decades. Sub-editors are getting very thin on the ground. I doubt that the trends we are seeing will reverse.

I wouldn't rule out a source as reliable because it employs AI.

I would rule it out for the reasons we already use. Unreliable content, political or other bias, poor standards etc.

Lets face it, Wikipedia has been semi-automated almost from day one. The place is full of bots of all sorts. Why should we criticise other sites for things we embrace?

As for HSW as a RS, they can be considered to be a tertiary source, I think. We can bypass them and look at the sources they use in the same way that Wikipedia itself is not a source. --Pete (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it depends on what they're doing with the AI and how rigorous their fact-checking process afterwards is. For what it's worth, their About page does say We were a pioneer in the podcasting business as the home of Stuff You Should Know, which is now part of iHeartMedia, and have partnered with some awesome brands, including the Discovery Channel, TLC, The Conversation, and Covering Climate Now. In short, we love outlets that share our passion for rigorous fact-checking, sound research, and responsible journalism. They at least seem to claim to perform fact-checking, which might pass our bare-minimum. The Conversation is green on WP:RSP, and while TLC and the Discovery Channel are not listed I think most people would agree that they're WP:RSes as well... though "partnering" could mean all sorts of things or nothing at all. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Voronezh Animation Studio

Months ago, an user called User:Tanya2022 removed the upcoming films from the Voronezh Animation Studio article under the summary "Two films Secret Magic Control Agency and The Warrior Princess were sold to another company and shouldn't be mentioned as IPs of this author", the edit was reverted and, because of the wording of their request, I tried to advise the user on potential undisclosed paid contributions and sources. Now another user User: Tatyana 2045 has made the same edits with the same reason, I asked them if they were related to the studio and confirmed they are an studio employee (but removed this message). They say they have a statement from the studio that says they're not working on one of the movies, but cannot post this on their official website because they have no info about that project. How can I approach this? -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound (she/her) 16:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

A "letter from the studio" is not usable. Ideally we would need independent sources, but at a minimum we would need an official, published announcement/press release. And of course the rules for WP:PAID and COI apply. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

OEMDTC

I occasionally see citations to oemdtc.com (example: Link #7 at Tire-pressure monitoring system) but https://oemdtc.com/about has zero information about who controls the site or even what "OEMDTC" stands for (Most likely a combination of Original equipment manufacturer and Diagnostic Trouble Code).

https://oemdtc.com/disclaimer and https://oemdtc.com/privacy-policy also don't say who controls the site. The site has an aggressive anti-adblocker, and you have to seperately whitelist ford.oemdtc.com, honda.oemdtc.com, etc. I suspect that this site is scraping the content of some other site (perhaps a government site?), tacking on ads, and presenting it as original content. https://www.youtube.com/@oemdtc is most likely from the same source.

So is OEMDTC a reliable source? If not, is there a better source we could cite? The actual information on oemdtc.com is very useful. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Zero information about who operates the site. Zero information about fact-checking or editorial oversight. Constant use of "I" on the disclaimer page (e.g. "In an effort to be completely transparent, I want to let you know that I have an affiliate relationship with some of the companies whose products or services I recommend.") suggesting that this is a one person operation. The "store" seems to consist entirely of amazon affiliate links. All ebook links I tried lead to a page with the message "This site is no longer in service or has been disabled due to a terms of service violation." If they tried to look shady they did a great job. Looks completely unusable to me. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

And because that is not shady enough the domain registrant's address is a building in Iceland where you can rent virtual offices. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

From the disclaimer it's clear that it's a personal website with a priority for affiliate links, and I can't find it being used by any other reliable sources. Also some concern over copyright issue, for instance this is a reposting of the text found here (not reference 20V279000 as the page contains a lot more information). It's a US government site so it might not be an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ultimate Guitar

I think it should be noted that while the site itself (excluding user-generated content, of course), the genre tags shouldn't be used as sources and should be treated just like the genre tags on Allmusic. 178.176.214.247 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Attacks on Hindu community in Canada

Are these 2 sources reliable for adding an entry on Attacks on Hindu community in Canada- [46] and [47].

On a side note: These signs were definitely placed in various public properties in the Greater Toronto Area (near bus stops, outside housing community gates, busy intersections), albeit for a very short period of time as city by law enforcement officers were quick to take them down. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I find it a bit odd, not necessarily wrong, but odd to call this an attack on the Hindu community in Canada. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

BTW at the end of the second article it says "This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content." I am not sure what "auto-generated" means here, but given that it might mean the article was AI-generated, I would not use it either way. (The alternative interpretation I can come up with is that "auto-generated" does not refer to the text itself, but its publication/presentation and that the text was written by the ANI and automatically published without further editorial oversight.) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel the same. Calling banners that highlight the death of Sikhs in the 1984 riots an attack doesn't seem right. One-sided and obviously not inducive to community harmony, but not an attack. Are there any Canadian sourcing reporting the details? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Random person no 362478479 I understand, but would the first source be considered reliable? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I could not find any Canadian news organizations that reported this. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Both articles are written in a very polemical style. The least polemical article I found is this in the Hindustan Times. It is attributed to Asian News International (ANI) which is rated "between marginally reliable and generally unreliable" at WP:RSP. Ultimately all seems to go back to a report on TAG TV that was taken up by ANI. From the descriptions given in the newspaper articles it seems that the original TAG TV report was already very polemical. I would not use any of these. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will not use these sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

[1] "The Scoop on Sherbet vs Sherbert". Merriam-Webster. 23 June 2021. Archived from the original on 2021-04-20. Retrieved 23 June 2021.

[1]