Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:53, 17 December 2024

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. 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 main page.

"Science-Based Medicine" blog

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

There is a blog which previously received RS attention back in 2021 and the emerging comment on the RSP list said, "Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/

I do not see how their content could be viewed as anything other than "self-published", even with a supposed "robust set of editorial guidelines", the content is not peer reviewed. I believe the source should be reviewed again, not deprecated most likely, though their reliability seems wildly unreliable, but at the very least a renewed discussion around the source and its quality should be updated for 2024.

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Generally unreliable

Option 3: Generally reliable with attribution

Option 4: Reliable for some things, not others, but should be used with care when citing claims, and should take care not to use Misplaced Pages:WIKIVOICE.

Iljhgtn (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 1/Bad RFC - there is no real change from previous discussions, and there doesn't seem to be anything different. At the very least, would be better to have a discussion, as per WP:RFCBEFORE with evidence presented of the change in reliability rahter than jumping directly into an RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Has there been any WP:RFCBEFORE for this RFC that I've missed? If not this should be procedurally closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I was not part of the earlier conversations and feel we need a broader consensus on the subject. This source also has lots of COVID-era discussions from around 2020-2022 that need to be looked at again. Now, in 2024, would be a good time for such a review. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

So has there been any new discussion since the last RFC or not? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Quick look through the RSN, there is this discussion about SBM and comparing to other sourcing wrt to Lab leak hypothesis... earliest about whether SBM is reliable or not is ... I think no.

To OP, I suggest getting more info about why SBM should be revisited beyond vague "I disagree" as the reasoning... Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear I'm not saying an RFC shouldn't happen at some point, but before it happens new discussion should take place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 default to the last RFC, as I'm not seeing anything new being argued here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Much of the publishing world is not "peer reviewed" but put through editorial process. Let's not try to redefine "self-published" to mean "not peer reviewed". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a blog though. Self-described as such even. Maybe we at the very least should make a distinction about some parts of the site that are most "bloggy"? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no agreement among editors about what constitutes a SPS (see, eg., this summary of one discussion). Whether a source is generally (un)reliable is a distinct issue from whether it's SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed there are lots of things which call themselves a "blog" these days and which aren't. SBM is a publication of the New England Skeptical Society and is not SPS. Many Misplaced Pages editors seem confused about SPS and seem to want to redefine it in a weird maximalist way to encompass things with the Wrong POV™. I recommend reading self-publishing to them. Bon courage (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society... The people who write here are its members, that is amateur self publishing. This isn't an academic society or even a professional one, these are amateurs participating in a hobby. Steven Novella is a founder and president of the New England Skeptical Society, the "Founder and Executive Editor" of the Science-Based Medicine blog and the NeuroLogicaBlog as well as the primary contributor to both. Thats not normal or indicative or editorial independence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It was declared "not an SPS", despite literally being a blog, because people wanted to use it on BLPs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

fair enough... arguably, though, this RFC isn't asking if the blog is SPS or not though, which is entirely different from whether it is reliable or not. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

They're basically saying that because they're an SPS they're unreliable. Strange argument given the previous discussions (at worst they'd be an EXPERTSPS that can be used for non BLPs), but it's still because they're an SPS so it's still the crux of the issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe an Option 3 then, saying that the source could be used for non-BLPs would suffice then? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I was overly involved in the prior RFC, so I don't want to get too involved this time. But the essence is that SBM acknowledged that some of their authors published directly without editorial oversight. ("... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" ) That makes it an SPS in terms of BLPs. This does not mean that it is unreliable, or it can't be used per WP:Parity - only that it can't be used as a source of information regarding living people. Beyond that I have no opinion about it regarding reliability. - Bilby (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that is all that needs to be updated then. Since the thought first occurred to me from a BLP. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Although SBM's editors can publish without prior review, their description suggests that those articles undergo review after publication and that review can result in various actions (e.g., clarification in the comments section, corrections to the body of the article, retraction). So although an article may initially be a SPS, it arguably doesn't remain so. Moreover, guest columnists cannot publish without prior review, so the judgment about whether a given article is/isn't a SPS might vary with the author. FactOrOpinion (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published. I think we need to assume articles by regulars are self published though, for the sake of BLP, and especially articles published by the editors, unless there is an indication that they went through independent review at some point. Otherwise, outside of BLPs, the main editors are experts in their fields, so the situation is different. - Bilby (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The only people listed as current editors are Gorski and Novella. Is there anyone else we would exclude? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case I am happy with it being only those two for BLPs when looking at new articles. I do not know what other contributers can publish directly. Historical articles might be different. - Bilby (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think just clarifying that this source cannot be used for BLPs would be an improvement and a welcome clarification. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

While SBM ought not to be used for biographical details, it often is used on articles about BLPs as a parity source for information about a person's ideas or the reception of their work. A blanket 'cannot be used for BLPs' would be misleading. MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit stronger than "ought not", as an SPS can't be used to make a claim about a living person unless it is written by the subject. But it is true that you can use it to say "this idea is not consistent with scientific consensus", because that is not about the person, althought not "this person believes something that is not consistent with scientific consensus". - Bilby (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the editors have retracted someone else's article once, so, articles older than a few days have undergone editorial oversight. SBM is an important resource for medical fringe. Calling it SPS with the consequence of it being unusable would make lots of articles worse.

If deletion of SBM citation would lead to fringe claims in BLP articles being uncontested, the fringe claims would also have to be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They did retract it, yes. Does that mean that everything published by one of the various editors, that was allowed to be published directly, has also gone under editorial oversight since then? Can we tell when it happens and when it does not? Or how long it takes to happen if it does? That said, SMB seems to me to be perfectly usable to contest a fringe claim. That's not a BLP concern. I just question it as a means of assigning a belief in a fringe (or otherwwise) claim to a living person. - Bilby (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Issue ofc is that this RFC does not ask if SBM is SPS, just if its reliable. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Whenever this comes up I have to ask, "what is the article about someone whose snake oil has been described accurately as such this time?" The general misunderstanding of the BLP policy is that it bars sources from being used on BLP articles. It does not. It bars certain sources from being used about the living person. E.g. Science based medicine is routinely used to debunk the bullshit that various health nuts promote. It is perfectly fine to use SBM to say 'X claims their product Y gives benefits Z, there is no scientific basis to this.' What it is not used for is 'X is a habitual liar who lies about their products'. Despite both statements being entirely accurate, the BLP policy allows us to do the former, not the latter. This has been discussed multiple times and its not going to change any time soon unless you a)get the BLP policy rewritten, b)snake oil salesmen cease to exist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  That is an interesting point. Where could I cite that exact policy which you claim "has been discussed multiple times and its not going to change any time soon"? I am not contesting your comment, I am just interested in where and how to cite that claim. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Several links at WP:SBM, two of which are amongst the longest discussions 2018, 2021. There are also many old conversations at WP:FTN, for example 2022. Also various long conversations at WP:BLPN 2018. In the last link JzG summed it up best "SBM has been discussed here repeatedly: it is a reliable source for critique of quackery. It has a good reputation for editorial quality and is written by known expert contributors. It is challenged routinely by people buffing up the articles of charlatans, and every time it comes here, the decision is that it's reliable". Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree with this assessment. So much of this RFC seemed to me like reasoning backwards from "I want to use Science Based Medicine on BLPs" to "therefore its not an SPS".

