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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full discussion is on the autism spectrum talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This site isn't referenced in many articles, but I've noticed it turning up on a few that were likely written by a WP:COI editor. (An IP claiming to be them confessed here, and it does seem to be reflected in the tone, focus, and odd sourcing for the articles.) This made me squint at it more closely. While its About Us page says that Laboratory News has been providing scientists with independent news and analysis since it launched on Fleet Street in October 1971 and that it is the leading magazine for UK laboratory scientists, it also says that it is run by Synthesis Media, a B2B media owner and marketing services company specialising in the science, engineering and technology industries; I'm concerned that the "marketing services" aspect may be central. We have an article about Laboratory News, but as you can see, it doesn't have any secondary sources, and the generic name makes it hard to search for more information. They appear to be publishing press releases as articles - see here in particular, which was cited on the article for Schmidt Science Fellows; if you look closely, it is written by that organization's executive director! This is disclosed in tiny text at the bottom, but there's no other indication anywhere in the piece. But I figured I should ask here to see if anyone with more knowledge about it can say if it's actually the leading magazine for UK laboratory scientists. --Aquillion (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

I explained to these editors that the studies which are generally used to support such statements do not emanate from one particular subset of history, but from within a body of theory known as "whiteness studies". I informed them that this school of thought has produced what's an extremely controversial thesis (the same one that's referenced in these Wiki articles), and is described that way in reliable sources 9. Whiteness scholarship has also been described as operating outside traditional or 'mainstream' areas of social and ethnic history (p. 405 10).

Mainstream historians who specialize in ethnic histories, on the other hand, have either ignored this theory altogether or have publicly discarded it. Historians of Irish immigrants, for example, have been disputing this theory for decades - also indicated in reliable sources 11. While I haven't reviewed the literature for the other European groups (and I'm focusing strictly on the Europeans here), sources that call the whole thesis into question are easy to find 12.

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

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

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

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

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

It's for exactly the reason that it's only one sentence in a much larger article that calls its inclusion into question. The articles that deal with 'whiteness studies' as a general topic include very large criticism sections. The Eric Foner piece I cited was a review of Nell Painter's The History of White People13, which is a far more serious, mainstream and neutral source that would be far more informative for readers interested in learning about the evolution of racial identity in the US.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave you with this:

1. Identify a specific change you want to see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point of order, AFAICT no editor archived any sections you started at Talk:White Americans. The sections were all automatically archived by a bot after no one, including you, had commented on them for 75 days 14 15. Automatic archiving with various intervals had been set up on that page for nearly 10 years when that archiving happened 16. Assuming you're referring to User:Struthious Bandersnatch you disappeared for over a month 17 18 which is more a likely reason you received no further replies and not because you "began to cite sources". I'd note that the discussion you're referring to is something like 17 months old now. While you aren't required to spend all your time on Wikipedia, if you disappear for a month or many months, you're going to find it very hard have a meaningful discussion over some proposed change. For example, 30 days is the standard maximum time period for an RfC. After 30 days it's generally just waiting closure. If you start an RfC then disappear for 30 days, you're going to find any discussion to be had is over and if you have anything too add, it's probably too late. While the Talk:White people discussion is newer, it's still over 3 months old now. I don't really understand why you needed to "began" to cite sources anyway. If you wanted to effect some change you should have been citing sources from the get-go. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Here we go again.

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

If you're immersed in "whiteness" literature, it may seem unexceptional to claim that some of the whitest people in Europe were only ambiguously "white" in the 1800s (ie, the Irish). But if you read what mainstream ethnic historians have written a very different picture emerges. Tim Meagher, for example, wrote a whole chapter in his textbook The Columbia Guide to Irish-American History (Columbia University Press) that poked holes in the arguments of whiteness scholars (starting on p. 214 19).

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

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

"These problems with whiteness studies cut two different and distinct ways. On the one hand, the lack of concrete supporting evidence and analysis allows whiteness scholarship to be dismissed by skeptics and remain marginalized from mainstream scholars of race and ethnic relations who expect a certain amount and type of empirical evidence to support and advance theories." 20 Note that this was published in the Journal of Social Problems by Oxford University Press nearly a decade after Tehranian published his paper in a Yale law journal (the source for the statement in question).