It is a group blog, and generally reliable (and particularly useful on matters that are definitively fringe), but it is an SPS and not suitable for third party BLP claims. Void if removed (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Do people want to use SBM for biographical claims? I'm not aware that has been an issue (except where people wrongly claim that people's pronouncements in the realm of science are subject to BLP protections). Even leaving aside the SPS question, there is really no call to use SBM that way as it's not appropriate. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Only in death, I had exactly the same reaction. A quick glance through the OP's contributions made me wonder if it might have been inspired by seeing it in Jay Bhattacharya#COVID-19 pandemic, since the edit immediately preceding the creation of this section was to the talk page for that article, which says "Writing at Science-Based Medicine, David Gorski, Professor of Surgery at Wayne State University, argued that Gupta, Bhattacharya, and Kulldorff had either been "politically very naïve" in working on the declaration with the American Institute for Economic Research, or that the doctors were "motivated as much by ideology as their interpretation of COVID-19 public health science". Regardless, Gorski opined, the declaration provided a narrative of scientific division useful for political purposes" and cites a SBM page on the Great Barrington Declaration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 3a - Generally reliable with attribution, but SPS. It is fine for eg. rebutting the sourced claims made by third party BLPs, but not fine for establishing facts about third party BLPs. While they're good on traditional quackery, they have come unstuck in recent years with lower quality contributions like this 2021 piece about the NICE evidence review on puberty blockers, which is quite misleading about what evidence was excluded and why. Eg, of fourteen supposedly illegitimately excluded studies, they were all excluded for legitimate reasons, but presented here as suspicious. For example:

• One was after the date cutoff
• One (De Vries 2014) was considered but according to an NHS stakeholder review it remained excluded from the final NICE evidence review as the relevant population and follow-up time points were included in the de Vries et al. (2011) study
• Six didn't report outcomes sufficiently
• One isn't even a published study, just a protocol for a prospective one

Etc. On top of that the general thrust has aged badly, since everything the NICE review concluded has been substantiated and reinforced by other subsequent systematic reviews (eg. Zepf et al in 2023, Taylor et al in 2024 as part of the Cass Review), and astonishingly multiple times this SBM article cites GenderGP approvingly, one of whose directors was struck off, and the other who has now lost her license after years of controversy.

Another piece by the same author contains swipes like this:

Dr. Hillary Cass, lead on the much-maligned and internationally criticized (and deservedly so) NICE Review

The two citations for this? The author's earlier piece (above) - so citing themselves as an authority for "much maligned" - and an essay on ethics which complains low quality studies were excluded from the NICE review (thus missing the point of excluding low quality results from the review synthesis).

It goes on to say:

The ill-conceived and GC-adored NICE review, which condemns gender-affirming medical care for youth as low quality, is linked and referenced in the NYT article and has influenced the NYT critique of puberty blockers. The review was commissioned by Dr. Cass, mentioned earlier, on whose recommendation England’s National Health Service proposed restricting gender-affirming treatment for trans youth to research settings.The review was also thoroughly criticized in the scientific community for, among other things, not understanding what “low quality” actually means in context.

The citations for this here are: GenderGP (again), a personal activist blog, a letter to the editor that doesn't mention the NICE review, and a 2021 letter to the editor that claims the NICE review was unrepresentative, which as multiple subsequent independent systematic reviews have shown is demonstrably false. These are not convincing sources. Not only would we never hold SBM up against such a high quality WP:MEDRS, the poorly substantiated and partisan hyperbole repeatedly attempting to undermine the NICE review does, I think, somewhat call into question the reliability of this SBM contributor.

While SBM are sometimes the only ones taking the time to writing about fringe topics, here a guest contributor is offering strong WP:PARTISAN opinions on something that isn't fringe, but is a top-tier WP:MEDRS, and getting it completely wrong, while backing that up with terrible sources. That should be cause for a little skepticism IMO. I think SBM are solid on antivax and autism quackery, but less so when they wander into this territory. Void if removed (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed substantial issues with the SBM tone, they tend to use a lot of insinuation and emotionally charged language, which doesn't bode well for our NPOV policy of dispassion. Additionally, editors will often point to this as a form of WP:PROPORTION and it can distort POV. SmolBrane (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Great points @Void if removed. I don't think this qualifies to fully deprecate the source, but it sure does call in to question the reliability of this self-publishing blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't go anywhere near that - just that they are reliable and useful when talking about things that are fringe, but I find it questionable to give opinionated guest contributors with a vested interest in a topic a platform to cast unwarranted aspersions on non-fringe sources. Void if removed (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In the era of RFK Jr. as (probable) HHS Secretary and of AI-generated papers, it might be a good time to see the "top-tier MEDRS" are also capable of containing self-uncorrected fatal errors, and these errors can even be the result of regional social/political peculiarities. SBM is a product of the skeptical movement (as a proposal for the evolution of EBM) and would have been made familiar with how these peculiarities can manifest. Acupuncture may be a great trial balloon for how Misplaced Pages handles a fringe theory entering mainstream, though maybe there's a better example. In short I start to wonder how Misplaced Pages even handles it if the CDC or FDA were to produce faux reviews "proving" MMR vaccines are "poison", out of the ideological motivations of an HHS Secretary.

Incidentally, I wonder if the question of "aging well" considers the more-recent consensus of the French Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Policy is that exceptional (Surprising or apparently important) claims be evaluated with additional care, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Systematic evidence reviews are at the top of the evidence pyramid, and opinions based on narrative review such as the one you posted are further down. That this paper doesn't even cite systematic reviews like the NICE review, Zepf er al, Taylor etc al, or mention the Cass Review gives an indication that this source is some way from the top of the MEDRS pyramid.

None of which responds to my point that SBM lent a contributor a platform to make misleading, false and badly cited claims about the highest quality of sources, citing disgraced clinicians in support, more than once. This is the sort of thing you expect SBM to puncture, not endorse. We might rely on SBM to be a voice against quacks, but they are far from infallible when directing their attention at politicised mainstream medical disagreements such as this. Void if removed (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, rare is the publication which has avoided pitfalls when it comes to the "politicised mainstream medical disagreements" around transgender topics, but in any case this is moot since there are ample MEDRS sources to hand (however much some Wikipedians are shy of them); so SBM would not be appropriate to use, just as it's not appropriate for > 99% of WP:BMI which is mainstream and which has mainstream coverage. Bon courage (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Why should the French review only be considered "top of the MEDRS pyramid" if it explicitly cites these specific English-language reviews you favor, but the other way around doesn't apply as Cass/Taylor categorically excluded much of the non-English language literature? (Although also, the SFEDP paper says it's just their initial publication.) VintageVernacular (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 3. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this source but it's opinion/advocacy, not research or news. Not disparaging the expertise and editing, but we should treat it the same way we would if the author had published in a reputable op-ed section or magazine, not like a journal or news section. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well put. SmolBrane (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 1, per bluethricecreamnan Snokalok (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 1, though attribution should probably be used in most use cases anyways. Most sources in general that aren't being used for explicit biographical background info should have attribution. Silverseren 00:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Attribution would be a NPOV violation in many cases and a WP:PROFRINGER's dream if (for example) we had to make it look like BEMER therapy being dubious was "just" the opinion of SBM. Whether or not to attribute in any instance is determined by WP:YESPOV, which is part of WP:NPOV and therefore non-negotiable and not subject to RfCs. Bon courage (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - per @Bon courage above, we don't need to relitigate reliable source to accommodate WP:PROFRINGE editors who take offense when their fringe topics run into the face of science and are trying to wiki lawyer their way out of some sources being used to show why something is fringe. Raladic (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: to anyone voting option one, how is this not an SPS? Its reliability aside, our biggest rule on SPS is that we cannot ever use them for BLP statements unless they are about self. Saying it is reliable doesn't make it not an SPS when it is a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Because, per the last RfC "it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources". There may be a wrinkle whereby the editors-in-chief can publish straight to pixel without additional oversight, which is what has been discussed. But if the RfC was about whether SBM was an SPS it should have been framed that way, rather than (yet another) attempt to torpedo its reliability so as to open the fringe floodgates of hell. Bon courage (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"...rather than (yet another) attempt to torpedo its reliability so as to open the fringe floodgates of hell." Because this one blog is all that holds back the "fringe floodgates of hell" now is that right? Most impressive. 😂 Iljhgtn (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It's one of a very few sources which bother to comment on the grift, fraud and quackery out there in science/medicine allowing articles on such topics to attain WP:PARITY (it used to be QuackWatch, and in future no doubt it will be some other source). These sources are always very unpopular with a certain constituency of Misplaced Pages editors. Bon courage (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3/4, I believe this blog may be generally reliable for NON-BLPs only. I will say that the Gorski writer for the SPS does seem to be able to just write some articles and then publish them with himself as the scrutiny. Now, he may be reliable, but that effectively merges into the level of a primary source or self-published, and should not be usable for BLPs at the very least, even if generally reliable on other "science" related topics outside of BLPs. There are many areas that would still cover, but biographies of LIVING persons tend to have many extra rules for a reason. It has long been the case that those who sit on differing sides of a political aisle hold special venom, even the scientifically-minded among us humans, for those who disagree with deeply held beliefs. Thus, the main recipient of libelous claims does tend to be directed it would seem towards the biographies of LIVING persons, who also have other factors at stake. The rule then should likewise be consistently applied again for this blog, and I will even venture to say that I think the "floodgates of hell" will still be held at bay, even if the closer decided to rightfully deem the source "Generally reliable", but "not for BLPs"...Iljhgtn (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  those who sit on differing sides of a political aisle This is a false framing. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has recently switched aisles, but SBM has exposed his pro-quackery propaganda before and after the switch. SBM is about the conflict between medical science and medical pseudoscience, not about US politics. SBM's statements do not become tainted by politics just because US politics has moved into its field by becoming tainted by charlatans. Pseudoscience does not magically turn into not-pseudoscience-but-a-legitimate-political-position because US politicians embrace it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Party is not the same thing as ideological belief or conviction. One could remain consistent in that while switching party if the party you are aligned with is not serving as the optimal vehicle for delivering your message, all the while your message may not change at all, but your partisan alignment may shift. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Nothing has changed since the last time this was discussed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• I guess if we really are doing the numbers thing, I'll pop in an option 1. There is enough evidence of pre- and post-publication review that the source derives reliability from both a review process and, in many cases, the subject matter expertise of the author of individual articles, which is a step up from many other sources we treat as generally reliable in their area of expertise. Reviewing the concurrent discussions, I don't think there's likely to be firm consensus on the nature of the type of organisation in general (science advocacy group), but in that case we'd fall on existing practice of treating the source on a case-by-case basis. It may be appropriate to treat articles by Gorski and Novella as self-published, in which case we should take care statements so sourced are exclusively medical ("XYZ is not supported by the medical literature") and not biographical ("and therefore ABC is a crank for supporting XYZ") and it may also be appropriate to treat early reports with caution (like WP:RSBREAKING), but this is largely in line with how we treat other reliable sources.

Contra SmolBrane, the tone of our sources is generally not an issue. We should not take a carbon copy of the tone of our sources, especially sources of different genres, but this is again, the same for other sources we consider generally reliable (e.g., WP:NEWSSTYLE). We do have a consistent editorial tone for certain subject areas that may disappoint or disgruntle some editors, but this is in accord with our policies and guidelines (WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE) and not in contravention to it. Current policy is that we ought to take an anti-fringe line and judgement (not discretion, this is not optional) should be used to exclude fringe theories where inclusion would unduly legitimise it. In some cases, attribution may be appropriate, but this should be decided on a case by case basis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3/4 (although I object to the atypical format) this is a SPS where most of the articles published fall under EXPERTSPS so in general are usable (the main authors/editors are David Gorski, a published expert in medicine and the study of pseudoscience as a social phenomenon, and Steven Novella also similarly qualified). I would also note that SBM has a sister blog, NeuroLogicaBlog which is rather widely used on wiki and has complete overlap in terms of author/editors/subject matter so should be part of the same discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Great points @Horse Eye's Back. Thank you. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3/4. This source should never be used without proper attribution. As other commenters have noted, it frequently publishes content without prior peer review, a fact acknowledged by SBM itself. Consequently, it qualifies as a self-published source, with the opinions expressed reflecting the views of individual authors rather than the scholarly consensus. For instance, the above mentioned example of this Science-Based Medicine article appears to be the author’s personal reaction to the findings of NICE (the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), as reported in this BBC article . The author seems to challenge the conclusions of UK authorities, which represents his personal perspective rather than a consensus view, particularly since the UK authorities did not align with his assessment. Using such sources without clear attribution is inappropriate, especially in BLPs or articles covering controversial topics, where accuracy and neutrality are paramount. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4/3. For the areas where this source is accurate, there are usually better sources. SBM appears to be beloved by some editors because it is willing to go too far. The SBM authors are not content to report facts: they take highly polemical positions and express them with sarcasm, sneering, and ad hominems. Gorski in particular fancies himself something of an insult comic. Listing SBM as a reliable source allows this toxicity to be transcribed into wikivoice. - Palpable (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

404 Media (404media.co) and KrebsOnSecurity (krebsonsecurity.com)

The reliability of these sources in relation to cybersecurity matters is high in my opinion but it is being questioned on the page Vinny Troia so I am submitting a Request for Comment here D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

404 Media is a reliable source with editorial oversight. Krebs on Security is probably also reliable, but I'm unclear about its level of editorial oversight and it could well be a WP:SPS, which would make it unusuable on the Troia article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Hemiauchenia about 404. Speaking purely in the sense of how he is respected by peers in his field, Brian Krebs is reliable. However, the site itself does not appear to have editorial oversight, and is basically an extremely authoritative blog. For purposes here, it may make more sense to treat him as an SME, attributing opinions where necessary? WP:SPS is pretty clear about not using SPS's on BLPs, and I largely agree that once Krebs has reported on something, other RS's usually pick it up. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Is 'hankookilbo(한국일보)' a reliable press?

Hankook Ilbo, established in 1954, is one of South Korea’s longstanding daily newspapers, covering a range of topics such as politics, economy, society, and culture. As a legacy media outlet, it has a significant historical role in shaping public discourse and providing news to the general public. Its credibility depends on factors such as accuracy, impartiality, transparency, and its ability to adapt to contemporary journalistic standards.

A key point in its favor is its reputation as a general news source aimed at a broad audience. Over the years, it has built a name for diverse and in-depth reporting, contributing to its longstanding presence in the South Korean media landscape. Furthermore, its efforts to transition to digital media demonstrate its adaptability in a rapidly evolving news environment, providing timely updates through online platforms.

However, like many traditional news outlets, Hankook Ilbo has faced criticisms over the years. Even if Hankook Ilbo tends to maintain a relatively moderate stance and is perceived as more politically neutral compared to other newspapers such as Chosun Ilbo or Hankyoreh, Some argue it may show political or ideological bias in certain article. Trust in traditional media has also declined globally due to increasing polarization and the rise of alternative online outlets. To assess Hankook Ilbo’s reliability, one must consider its track record, whether it adheres to fact-checking and correction policies, and whether it remains transparent about its editorial processes. Ultimately, the debate should explore whether its strengths in journalistic experience outweigh these criticisms and how it compares to other media outlets in its handling of issues such as neutrality and accountability. Kang eunyeong (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jeong Ahram, @Xisuux, @Babaibiaobin, @Kang_eunyeong please stop spamming with random Korean sources.