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

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

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

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

That Tehranian was elevated to an authority on racial/ethnic history is a reflection of the fact that the editors who write this content are historically uninformed. If editors can't even admit that some of the content in this statement (particularly as it relates to European immigrants) is controversial even when reliable sources describe it as a scholarly controversy21, they are not neutral editors and shouldn't be involved with these articles.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'd note having looked at your last comment before you abandoned the issue for 75 days resulting in automatic archiving 22 is that beyond your discussion of sources, you made a bunch if claims about an editor's behaviour without evidence such as "I also suspect that you're using this page (and probably similar pages) as a vehicle to fight racism (an otherwise noble endeavor)". Behavioural issues should be discussed on an editor's talk page or one of the administrative noticeboards not on article talk pages. While it's sometimes acceptable to make some brief commentary, your posts are already very long and you're adding to them when you add such nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you feel it is a neutrality issue and there aren't many people on the talk page, you could also raise it at WP:NPOVN, which is probably a more appropriate place than asking here (since the issue is really more neutrality than WP:RS.) Possibly WP:FRINGEN is you want to argue that whiteness studies are outright fringe, but I think that would be a hard sell and NPOVN makes more sense (ie. how much weight we should give it and whether / to what extent we need to cover people who disagree.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The context: "is a neo-Nazi234 unit of the National Guard of Ukraine" in the lede sentence.

Please send help.

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

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

It is a bad time to criticize the DW, banned in Russia. ¹ DW publishes in several languages, so perhaps some language wersions are reliable, here the English one, but general rating of the reliability of all versions would be more difficult.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue this discussion. True, dw.com mentions this in passing but there are other RS that do it in articles about the battalion 23, 24, 25. Alaexis_¿question? 12:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The Independent on Azov Battalion

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

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

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

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

Al Jazeera on Azov Battalion

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

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

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

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

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

The thing is that media around the world describe them as neo-Nazis.... Here is one from Spain -->26 I personally would not go so far but we follow what RS say. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euromaidan Press on Azov Battalion

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

Note: Editors interested in RSs might want to review the lists of sources being discussed in current RfC in that article, here and also in source review at top of its talk page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Do not use, but do not list. I do not think this should be listed at RSP. Reliable sources/Perennial sources, is supposed to be a list of frequently discussed sources, and this one is just not frequently discussed. That it should not be cited is already inherent in the WP:CITE about WikiData "Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources)." A third party doing a presentation of a WP snapshot gives it RS qualities of being a stable reference and having a third party mention, but does not alter that it is crowdsourced. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is counted as a triple personal attack, as there are already 3 users opposing your world view.—2A02:3030:C:6060:6C36:47C1:F18D:8396 (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Firefangledfeathers:@Slatersteven: In this aspect the argumention of HistoryofIran is flawed by a simple fact. More reliability is not possible-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Is this serious now? You deny the official governmental source and then tell me that I couldn‘t give you an answer? Answer to what? That a ministry is a ministry?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not gonna bother repeating myself for the literal fifth time. Kindly read WP:COMPENTENCE and WP:REHASH. Also, don't edit my comment 27. I think we're done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So actually we have a wholly new issue here. You are basically denying that official ministry data do not belong to the ministry? -2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Our edits had an overcross, wasn‘t meant to edit your sentence.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, you wrote that you think that the source for the map may not be an RS, which is impossible. Please elaborate —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I really can say no more than I have. The source of the map is no longer part of any reputable accadeic institution. No (by the way per wp:primary) would an iraining government ministry be an RS for facts. For opinions maybe, but not for those opinions being true. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain why a reliable source is not a reliable source? So far, you didn’t explain it with a rational argument, give a backup from the wikipedia pool if necessary.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by the IP at this rate. Also, @IP don't put words in my mouth, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in, I have had my say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

What you said is not true. The site irancarto states:

• The Irancarto site is no longer updated. To consult new maps on Iran, you are invited to visit the new CartOrient site, a portal for distributing cartographic studies applied to Western Asia, the Caucasus and Central Asia and on which you will find, in particular, a space dedicated to Iran : http://cartorient.cnrs.fr

Look: All ethnicity maps are compiled into one map.

http://cartorient.cnrs.fr/atlas/98

—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:@Slatersteven: Maybe you need more time. In case you both are ready, please confirm that we have found cencus now and that all misunderstandings are gone.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP. I think you're misreading the discussion. It's clear to me that there is consensus not to include the map. Perhaps other editors will chime in, and consensus could change. PS: I wasn't pinged because of your initial misspelling. FYI, you can't easily fix pings (see WP:PINGFIX), and it's usually best to just post a new reply with a properly formed ping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Give me a last try. We are very close to it.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)

I note the two maps seem slightly different, I have no idea if this is due to one being ethnic and one linguistic, or if one is more up to date. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It‘s because all ethnicities are compiled into 1 map. But this doesn‘t mean the single maps at the still valid irancarto site would be unreliable.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Can I interpret the silence as an agreement. Maybe even as confirmation of the consensus?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)

@HistoryofIran:, Can you please give comment on this subject, too? I'd appreciate it, as I would really like to know your opinion on iranCarto and cartOrient, because so far I couldn’t read anything from you relating to this subject.--2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Jesus, how many times does me and Slatersteven have to tell you our opinions? Stop pinging me. HistoryofIran (talk)

Is your name Slatersteven? Let him speak with his own tounge. He is already far away from your point of view. By the way, we still don‘t know your opinion on iranCarto and cartOrient. Communicate with us. We don‘t bite.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the map looks scandalously unreliable, or coming from a plainly untrustworthy source. The only thing that vexes me (and apparently no one else so far) is that is says "Turkish" when it clearly depicts the Turkic-speaking ethnicities of Iran. That's quite a bummer for a CRNS site. –Austronesier (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think the very subethnic term “Turkish“ is due to the selfdesignation of Iranian Turkic speakers (Torki or Turki).—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Compare https://iranicaonline.org/articles/turkic-languages-overview and https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Turki_(disambiguation). -2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the reasons for it are quite transparent. Nonetheless, not considering this when producing a map in English is extremely sloppy. I support the inclusion of the map provided the text in the image gets corrected. And please, 2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5, step back for a while and just let community input trickle in. It is quiteextremely off-putting when involved parties try to continue and dominate the debate on the noticeboard (whether it is through clatter or strongmanship). –Austronesier (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. And yes I agree with your proposal of content supplement. Should we wait? Sorry for not informing you that I already filed a dispute resolution .—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The author uses Les villages turcophones, so probably no blame for him. fiveby(zero) 14:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, I really don‘t want to file a dispute resolution just because you are avoiding to comment on the subject.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)|

No silence does not mean agreement, I means disengagemnt. Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Precisely ^^. What said has already been said, it's clear you don't take no for an answer. Drop it already. If you continue I will report you for breaking multiple guidelines. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryodIran: A short summary of HistoryofIran's participation: WP:COMPETENCE, WP:JDLI, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:COMPENTENCE, WP:SANCTIONGAME and WP:REHASH. You are the main cause of this dispute. You are deleting content without knowing why? Instead you are pushing non-related WP shortcut stuff?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slaterstephen: or it means you are in denial and you warnt me to file a dispute resolution.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You literally just copy pasted the guidelines I said you were violating. Anyways, reporting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, all these guidlines are a pale reflection of your wishes how the fellow discussant has to behave in order to please your mind. Nothing to to with the subject.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

These are community guidelines. House rules. Simple. –Austronesier (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. But this is just the psychological aspect of this discussion. It has nothing to do with the deleted content.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)|