We cannot provide permission or prohibition ahead of time for any of these sources. Use your best judgement. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If I may ask, are you all students? I see you all working on assignments on the talk page of @Hanyangprofessor2. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

On the surface, the center is so strong, but the radical multiculturalism is quite strong compared to any media company. In the 2010s, short-term foreign workers are regularly published articles containing claims to ease immigration thresholds, expand refugee recognition, advocate and legalize illegal immigrants, and give permanent residency to second-generation illegal immigrants beyond just pro-multicultural tendencies. Jeong Ahram (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

if you are writing to fulfill an assignment or discussion, this is definitely the wrong place. Please check with your professor, but I doubt this is what they have in mind. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman Hmmm, I am happy to revise the assignment if it is not helpful for the community, but I thought RSN is a place to discuss reliability of specific sources (newspapers, etc.) without the need to look at particular examples (ex. I see #RFC Jerusalem Post above). Since many Korean or Chinese sources have never been discussed at RSN, I thought it would be useful to have them mentioned here, so they show in the search archives for folks who want to know if they are good (the next step would be to link the discussions from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources / Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Taiwan/Resources (WP:CHINA does not seem to have a relevant page, so it may be created based on this activity and similar discussions too). Granted, there is not much point in asking about mainstream SK newspapers which are generally ok-ish (i.e. reliable, if hardly Pulitzer-winning), but then, what is mainstream can vary - there are less than ideal Falun Gong or CCP-affiliated sources in the case of Chinese sources, for example. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 06:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No RSN is for third party opinion or when editors need advice about the reliability of sources. It's definitely not for categorising sources. Unless there is legitimate disagreement on a source it shouldn't be discussed here. This would be a better fit as part of WikiProject -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So which WikiProject can be tapped for categorizing sources? Or do you mean the "country" one like China and Taiwan for Chinese-language, Korean for Korean? Many of them are not very active :( _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 02:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The students could do the work of discussing and evaluating the sources to then contruct a list. Most sources will never be discussed, because the first check is an editors good judgements. What do you think of the source? Can you back up that judgement, and how does it relate to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines? If those questions are discussed and answered, well then you could list the discussions and you have a sources list. Add those lists to the relevant projects and you've made them more active and useful.

Misplaced Pages's editors should be 'tapped' their time is not a resource for anyone else's use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hanyangprofessor2: Generally, making long lists categorizing uncontroversial sources is something to try and avoid. It happens anyways, but it's more of a flaw with our processes than something to emulate. The Israel-Palestine topic area is a bad example of how WP:RSN (or any process on Misplaced Pages) should work, as virtually every source ends up as controversial due to the contentiousness of that area.

Something you may wish to consider is reaching out at the Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard. There's an independent non-profit (meta:Wiki Education Foundation) that can provide support to instructors, and they monitor that noticeboard.

One of the most common assignments is to evaluate an existing article which involves examining the reliability of sources in-context. This has generally been more appreciated by the community/students, because you'd be directly improving content, and your students would have very visible contributions. Generally, the community is appreciative of contributions that directly create better articles.

In particular to your situation, it's very valuable to incorporate content from a foreign language source into English Misplaced Pages articles as most editors are limited to English sources. That's the source of the inactivity issue you identified. Identifying reliable Korean-language sources and using them in articles would probably benefit the encyclopedia far more than just creating a list of them, as there aren't enough editors who can read those sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested @Chess I am having hard time understanding " Identifying reliable Korean-language sources and using them in articles would probably benefit the encyclopedia far more than just creating a list of them". If a source is identified as reliable, shouldn't this assessment be recorded somewhere to make it easier for future editors to know it is good? I always thought that stuff like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Sources is a gold standard and we both need and want such lists to be created for all topic areas. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 07:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hanyangprofessor2: I reflected on this some more and I'm coming around to your point.

I believe the intent of WikiProject Video Games is to help editors find good sources for articles. The point of RSN is to get into fights (and sometimes actually seek advice) over whether a source is appropriate on Misplaced Pages, and WP:RSP is meant to summarize the results of those discussions. I've erred in saying that generally, making long lists categorizing uncontroversial sources is something to try and avoid, I should've said that WP:RSP is not meant to be a long list categorizing uncontroversial sources.

Such a list for the Korean-language topic area would likely be beneficial. But asking about individual sources at WP:RSN or a WikiProject talk likely isn't the best way to create this list, since your students are bringing up relatively clear-cut sources (I would do the same if it was for a school assignment). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chess Right, I need to rethink this activity. I considered directing students to WikiProject talk pages, but they are much less active then here. We don't want RSP to become too long, it's asking to be split already, really... the output of those less controversial and less common sources might be best to be kept in subpages. I envision RSP as a 'main page', listing most popular and commonly asked about sources, with the WikiProject topical lists being its subpages. But that's the ideal world, what we have is what we have. Any thoughts on how to make an educational activity that would benefit the workflow of RSN and generate useful data rather than noise is much appreciated (clearly, my idea is not here yet). _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 08:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

HM (Magazine) / Heaven's Metal for notability assertion

https://issuu.com/dougvanpelt/docs/hm164_ef725e65eaf2f2/20 describes the state purpose it was established for: HM Magazine is a magazine specializing in heavy music/ christian metal. "I started HM Magazine to serve a two-fold purpose: to serve the fans, who needed and wanted information; and to serve the artists, who needed exposure."

Given that purpose, the question is if the HM magazine is a reliable indication of Misplaced Pages worthy notability of artists/bands/albums being served by the magazine to improve their exposure. Graywalls (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes. It's been discussed before. And it's got some decent coverage in academic publications, Christianity Today (which has called Doug Van Pelt an expert in the subject matter), and much else, including other traditional print media. It's also a traditional print publication. It evolved from its fanzine origins to become THE major journalistic source for Christian metal and hard rock (that's not just my assertion, that's what the scholar Marcus Moberg has said about the publication).

This isn't a deletion discussion, but still, you can do a quick Google/Google Books/Google Scholar search, as well as check out the archives for here and WikiProject Albums, before starting a discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't pay such statements much attention, "We're here to serve the fans with enthusiastic blah blah blah" it's just marketing waffle.

It has some WP:USEBYOTHERS (Google books, Google Scholar) it's varied in quality but there are some known reliable publishers there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I will note that at least three instances of those uses by others explicitly mention its expertise or primacy in the requisite subject matter. One of them even makes what on Misplaced Pages would be called a notability statement about an artist based on that artist's coverage by the magazine.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, sources use personal interviews and social media too in their own reporting. Is your position that artist being covered in HM Magazine count towards GNG requirements? Also, should HM Magazine and Heaven's Magazine be seen differently? When you browse WP:RSP there are entries like this "Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media" Graywalls (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

HM totally counts toward GNG requirements. Why would it not? It is a traditional print publication with professional staff and editorial oversight, is notable according to other reliable sources, and is used extensively by other repliable sources and other sources have noticed its expertise and utility. Not only that, but a reliable source (a magazine article by Mark Allan Powell) explicitly states that Norma Jean was notable at the time he wrote the article because they were on the cover of HM . I don't know how often we have a reliable source specifically basing what on Misplaced Pages we would call a notability statement off of another source, but we actually have such a case here. Thus it definitely would qualify for GNG. It would qualify for establishing GNG even without that, but this basically is a perfect case where the specific issue (establishing GNG) can be confirmed in a separate RS.

As for HM versus Heaven's Metal, it's complicated. HM used to be Heaven's Metal, and then was rebranded as HM as it included a lot more rock, indie, and even sometimes hip hop coverage. Heaven's Metal later then was released as a parallel publication alongside HM. Around the time that Doug Van Pelt sold HM to David Stagg, Heaven's Metal became a separate publication, owned by Van Pelt. So, it is two separate publications as of 2013. I didn't fully realize this until last week or the week before, and that explains why there's two websites now. But there's no reason to suppose that suddenly Heaven's Metal or HM are unreliable, given that all that changed was the ownership of one of the two magazines. When you see something like "Newsweek is only reliable prior to 2013", it's because there's specific circumstances or problems after that timeframe that were identified by community consensus and consensus deemed that this source necessitated a qualifier for usage because of that. You don't have that here - there's no down-grade in the quality of the material published via HM or Heaven's Metal.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a long-running, professional music publication. All music publications are giving musicians exposure, whether they say it or not. No need to dock them for that comment. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That even is the purpose of music magazines. It's journalism about musicians. I would expect them to have interest in promoting the scene. It would become a conflict of interest if musicians were paid for stories/profiles/reviews, or the writers paid by record labels to do stories/reviews of particular artists. If the publication thinks certain bands are worth hearing and need to be communicated to audiences, that's literally the job of the publication.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait. Are we talking about this article? If so, I would not count it towards GNG because it's an interview performed seemingly by and with the editor. But it seems like this is more of a hypothetical question? If that's the case, then we'd need to see the article before we could make that call. Woodroar (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I totally agree. I'm not even sure what we would use this for other than statements about the editor themself, and those would not suffice for notability if for no other reason than because it's their own publication, anyway.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

World Bank/UNICEF/UNESCO & Brookings Inst. are reliable?

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

I inserted the below text into the article for COVID-19 lockdowns with the cited sources, which I thought were reliable, but it was taken down by @Bon courage due to "Unreliable sources". The same institutions are already cited in the article. Are these sources reliable? Why or why not?

Prolonged COVID-19 school closures and the ineffectiveness of remote learning, especially in low- and middle-income countries, exacerbated educational inequities, leading to substantial learning losses that could cost this generation of students $17 trillion in lifetime earnings, according to the World Bank, UNICEF and UNESCO. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted education for 1.6 billion students at its peak, exacerbating the gender divide with disproportionately greater learning losses among girls and increased risks of child labor, gender-based violence, early marriage, and pregnancy in some countries. The Brookings Institution found that pandemic-related school closures led to significant declines in math and reading scores, particularly among students from low-income backgrounds, with math being more heavily impacted than reading. While targeted interventions such as tutoring, summer programs, and extended school days offer hope for recovery, the effects of these disruptions are expected to be long-lasting.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, what about this source by Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond?

https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2023/eb_23-29 Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Bon courage challenged the sources. Have you tried asking them on their User Talk page or in the article's Talk page? ElKevbo (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A US think tank and a banking group for statements about education (and extrapolation from the USA to the whole world)? Dubious. But the underlying report with UNICEF and UNESCO may be useful. Not sure why this is at a noticeboard when there was been zero discussion at the article. The COVID-19 article is very high level so details about US school closures are probably undue there too. Bon courage (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I will move this to Talk:COVID-19 lockdowns Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. "The State of the Global Education Crisis: A Path to Recovery". World Bank. December 6, 2021. Retrieved 2024-12-06.
2. "The pandemic has had devastating impacts on learning – what will it take to help students catch up?". Brookings. Retrieved 6 December 2024.

botanikks.com

Some time ago, I cited botanikks.com as a source. @MtBotany informs me that it's a LLM-generated spam site. Just noting it here for the archives in the hopes some future editor won't make the same mistake I did. RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, this is the same issue as #LLM AI sources just below. RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

LLM AI sources

I just ran across https://www.botanikks.com/ being linked or cited on Misplaced Pages and I'm posting to let other editors know about problems with the site and as another instance of an apparent LLM AI generated site being used by good faith editors. This is similar to the previous discussion I started about Selina Wamucii being cited. Rather than these content farms directly adding links they are just good enough to sometimes fool editors into citing or adding an external link to a page they have generated. The botanikks site is in many ways worse for us because it does not have the same blatant self contradictions that crop up on Selina Wamucii. Though it does have generated text tells. On the page Entosthodon neoscoticus] the binomial is repeated over and over with "M. S. Brown" appended after it. That's not a very human mistake to make. Other pages on the site have similar oddness such as their page on Sequoia Sempervirens that is full of vague platitudes. It also says, "Another disease that can impact Sequoia sempervirens is Sudden Oak Death. This is a devastating disease that can cause the entire tree to die within a few years." While Phytophthora ramorum does infect the species it does not kill trees directly. That's exactly the sort of subtle mistake of fact that is most dangerous for Misplaced Pages's mission. I do not have a solution to the larger issue, but I think we should start some sort of gray or black list of such websites that get cited by good faith editors to have some sort of warning when an editor adds an external link or citation to them the same way as when someone makes an edit containing a citation with publisher that puts out self-published works. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

All we have at the moment is the deprecation warning message, and it doesn't really fit the issue. There was a recent discussion about a WP:UGC site were I suggested the need for a "Please don't use these sites as reference" warning message that problematic and obviously unusable sources could be added to. But I have no idea that how to even start the process of getting such a thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Earwig: I wonder if it would be feasible to expand https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ to also check for LLM text using one of the various LLM detectors that are available. RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I have thought a bit about this, but as I understand it, the problem of detecting whether some text is LLM-generated is difficult and there are no reliable detectors available. If we are aware of something we can trust then I can look into integrating it. — The Earwig (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Police Report

I am updating a university article to reflect a shooting that occured on the school property. I was going to source the police report of the incident. Is that a credible source? How much information like personal identifiers (Phone Numbers, Names) should I redact if any before uploading it to archive.org? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't use public records, like police reports, to support claims involving a living or recently deceased person. See WP:BLPPRIMARY for that policy. Woodroar (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

But what if the addition to the article would be about the event and not the individuals involved? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If the shooting is a significant event, there should be coverage of it. Citing a newspaper is better than citing a police report. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The only coverage of it is a police report and the minutes of a governmental meeting where the incident was discussed. I just think the police report is more objective than the meeting minutes but the story was not covered by any press at the time. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If it wasn't covered by a reliable, secondary source, that's the best reason not to mention it on Misplaced Pages. We're not a news source, after all. Just think of all the police reports filed in a single day, and how many issues are discussed at governmental meetings. It's not up to us to decide which ones are worthy of coverage. That's why we look to reliable, secondary sources like the press. Woodroar (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Woodroar. Without independent coverage, it isn't significant enough to mention in the article about the school. Schazjmd (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both @Woodroar and @Schazjmd!! I really appreciate the wisdom! Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Galaxy

The Daily Galaxy is a news source that appears a lot on the google news science web site. I am not impressed with its reliability. Does anyone else have an opinion? Uzol 69 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could give some more details. Is there a particular Daily Galaxy article you were concerned about, or it's use in a specific article in Misplaced Pages? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to include self published YouTube videos?

For example, if I (non-expert enthusiast by the way) were to read aloud a passage of Mein Kampf, and I take a few liberties from the source for easier translation, could I link the video in the article? ----(there is also an rfc thread that is discussing a similar situation if anyone is interested)

Any advice is greatly appreciated. Plasticwonder (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE states a few concerns.

1) Copyright. If the read out loud material is copyrighted, you probably shouldn't be using it. Similarly, the person posting it on YouTube usually owns the copyright to video, so they would have to allow its use as per WP:IUPC. Since Mein Kampf is in public domain, and you donate the video, you could link it.

2) If the material is SPS or original, it would be problematic. So if the video is just a random video blog ramblings of a non expert, it really shouldn't be used. Since you are doing a word for word reading of Mein Kampf, that probably isn't original or SPS, and could be fine.