Arbitrary break

Reliable. The map was published on a site belonging to the French National Centre for Scientific Research judging by the domain. The successor project, Cartorient has a very respectable list of participating institutions which include leading French universities and ecoles 28. They published this map which has the same source and matches the map in question when it comes to the Turkic population. Alaexis_¿question? 20:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it reliable for the claim made in the article, that the map represents ethnicities "1986-2012"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You are right, the caption is misleading. I'd note that the map dates to 1986. Alaexis_¿question? 20:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Don‘t know if I am allowed to write in this field. But I agree with 1986.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My thanks to you and Alaexis. If that and the "Turkic-speaking" issue raised above are fixed, all the RS issues that I feel knowledgeable enough to comment on are resolved. I continue to have other issues unrelated to this noticeboard, mainly that a 36-year-old ethno-linguistic map is too old to be useful in articles/sections that aren't historical. If it ends up mattering, I can bring it up on the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see how IRI published souces are reliable for anything controversial (which includes information about ethnic groups). Iran is a country without freedom of press. See Censorship in Iran. I would rather use scientific sources solely published by Western academia/scholars, that is, countries with freedom of press. In addition, although perhaps more important for ANI; the IP in question started making his first edits today on 11 April 2022,29 yet they edit like a fully experienced user. What are the odds that they are genuinely "a legit new user" who's just "concerned" about a "random" article? Based on my experience within this topic area and closely related ones (i.e. WP:AA2), I would say close to zero. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

France is a democratic and free country. And no, I do not agree with your conspiracy on my person and I hereby advise you to refrain from such allegations. Thank you.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This *is* published in a Western country. Judging from the participating institutions, these guys at Cartorient are experts and they published this map on their site without reservations or qualifications. If you think that the map is inaccurate you should find reliable sources which show different data and then follow WP:NPOV to decide which map is better in a given context. Alaexis_¿question? 05:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable. The main source of the map is Jihad of Construction/Jahād-e Sāzandegī, a revolutionary organization, that doesn't sound very reliable. This revolutionary organization was based in Iran, which is indeed a country with no freedom of press. Also, Irancarto has not been active since 2019 30, which makes it even more questionable. Last but not least, a map from 1986 is way outdated, we have much newer statistics than that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ministry of Jihad of Construction/Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran) (since 2001 Ministry of Agriculture Jihad)). So, official governmantal data confirmed by University of Tehran and CNRS (IranCarto + CartOrient). IranCarto moved to CartoIran which still makes it a valid source.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the sources says 'Jahād-e Sāzandegī', which means 'Jihad of Construction', and the map dates to 1986, which was way before 2001, as you've been told multiple times. Also, please respect others opinion and don't derail this thread as well, you don't have to comment on every single comment you disagree with, it's ruining the discussion, thus this new thread. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not really feel inclined to answer to this strange word game. Why are you trying to play this word game card now. Everybody knows the institutions name. There is no rational reason to continue this misleading style.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I know that this has already been said several times, but stop throwing accusations towards others due to the sole fact that they don't agree with you (Readers might want to see 31). --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You mean this accusation: Ministry of Jihad of Construction/Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran) (since 2001 Ministry of Agriculture Jihad)? Yes.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

From the site http://cartorient.cnrs.fr/atlas/98:

• To produce the map, other sources (publications, ethnolinguistic maps, etc.) were used to fill in the missing or poorly informed data (Caspian languages, Lori). The map may therefore contain inaccuracies in detail, but it confirms, for the first time on a fine scale, not only the well-known diversity of Iran's linguistic heritage but above all the dynamics of the changes characterized by the emergence of zones of multilingualism. (2012)

There is no reason to further deny the credibility of this source, as already 3 users are disagreeing with you. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

A bundle of text doesn't mean it is reliable. Also, only one is user besides you is saying this map is reliable, and guess what? I am not spamming and attacking him because of that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

CNRS is unreliable now? Ok. Thanks. —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought you said that you would withdraw from this discussion? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I already did (see my time stamp above: 02:32, 12 April). Why did you deleted your last comment which was a “Yes“ to my last question after you have apperently accepted my invitation to serenity at your ANI? —2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Because I wanted to. I never accepted your 'invitation to serenity'. You wrote that you withdraw from this discussion on 22:27, 11 April 2022, yet you've already posted two comments since. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I already did (see my time stamp above: 02:32, 12 April, ca. 11 hours ago). Unfortunately I am now here again because you manipulated the conversation thread. It is apparently clear why you felt inclined to do this.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