3) WP:DUE concerns. Going off your example, it's probably undue to post gigantic text quotes from Mein Kampf. It would probably also be undue to post a video of gigantic bits of Mein Kampf. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The risk of taking liberties on a translation of a text sounds like WP:SYN. It is best to leave interpretations of a text to more academic sources instead. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Except Plasticwonder is not doing a word-for-word reading; they're taking liberties with it for easy translation, which means it is especially not a reliable source for the contents of Mein Kampf. And it's not clear what would be gained by this even if it were reasonable; the proper source for quoting a book is the contents of the book itself (with an RS to show a particular quote is due.) The proper source for a translation from Mein Kampf is an expert translation from a reliable publisher -- though we have to be careful because translations can still be under copyright even when the work in question is in the public domain. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

1 - maybe I'm confused by what you're saying but while the copyright over the original work needs to be considered including whether the uploader of the YouTube video has the necessary permissions per WP:COPYVIOLINK, since the OP seems to be discussing simply linking to the original uploaded video the posted by the creator or with their permission there's no need to worry about their copyright any more than any other link. We don't need permission to link. If we were uploading the video or parts to of it or s transcription then sure. Likewise if there was doubt the uploader had permission of the creator. Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This issue has also been discussed at WP:VPP#Videos from YT and WP:RSPYT. An anonymous YouTube video couldn't be used for the purposes of verification. But this appears to be external media, rather than a reference. As with a images or maps on commons whether they should be included isn't a WP:Reliable Sources issue, as it's not being used for WP:Verification.

Whether the videos should be included is something that should be discussed on the articles talkpage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest we not bother with amateur readings of historical texts whether those be Machiavelli's letters, Hitlers screed or Chaucer. The small benefit of hearing the original language is counterbalanced by concerns of WP:SYNTH regarding the subtitles. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

My main concern with using them would be if they are the linguistically correct, historical pronunciation is not an amatuer field of study. As the videos are anonymous there's no way of knowing if they are correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No, as to use an SPS it would have to be by a recognised expert. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

And, given the fact that many YouTube is monetized and visits can cause the video producer to profit, YouTube videos should be treated like an emergency floatation device. Use it only if there's no other sources available and if it's absolutely necessary, and strictly complies with WP:RSPYT. Graywalls (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The video is uploaded to Wikimedia, so it wouldn't be directly linked to YouTube. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Death estimation

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

For both the Gaza genocide and Gaza famine are the following sources considered reliable for usage in an infobox as citations for death by starvation: .

I couldn't find the editorial board or hard details on a review process for Cost of War, and the letter seems to be written for political advocacy. Originalcola (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I was unable to find these sources discussed previously here. Originalcola (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

the first is apparently an estimate by an assistant professor. i cant tell peer review or if folks are citing it. might be considered SPS by cost of war institute, reliable but should be attributed Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I accidentally misstated my request and have edited it. Originalcola (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

second is by doctorsingaza group or something. should also be attributed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I just have some quick follow-up questions for attributing, since the Associate Professor cites the second source (letter) do I attribute the AP, Doctor's letter or both? Furthermore, does the field of the Professor (Anthropology) warrant mentioning in this case and if so would I have to mention their field of expertise in a note? Originalcola (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Gaza genocide and at Gaza famine refers. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's clarify;

The report Publisher Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs (Watson Institute) Author Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins Associate Professor of Anthropology, Bard College Editor Stephanie Savell, Director of Costs of War and Senior Fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs Title The Human Toll: Indirect Deaths from War in Gaza and the West Bank, October 7, 2023 Forward Dated October 7, 2024

From the summary "The current report gathers previously published data to provide an overview of the direct and indirect deaths that have resulted, and will continue to result, from U.S.-supported Israeli military operations."

The report says (p.3) "There were 62,413 additional deaths from starvation, according to the October 2, 2024, “Appendix to letter of October 2, 2024 re: American physicians observations from the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023.” For estimates of indirect deaths, see Figure 2, below." which (on p.4) shows Estimated Deaths from Starvation 62,413 in a table.

The referenced "Appendix" at page 5 shows how this figure was calculated. It cites the IPC technical manual: in the catastrophe phase of food insecurity the crude death rate rises to at least 2 deaths per 10,000 people per day, and in the emergency phase the crude death rate rises to 1-2 deaths per 10,000 people per day and applies that to the IPC published data, summarizing that on `page 6 as "In total it is likely that 62,413 people have died of starvation and its compilations in Gaza from October 7, 2023 to September 30, 2024" The Appendix is attached to an open letter to Biden/Harris signed by 99 American medical professionals who served in Gaza.

Detailed secondary source "Adding an estimate of those who have died by starvation—about 62,413 people—brings the total estimated death toll to 114,000, or about 5 percent of Gaza’s population. Those likely death-by-starvation numbers come from a letter 99 physicians who served in Gaza sent President Joe Biden last week." Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe this was mentioned in the talk on those pages but I will add here that the "Detailed secondary source" is a news article summarizing 2 papers, including and a companion paper from Cost of War. Objectively speaking, it doesn't provide much in terms of analysis or commentary, so I'd prefer citing the paper directly over than churnalism that just repeats what was said in the paper. In any case, I'm personally curious about whether the letter and paper pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS not the news article. I was hoping for some uninvolved editors to give their opinions, given that both you and I have already stated our opinions at length. Originalcola (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The other party trying to delete this material is also curious about the scholarship issue, see Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#Do these pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP?, not sure why they posted there but I pointed them to here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @XDanielx. Valereee (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If this is a scholarly source, where was this published? As far as I can tell, this is just a PDF document hosted on a university's website. There's no provenance or evidence that this was peer reviewed, so per WP:PREPRINT, it is unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

<- I haven't followed the various discussion closely, but I'm wondering whether the right test is being applied here. It's not obvious to me why a scholarship test for starvation estimates should be used while we simply report (with attribution) casualty estimates that come from the belligerents. It's very possible that I'm missing something. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• This estimate does seem pretty dubious. Selfstudier, that letter appendix doesn't say 62K died of starvation. It says it could be expected that many would die under the type of emergency this is being called. I don't think we can use either the letter appendix or the report, both of which are using an estimation method -- as opposed to estimating because we don't yet have definite numbers -- of expected deaths from starvation under certain conditions.

All RS seem to be saying there've been dozens, not tens of thousands. I think we need to see reliable sources reporting deaths. We could put an asterisk on it to an explanatory note that expected deaths from starvation under such conditions are estimated to be over 60,000, or whatever. It's fine to use that information, attributed and explained, in the article, but for WP to be estimating 62,000 deaths in the infobox, which does look like Wikivoice, as if there were reliable sources saying that is IMO not appropriate. Valereee (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Since there was some discussion about this sort of thing, excess/indirect deaths, at the main war article, it's probably worth looking at that article or more easily, the infobox template for it, Template:Israel–Hamas war infobox.

There, it says "Indirect deaths likely to be multiple times higher" and one has to drill down in the refs/notes to see what it says, so for example, cited to The Lancet, "In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37,396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2,375,259, this would translate to 7.9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip."

This estimate doesn't (afaics atm) break down that figure into different causes for the Gaza situation. I will try to look into it a bit more, Idk if it is possible to better pin down the starvation component or whether this new study is merely a first go at that. I would note that we wouldn't usually start investigating author cites to check their work, we would just usually attribute, assuming the source is RS. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

But there's only a single RS (Mother Jones) that is repeating these estimates, which are from non-RS? And they're estimates based on a theoretical formula that predicts expected numbers. I'm not too concerned about that being covered in the article, where it can be explained, but right now we're saying, in what amounts to wikivoice, that an estimated 62K+ have died of starvation. I think it's irresponsible to include this in the infobox. Valereee (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a look at it and I just couldn't convince myself that it was a good estimate. It wasn't based on anything on the ground and it had question marks in important places. Euro-Med gave a lower figure of 51,000 around the time for what it called the 'natural' deaths, i.e. the ones not due to the bombs and shooting and it has people on the ground. It broke down the figures better and it did not directly attribute deaths to famine though it said that lack of food was a major cause of dying rather than recovering from disease or injury. However it also mentioned things like lack of clean water and sanitation and medicine and the hospitals being destroyed. I guess it can be cited, it's by reputable people and they probably tried to do an honest job, but I'd like suitable attribution and caveats. NadVolum (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The way I look at it is that there is very little reason to place much credence in any the various statistics for all sorts of reasons. All of the numbers are probably going to be wrong in one way or another. And we are not really able to estimate the reliability of any particular statistical claim. Under these circumstances, statements of fact in wiki voice should probably be avoided, and it seems more of a due weight question with respect to any particular claim. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Started RFC on Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC about starvation estimate about this estimate. Originalcola (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Some reason you do not want to let this discussion run its course? Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not my intent to stifle conversation, I want to have as many opinions as possible. I'll ping all the editors who posted here to invite them to the RfC, apologies to anyone who gets double pinged.

@Bluethricecreamman

@Selfstudier

@Valereee

@Chess

@Sean.hoyland

@NadVolum Originalcola (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Might as well close this as RFC is opened to resolve. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

news-pravda.com

Has anyone come across news-pravda.com?

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

According to this Guardian article, it might be part of the Portal Kombat network. It does not look like it has anything to do with Pravda.ru, but it would be interesting to get some more eyes on this. - Amigao (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you need to overthink it, just from a quick glance it seems to be just be reposting content from other sources often of questionable reliability. Originalcola (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Aggregators and republishers (specifically those republishing word for word) don't have a reliability, as the reliability stems from the original source. Looking at the first couple of articles I found they were from Tsargrad.tv via Telegram, and Sputnik radio, neither of which are reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Letters to journals

I'm dealing with a situation over at the BLP Judy Singer where a claim of her creation of the term "neurodiversity", cited to BBC News as well as to two Portuguese articles, is being trumped by a citation to the journal Autism. However, the journal piece is not an article, but a letter to the editor. Not being an academic, I don't know whether such letters are subject to review, and I can't find any guidance on how we way such things, or if they are even permissible for BLP use. (I'm not assuming the same rules used for newspaper letters-to-the-editor apply here.) Any suggestions on how this should be addressed? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Journal letters may be written by experts in the field, and their may be some validity in their points, but unlike the other journal contents, such information is not subject to peer review. If a wholly new concept is borne out of only a letter to a journal, that seems very iffy to include. Masem (t) 17:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As Masem notes, such letters are not subject to peer review. This particular letter has been cited a number of times in other non-self-published sources; here's Google Scholar's list of publications citing it. At least some of those are peer-reviewed and might turn out to be better sources. I think the letter itself can be used as a source, but only with in-line attribution, along the lines of "Singer has been credited with coining the term 'neurodiversity,' , but in a letter to the editor of Journal J, Persons X, Y, and Z, state that the term was developed collectively ..." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, they might turn out to be better sources for other things, but of course they aren't going to repeat every fact from the letter, so that doesn't help us here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It could well help us here, given the WP text that is sourced to the letter. The letter is used as a citation for three things: two instances of Singer being "known for coining the term neurodiversity" (for which better sources exist, as the letter itself notes), plus "this term first appeared in publication in a 1998 article by Harvey Blume, a year before Singer included it in a book chapter discussing the development of the concept of "neurological diversity" online. In this chapter, Singer did not claim to have created the term, and only used it in passing." That seems a bit cherry-picked to me, as the letter also states that (1) "Singer wrote an Honours thesis on the subject in 1998," so Singer's and Blume's use of "neurodiversity" were contemporaneous, (2) there's evidence of Singer claiming years ago that she spoke to Blume about it prior to his use, though that's unsubstantiated, and (3) the letter provides evidence of online use of "neurological diversity" that precedes both Singer's thesis and Blume's article, but this isn't mentioned. This peer-reviewed article, which cites the letter, says "the neurodiversity concept was not developed by any single person," and might be used instead for text along the lines of "whether Singer coined the term is disputed." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• They are at least as good as the blog of a person who writes them. So if a letter to a journal is written by a subject matter expert it can be included, but would normally be attributed to the expert.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but if it was a standard blog from an expert, it could not be used for BLP purposes, such as what is at hand here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree. It shouldn't be used for BLP if it is the only source for anything that might be damaging to the subject's reputation, but this kind of claim should be ok.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how this is not "damaging to the subject's reputation", as this is calling into claim the credit on which her reputation is at least partly built. We are dealing with a matter where an editor claiming to be the subject herself is raising concerns over the material. (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Judy_Singer) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This is not "contentious" in the sense it is meant in BLP. It is fine to cite the opinions of others on the origin of the term, but in this case it should be attributed.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Having had a few such letters of my own printed over the years, and knowing other academics who have done the same, I can say that they do go through a review process, though not the same process as is used for articles. The editor's involvement can go beyond merely choosing which letters to print and include back-and-forth about cuts for length, edits for clarity, etc. In this particular case, the journal does not say that letters completely bypass peer review. Rather, their instructions for authors say that letters may not require two independent reviews to be accepted. The basic historical claims in the letter in question are of a sort that an editor could check for themselves without sending it out. (For example, it says that Blume used neurodiversity in a 1998 Atlantic story, and that story is right there.) Sending that out for the full kind of review applied to a regular research article would be excessive. I see no reason not to use this for the matter at hand. I'd use in-text attribution, not out of any concern that the reference is dubious, but just because when there are disputed claims, it's nice to be clear about who says what. XOR'easter (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

While I wouldn't be that fond of a letter published in a journal, I wouldn't assume that a news media source is going to do a better job researching the validity of a similar sort of claim. The news sources likely all reference a common source/person and for something that appears to be more a curiosity vs a critical claim, the news organizations are likely to take the claim at face value and move on. Springee (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

At this point, we are using the popular press mentions not to say "she created X", but to back up "she is commonly credited with creating X", which is a different statement. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say these letters aren't peer-reviewed, but under editorial oversight and written by experts. I think blogs written by experts are better than news sources anyway.(a seasonally topical example here) I think it depends on the context in the work, though. People tend not to double-check trivia or fun facts. Who coined a term can be considered trivial, or really important based on who you are. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

specific to Judy Singer I would suggest it might be useful to simply reword the content. Rather than focusing on who said the word first, focus on her impact in the formation of the academic concept. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If you (or anyone) want(s) to run with it, I encourage you to; life is handing me a platter full of busy at the moment. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Touken World

There are a couple of websites for what appears to be a museum for swords. https://www.meihaku.jp/about-museum/ and https://www.touken-world.jp. It is used several times in the Samurai article as a source. The articles there don't have an author listed, but seems okay. I think some English language sources written by scholars would be better, but I am not familiar with the website. I don't speak Japanese and am mostly familiar with western scholarship on Japan. So is this is reliable, and if it is, which grade would it be? Here is a link to a translated article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

They are going to be more reliable than a random website, as you'd expect museums to have some understanding of its collection. It's a matter of weight, I would put a musueum as the same weight as news reporting but far below academic sources (wherever they are from). If an academic sources contradicts the museum, don't use the museum. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Is Power-Technology.com reliable

I found this source on the web when trying to find reliable sources for Zhangiztobe Solar plant but I am not sure if it's reliable. In the webpage here, it said it was a B2B website that was a part of Global Data. I think this makes it reliable but I need some verification. SVcode(Talk) 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That company profile is provided by Global Data, which describes its methodology for compiling that profile as Data on Zhangiztobe Solar PV Park report is collected through a hybrid research approach to track power plants across various companies and technologies. Secondary research involves gathering data from publicly available sources such as asset finance dea (cut-off mid-sentence is what they wrote). Probably reliable for basic facts, I'd think. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! SVcode(Talk) 00:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this article about Misplaced Pages a reliable source?