More WP:ASPERSIONS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Well observed: 32. --2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I am allowed to change my comment as I see fit unless other comments have been made afterwards. This has nothing to do with manipulation. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not when you provoked a clear revival (there has been 2 hours between your first answer and your second manipulated answer).—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not something you decide. Again, lay it off with the accusations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Showing an manipulated edit from the revision history is also part of the accusations now.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh if you two don't stop it I'm going to pull this car over and put both of you out on the side of the road. Canterbury Tail talk 14:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't find it particularly funny that I can't show my opinion without getting hounded and attacked. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable. Agree with Alaexis and Austronesier. (don’t know if my word as a non-established member counts. I just wanted to add an Image, hell look what happened). If an admin thinks my line should be removed, I am ok with it. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You really are doing yourself a disservice by trying to dominate the debate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for this misconduct. From now on I will withdraw from the discussion.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Context Matters This is just one of a series of maps, intermediate work for the author to develop Main languages spoken in rural Iran. Reading the author's analysis there are a number of caveats: the 1986 data is incomplete and unreliable, the map represents a rural villages (about half the population), and even if one family speaks a particular language in a village that is represented in the map for that language. The series also includes multilingual villages and "knowledge of Persian" to give a more complete picture. The author has corrected for deficiencies in the 1986 data, but makes use of additional sources for the newer CartOrient data, and admits some details may be incorrect. Use should follow the authors intent. For the overall map that is: This map portrays Iran’s well-known ethnolinguistic diversity. There are seven zones where a single language is spoken in nearly all villages in the rural subdistrict (dehestān). Depending on the province, the language might be Persian, Baluchi, Arabic, Luri, Turk, Kurdish or Caspian language. This map also highlights five multilingual zones where several languages are spoken in the same village or neighboring villages. Given all that, pulling one map from the series and inserting into the article is inappropriate as the reader will not have a clear idea of what the map represents. fiveby(zero) 14:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The author‘s analysis regarding the unreliability refers to the unrelated 1996 census. Apart from that I agree with you.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I may be misreading Certains dehestân semblent avoir des valeurs – hautes ou basses – qui peuvent surprendre. Il n’est pas possible de vérifier et corriger ces données datant de 1986. Il est possible qu’elles soient vraies, traduisant une réalité locale originale, ou même fausses, par suite d’une erreur de saisie des données… from IranCarto and To improve the effectiveness of rural development policies, the Jahād Sāzandegi Research Center assembled data from the 1986 census that had not yet been published (because they were deemed incomplete or unreliable) from the newer CartOrient. Regardless, the author is plainly competent to correct such deficiencies. fiveby(zero) 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This is what the older link says: Pour donner une plus grande efficacité à sa politique de développement des zones rurales, l’organisation de la Lutte pour la Reconstruction (Jahād-e sāzandegi) a réuni à la fin des années 1990 les données jusqu’alors non publiées, car incomplètes ou jugées peu fiables, concernant les langues en usage dans chaque village, à l’échelle très détaillée des 2215 cantons ruraux (dehestān) du recensement de 1996 (1375). Translation: In order to make its policy for the development of rural areas more effective, the organization of the Struggle for Reconstruction (Jahād-e sāzandegi) collected at the end of the 1990s the hitherto unpublished data, because incomplete or considered unreliable, concerning the languages used in each village, on the very detailed scale of the 2215 rural cantons (dehestān) of the 1996 census (1375). This is what it says, essentially. The Meta data says Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran).--2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This is what the newer link says: Certains dehestân semblent avoir des valeurs – hautes ou basses – qui peuvent surprendre. Il n’est pas possible de vérifier et corriger ces données datant de 1986. Il est possible qu’elles soient vraies, traduisant une réalité locale originale, ou même fausses, par suite d’une erreur de saisie des données… La méthode de cartographie des données lissées permet cependant de minimiser ces exceptions locales pour mettre en évidence les faits dominants qui permettent de construire des analyses utiles. Translation: Some dehestân seem to have values – high or low – that can surprise. It is not possible to verify and correct these data from 1986. It is possible that they are true, reflecting an original local reality, or even false, as a result of a data entry error... The smoothed data mapping method , however, makes it possible to minimize these local exceptions to highlight the dominant facts that make it possible to build useful analyses. --2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading. The 1986 data itself seems valid enough, but there is one major issue (As Fivebyzero pointed out): It covers a non-representative sample of the population, specifically only the portion of the population that lives in villages (roughly half the population at the time). Attempting to insert it into Ethnicities in Iran runs the risk of readers mistaking it for a genuinely representative sample of the ethnic distribution in Iran, rather than just the distribution of the rural population. Furthermore, its based on 35-year old demographic data which makes it less reliable compared to more modern maps (such as the ones by Michael Izady and the very detailed ones shown in IranAtlas). --Qahramani44 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Izady’s map looks quite similar in dispersion to that of the CNRS, the only big difference: Izady uses different shades of green for the Turkish-speaking areas (but not shown as districts as CNRS fairly accurately does). The percentages from 0-25 are completely missing in Izady's presentation. Beyond that, Izady mostly uses sources from the same range of years (some older, some slighly newer). When compared to CNRS, it doesn't make a particularly big difference.--2A02:3030:2:D5E7:D068:D514:DB14:F418 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Question: can’t we separate Turks_in_Iran (a redirect) from the page? Kurds_in_Turkey also has it‘s own page. The problem would be solved.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk)|

That page existed but was deleted years ago, same with this one. --Qahramani44 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on that, I must consider my request failed.—2A02:3030:2:D5E7:D068:D514:DB14:F418 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Archives show Tucker Carlson has been depreciated along with other Fox News hosts, but I wasn’t able to find a discussion regarding the reliability of his words appearing in media besides his cable news show.

At Who’s Who I am loosing a battle to remove his quotation. Others find him worthy fodder for the criticism section:

Added quotation:

However, the longevity of a publication is not in itself a guarantee. In 1999 Tucker Carlson said in Forbes magazine that Marquis Who's Who, founded in 1898 but no longer an independent company, had adopted practices of address harvesting as a revenue stream, undermining its claim to legitimacy as a reference work listing people of merit.12

Source

Thank you for any help clearing this up. petrarchan47คุก 14:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Carlson’s piece has also been added to Marquis Who’s Who: In 1999, Forbes magazine published "The Hall of Lame" by Tucker Carlson, in which Carlson reported that the selection process was neither rigorous nor meaningful; self-nominators and thousands of people who are not particularly notable were included; and that Marquis profited by selling subscriber addresses to direct mail marketers.petrarchan47คุก 13:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It's "reliable" for his view but weight would be an issue: WP:ARSEHOLES very much applies. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think deprecation can spread from a publication or broadcaster to anyone who is later platformed by them, although writing or presenting for a deprecated outlet obviously raises questions about reliability. This is an opinion, though, so it's covered by due weight rather than reliability policy. (However, it's hard to see why his views on this topic would be considered noteworthy.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Fox News hosts have not been depreciated and have not even been deprecated. Also, I think that treating editing Wikipedia as a battle is itself rather problematic. Otherwise I agree with BobFromBrockley that it's a WP:DUE matter. Alaexis_¿question? 18:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it a Forbes contributor article or their regular coverage? If regular coverage then we should be agnostic to the author and treat it as if it were any other author (including deciding if it's commentary, facts etc). If it's a contributor article then it's treated per other Forbes contributor article. Springee (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Carlson was ever a staff or freelance journalist for Forbes, and his career at that time was apparently as a columnist and opinion writer for various publications, but not a news journalist. So I believe it should be treated as a contributing column or op-ed, not a journalistic piece by Forbes. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, contributor articles are a specific thing that doesn't go through the normal editorial channels. I suspect many normal Forbes articles are written by outside contributors but still go through their normal editorial process. In that case we shouldn't treat it as "Forbes Contributor" (it may still be a normal Forbes editorial). Springee (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The article in question is from their magazine in 1999; the "contributor" system was built post-2010. I don't think WP:FORBESCON matters here. XOR'easter (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if this was a contributor piece from the 2010s, FORBESCON specifically notes articles that appeared in the print magazine are excluded. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that in 1999 Carlson wasn't the controversial figure he is today. Springee (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• OK RS for his opinion, but too long a section. This seems an opinion piece in Forbes, also put into his book The Long Slide, so it would be acceptable as RS for his opinion, and it is not in the realm of Politcs or Science that he is criticized for. That said, it is specific to just one Who's Who, so the whole section at overall Who's Who level should be reduced. This piece is also over 20 years ago so a bit hard to tell if this was in the print edition and a 20-years later RSP seems of dubious value. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Forbes conflicted?