"Misplaced Pages’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia" This needs to be seen in the context of a response here It's being discussed at an RfC Doug Weller talk 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Its far to polemical for example it says "Native peoples are first mentioned on the page in the context of disease to cast Native departure from the East Coast as a natural occurrence" We say "The colonization of the United States resulted in a large decline of the Native American population primarily because of newly introduced diseases.", so it seems to misrepresent what we in fact say to make a point. So at best this seems too biased to use without attribution, but not for statements of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the question is, does the article show a valid viewpoint about underrepresentation of content about indigenous people in English-language Misplaced Pages? Bogazicili (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And I am staying, it is so polemical all it shows its their perception there is a bias. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. So that would be a valid viewpoint per WP:NPOV. I am not suggesting it should be used in Wikivoice anywhere.

So the question is, do you think the article represents a WP:Fringe view? Because other studies have also suggested similar concerns. See Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Coverage_of_indigenous_topics_in_English-language_Wikipedia Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as this seems to be a separate issue (but related). That is about underrepresentation among editors not bias within articles. At this stage I would also raise wp:blp as to use this for anything, might well violate it, as it talks about living editors. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

No, other studies have also identified issues with respect to content:

This research concludes that First Nations histories, current experiences and voices remain marginalised on Misplaced Pages, reflecting the literature (Thorpe, Sentance & Booker 2023; Gallert et al. 2016; Bjork-James 2021).

Right now the study is not being used anywhere, except in talk pages. It was also used in Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-10-19/Recent research Bogazicili (talk) Bogazicili (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You're going too hard here, we don't need to stretch BLP that far even if its a useful rhetorical cudgel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The article says "Native peoples are first mentioned on the page in the context of disease to cast Native departure from the East Coast as a natural occurrence." That's an accurate statement. As you yourself quote, the first mention of Native peoples is in the sentence "The colonization of the United States resulted in a large decline of the Native American population primarily because of newly introduced diseases." Not sure how you conclude that the article is "far to polemical" based on an accurate statement in the source article. As for "I would also raise wp:blp as to use this for anything, might well violate it, as it talks about living editors," there is no BLP restriction on using a source that talks about living persons. The restriction is on introducing WP text about living persons, and even there, WP text can be introduced if the source is a reliable non-SPS (or if it falls under BLPSELFPUB) and the WP content is DUE. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well for one we do not in fact imply it was natural, we explicitly say it was introduced. It can also be argued we do not say anything about "departure" and make it clear this was a population decline due to deaths (due to introduced diseases). So it is about tone, it says we euphemize, when we do not. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the meaning of "natural" that one is using. A common definition is "Present in or produced by nature," which is the case for diseases. The statement "The colonization of the United States resulted in a large decline of the Native American population primarily because of newly introduced diseases" is also silent about the other main cause: violence. Moreover, there is no meaningful discussion of the existing indigenous populations in the first three paragraphs (the only mention is of the French and Indian Wars, but that is described only in terms of the French and the British), as if the indigenous peoples had no relevant history during this period except in relation to colonists. I think your judgment that the journal article is "far to polemical" is an overreaction. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree with the characterization of this research as too polemical. However this isn't a question of source reliability. Settler Colonialism Studies is precisely what I would expect from a niche humanities journal. It has a thoroughly average impact factor and is published by a major academic publisher. The source is reliable for discussion of settler colonialism. However much of what is in the article constitutes expert opinion. This is a question of WP:DUE. Keeler has a good enough h-index for an early career professor. Which he is. And he's writing within his area of specialty. As such I would say that this source would be due inclusion in articles that include critiques of Misplaced Pages within settler colonialism. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Simonm223, as I noted elsewhere in this discussion, so far as I know, no one has proposed using the Keeler article as a RS for content in any WP article. It was simply used in the Genocide Talk page discussion as evidence that content about indigenous peoples is often missing from WP articles where it's relevant, and that examples of genocides involving indigenous peoples should be included in the Genocide article's history section, but where the particular content proposed for the article would be sourced to other RSs. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Then this is all something of a waste of everybody's time. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Though it did prompt me to look at some of the genocide-related articles, and I ended up leaving a comment on the one where there's an RfC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting using it as a source in Genocide article. Bogazicili (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

In general, whether a source is a reliable source has to be determined in relation to the WP article text that it's used to support. So far, no one is proposing that the Keeler article be used as a source for text in the Genocide article, so I'm not sure why you're asking about it here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I assumed that was why it was being asked, as that seems to be what the talk page is about. Can the genocide of indigenous Americans be included? If that is not what it is being used for, what is this argument about? BUt it seems all of the arguments here are about Misplaced Pages's unfairness. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "that seems to be what the talk page is about." I don't see anything on the Talk page suggesting that the Keeler article be used as a source for text in the Genocide article. Can you quote or link to the comment that you believe suggests that it be used as a source for the text in the WP article? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, no, this isn't reliable. It's a bunch of cherry picked example, often out of context, used to support the author's thesis. Keeler is an assistant prof in environmental studies, not an expert on colonialism (or Misplaced Pages), this doesn't even cross the threshold of expert opinion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is reliable for fact, as it is an academic article published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, it is a text in which much of the content is opinion and so should mostly be used with attribution to the author and/or the person they are quoting.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: In practice, journals like Settler Colonial Studies do not really have a peer review process because they will publish basically anything that fits their a priori narrative without any scrutiny. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Settler Colonial Studies articles are peer-reviewed, and it publishes less than half of the articles that are submitted. Your belief that they "do not really have a peer review process because they will publish basically anything that fits their a priori narrative without any scrutiny" doesn't seem based on evidence. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Partofthemachine:There's a lot of prior assumptions in your post, which perhaps need clarifying. Could you define "journals like Settler Colonial Studies" and their "a priori narrative" as well as "scrutiny"? Then perhaps you could explain what reliable source you are basing these judgments on? As of now, a journal which is published by a reputable academic publisher and is peer-reviewed is a reliable source. If you are arguing there is a category of journals which are currently considered reliable but shouldn't be, you are going to need to provide a lot more evidence than a handwave.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• It's an academic article published in a peer-reviewed journal... but one with an impact factor of 1.8. I'd still say it passes the bare minimum of WP:RS. I don't even agree with the assertion above that it is necessarily opinion ("too polemical" is not a standard for either WP:RS or WP:RSOPINION; in practice it amounts to saying "we can't say this because I think it's wrong.") However... just because we can cite this, doesn't mean we should. As is usually the case, the issue is really about WP:DUE. At a glance the paper itself has never been cited (not totally surprising because it is just a few months old, but that's all we have to go by.) A paper that has never been cited, published in an obscure journal with a low impact factor, isn't something we can give much weight at all. So I'd avoid citing it for anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL at the very least, and if it is used at all I'd only use it for a brief mention at most. --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it is largely opinion. Almost every sentence contains a value judgment, implicit or explicit. I would concur that this is a question about WP:DUE though as it clearly does meet our criteria for reliability.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion, that's a pretty good impact factor for that field. WP:Impact factors vary by field, which is one of the reasons I find Scopus's rankings so helpful. That journal ranks at the 93rd percentile in their Arts and Humanities: History category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I mentioned that above. I mean, let's be honest, it's not Nature. But for a relatively niche humanities journal an average impact factor is kind of what I would expect. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

So I ask again, what is this source being used for? Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven None right now. I see a number of threads/RFCs where there seems to be no specific article in mind.t Doug Weller talk 14:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

So then it seems to me, this is more of an undue issue, not a reliability one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

More or less. I’m sorry if some think it’s a waste of time, there have been some very useful comments. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)