Another consideration regarding this piece - Forbes is essentially conflicted here as they have their own set of lists which can be seen as direct competition to the Who’s Who lists. petrarchan47คุก 13:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think Forbes is a red herring here. The piece is reliable for relaying what the author wrote. The real question is: who cares? If this piece hasn't attracted commentary in decent sources why is it WP:DUE in Wikipedia? Alexbrn (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there is something to the idea Forbes isn’t an unbiased source here, and could be disallowed for that reason, however I agree with all else you’ve said. As far as I’m aware, Carlson is known as a smear merchant, and a conspiracy theorist, so his name may diminish the points being made, and result in readers questioning the reliability of WP. petrarchan47คุก 14:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The quote you gave above is "In 1999 Tucker Carlson said in Forbes magazine ...". The source is reliable for this because there's no doubt he did that. The question is of NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't even seem to be really WP:UNDUE, nor is it really contentious. I thought Who's Who books being scams was a WP:BLUE situation. There's even an episode of King of the Hill about it. Don't worry though, Peggy and Hank get it sorted out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Per Alexbrn, if we are using this to quote Tucker Carlson in his own voice, then his own writing is a perfectly reliable source for his own quote or paraphrase thereof. The question is "Why should we quote Tucker Carlson in his own voice in the first place"; thats not an RS issue, that's a WP:UNDUE issue. People often conflate "What is reliable for writing unattributed text in Wikipedia's own voice" versus "What is reliable for directly quoting or paraphrasing the words of a specific, attributed person". Insofar as we intend to faithfully reproduce Tucker's own words, and insofar as we trust that the source in question did not fake the quote or misattribute Tucker Carlson, then yes, it is reliable for that purpose. The question then becomes, per WP:ONUS, not about whether it is reliably sourced (that is, does the source support the text in Wikipedia that he made such a statement), rather it becomes about whether the quote itself is relevant to the article. That's not really the remit of this noticeboard. --Jayron32 16:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't generally evaluate medical sources for reliability, so I would greatly appreciate a review of the appropriateness of this source used in this edit on Dupuytren's contracture. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That's PMID:34702442, a recent review article in a reputable journal and so a decent WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks a ton! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to get something more concrete here than just passing mentions in the archives. News.com.au is essentially a News Corp news aggregator, and republishes stories from some well known reliable sources, and also from some, er, less reliable sources. It republishes content from several sources considered to be deprecated or generally unreliable, such as The Sun, and The New York Post. (Note, those two specific articles were chosen at random, they aren't particularly outlandish). It also republishes from the Daily Mail as well I believe, but I think I've established the point that it republishes content from.deprecated sources. Even so, other content is usually reliable, even if rather tabloid-y, so I would suggest that News.com.au be considered to be generally reliable, but that any content republished from generally unreliable or deprecated sources be treated as though it came directly from those sources. Disclosure of personal opinion: I don't like it much, as it doesn't seem to publish much actual news, mainly just mind-numbing prolefeed, ("ooh, a weird thing washed up on the beach, maybe it's an alien!" Soon afterwards: "oh, it was just a possum.") plus it gives you stupid ads to annoying websites.

So um, yeah, I guess we discuss its reliability now? Or have I summed it up well enough? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Where is it being cited on Wikipedia, and for what content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_374
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---